The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 5, 2019, 09:30 PM   #1
jaysouth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 748
55 gr. "GI" load

I have come into a pile of Hornady 2267B bullets. 55 grs full metal jacket with boat tail.

Using 844 powder, what is the GI equivalent load?
jaysouth is offline  
Old January 5, 2019, 11:04 PM   #2
Charlie_98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2011
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 1,018
That's not a canister grade powder, no one else's data is going to line up with your particular lot of powder. In other words, I would work up your load with your components until you get it where you want it.
__________________
Dennis

Wherever you go, there you are...
Charlie_98 is offline  
Old January 5, 2019, 11:34 PM   #3
rg1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2001
Posts: 1,081
The only negative thing about WC 844 surplus powder is that it does vary in burn rate from one lot to the next. WC 844 is supposed to be similar to H335 but does vary from hotter to slower. I've loaded a few lots of 844 from labeled "pulldown" to "virgin, never loaded". I've seen one lot at 24.5 grains that yielded the same velocity as another at 26.4. You have to work up your loads. A chronograph is a handy tool for working up surplus powder. With no chrono I'd start at about 23.5 to 24 grains and watch ejection patterns to see if they eject like factory or known reloads and watching for accuracy. I would not try to get GI ballistics with surplus powder. Just a good shooting safe load. Do not use old military data and work up your loads. I gave up on surplus since it always requires working up every new lot of surplus plus now 844 is nearly as expensive as factory Hodgdon H335.
rg1 is offline  
Old January 7, 2019, 09:56 PM   #4
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 16,342
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

H335 is St. Marks WC844 as rebranded by Hodgdon, but it is a canister grade rather than the bulk grade that the surplus 844 will be. Canister grade powder has its burn rate more tightly controlled in order to keep reloading manual data valid. Bulk grades have to be fired in pressure guns to develop loads that meet specifications.

Unfortunately, GI velocity exceeds what Hodgdon posts as safe with H335, so you may have to be willing to go up a little. But then, you don't have one of the test barrels these loads were developed in. So my workaround would be to buy some of the Federal M193 you see for sale at various places and learn what the average velocity for 30 rounds is with that ammunition. I would then start way down at about 21 grains, in case your 844 lot is unusually fast, and work up toward that same average velocity while watching for pressure signs. If you don't get any on the way up, stop at the matching velocity load. This approach takes advantage of the fact military qualifying velocity specs are fairly tight and we know the general powder type is able to achieve that velocity within safe pressure limits.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old January 7, 2019, 10:22 PM   #5
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,740
UN , can you do that method with H-335
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old January 8, 2019, 10:03 AM   #6
Charlie_98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2011
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
can you do that method with H-335
I've tried it with H335, but I had to cut it off because of pressure signs before I got near factory M193 velocity. YMMV.
__________________
Dennis

Wherever you go, there you are...
Charlie_98 is offline  
Old January 8, 2019, 10:25 AM   #7
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 16,342
Metal God,

It should be able to work with H335, in theory. When Hodgdon improved its QC system it standardized a burn rate they order for new lots, but I don't know how close that comes to the year-over-year average behavior of the original bulk WC844 the military ordered. Hodgdon told me it is the exact same formulation developed for the government in the '60s.


Charlie 98,

Just to be sure we are on the same page, when you say "factory velocity" you are referring to the velocity of factory ammo in your particular gun (my equivalency method), right? Or are you referring to the velocity claimed on the box of the factory ammo? That published velocity number will be 15 feet from the muzzle of a 24" test barrel with SAAMI minimum chamber dimensions and fired under specific temperature conditions and with the gun loaded to make sure the powder has fallen back over the flash hole. Most folks don't meet all those requirements needed to get a velocity match to what is printed on the box.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old January 8, 2019, 11:25 AM   #8
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,740
I’ll have to go back and look at my data . I’ve chronographed M193 as well as pushed H-335 kind of hard in reloads . I don’t want go guess the specifics but think I got pretty close to factory velocities but best accuracy was 1+ grain less
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old January 8, 2019, 12:36 PM   #9
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 16,342
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

It should be doable, according to Hodgdon's data. If I adjust QuickLOAD to get a match to the existing data, with the bullet seated to 2.200 COL (Hornady's recommendation based on the cannelure location) raise it past their maximum to 25.7 grains it should still be just barely under 52,000 CUP or 55,000 psi. Another method I used to make the estimate says 25.9 grains, but where that method says the pressure would be 51,649 CUP or 54,629 PSI, the powder-matched QuickLOAD pressure comes up to 56,254 psi or 2.3% over SAAMI maximum. Given the M855 cartridge runs at 58,200 psi in the U.S. conformal transducer, though, I don't think this is a real problem. But if you get pressure signs, back off anyway.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old January 9, 2019, 12:31 AM   #10
Charlie_98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2011
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Charlie 98,

Just to be sure we are on the same page, when you say "factory velocity" you are referring to the velocity of factory ammo in your particular gun (my equivalency method), right? Or are you referring to the velocity claimed on the box of the factory ammo? That published velocity number will be 15 feet from the muzzle of a 24" test barrel with SAAMI minimum chamber dimensions and fired under specific temperature conditions and with the gun loaded to make sure the powder has fallen back over the flash hole. Most folks don't meet all those requirements needed to get a velocity match to what is printed on the box.
No, I don't even look at box velocities... I always compare to what comes out of my particular firearm. In the case of 5.56mm, I have a number of factory (M193 and M855) loads I have data for to compare my handloads to when working up a load. Again, I understand not every bullet is an apple to apple comparo, even within the same weight range, it's just another puzzle piece I use when developing a load.
__________________
Dennis

Wherever you go, there you are...
Charlie_98 is offline  
Old January 9, 2019, 01:35 AM   #11
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,740
CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond or not covered by currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assumes any liability for any damage or injury resulting from the use of this information.

My velocities for M-193 from a 16" chrome lined barrel in 2013 were
FPS
3031
3052
3040
3052
3046
AVG 3043
ES 21.40
SD 8.18

That is not what I remembered and glad I did not guess a few post back based on my memory . I would have said 3150-ish

Same trip I did 62gr Green tip rounds 5 shots
AVG- 2971
ES- 43.04
SD- 15.90

I have 2 pet loads using H-335 and 55gr FMJ-BT bullets .
25gr using Hornady's 55gr bullet @ an AVG of 2936fps
25.5gr using Winchesters 55gr FMJ-BT bullet @ an AVG of 3006fps

Interesting enough I have that same data but using magnum primers instead of standard primers

25gr AVG 2891fps
25.5gr AVG 2988fps

The magnum primers had terrible ES/SD's , the worst was 25gr with a ES 100fps SD 41fps

I can't find my other data , I know I went to 26.5gr of H-335 at somewhere over 3100fps but can't find that data . I know I did because these are the cases I loaded and took the picture to show how all the primers look fine even though the cases on the right were loaded to 26.5gr at over 3100fps .



I remember because of the velocities I was getting and yet not seeing the flat primers I'd expect at those pressures . However by then I had been sizing my cases with minimal shoulder set back and I think that may have something to do with my primers not getting as flat as expected . Thinking they were not backing out and mushrooming like they might with a few more thousandths of head clearance ( for lack of a better term ) you'd get with factory sized cases . Those cases above were sized specifically for that rifle/chamber .

Example : here are what factory M-193 primers look like fired from the same rifle . A tad more flat but not to bad .



Anyways I'll keep looking for those other numbers so I can have the specifics for you guys . I must of put them in another binder for what ever reason , now it's just finding the right one .

EDIT : Just found data on a Federal 55gr factory round . My notes don't say what specific Federal ammo it is or what firearm I used . I only have AR's in 223/5.56 but don't know which one for sure but think it's my 20" NM rifle based on the velocities . 6 shot AVG was 3264fps ES-47 SD-18
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; January 9, 2019 at 12:23 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old January 9, 2019, 10:19 AM   #12
Charlie_98
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2011
Location: McKinney, TX
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
The magnum primers had terrible ES/SD's , the worst was 25gr with a ES 100fps SD 41fps
I did an informal test with standard vs magnum primers in my H-Bar with H335 and the 55grn Winchester bullet... indeed, I got higher velocity and lower SD with the standard primer. Granted, this was in 80F weather... not -10F or 115F, which, as I understand it, is one of the reasons why a magnum primer is spec'd for ball powder. I have standardized to the CCI #41 for my AR's, so it is what it is.
__________________
Dennis

Wherever you go, there you are...
Charlie_98 is offline  
Old January 9, 2019, 10:47 AM   #13
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 16,342
The higher SD's usually suggest the primer is loosening the grip of the case on the bullet and letting it start to move. I think this is why crimping sometimes tames this.

Note, however, that Federal's military-sensitivity primer, the GM205MAR, is a 205M standard energy and gas volume match primer with sensitivity reduced to mil-spec. Federal told me that, unlike CCI, who makes their #41 by using their #450 primer modified with an anvil with wider leg spread angle in order to reduce sensitivity, Federal uses a thicker cup to achieve this. Since all U.S.-made primers now make the white-hot spark shower, the Federal may well work just fine with the old spherical formulations as long as case fill is good.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old January 9, 2019, 10:08 PM   #14
jaysouth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2001
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 748
As usual, start low and work up. Thanks for the posts and info.
jaysouth is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07053 seconds with 8 queries