Why Are My .223 Loads So Much Slower Than The Chart?

[Jim243]

As to the accuracy difference, it's likely that best accuracy with any given powder may not be at max charge. I personally think you should find one that's CLOSE to max, or what's the point?, but that's my opinion.

Here Peetza and I totally agree. I respect the opinions of both Peetza and Unclenick and learn from their experience and wise advice, but I do disagree on using a max charge, I would rather work my way up on charges till I get the most accurate load FOR MY RIFLES. Depending on the range you will be shooting and bullet profile the charge will be different from distance to distance and the speed at which the bullet leaves YOUR barrel.

I find that 25.0 grains of H-335 and 25.0 grains of H-4895 give me the best results with a Hornady 22 Cal .224 55 grain V-Max #22716 both used in a 24 inch and 16 inch AR barrel. For longer range this may change currently I shoot at only 100 yards (the longest distance I have available). This weekend I will be going to a 300 yard range and see what I can do. Now if the weather holds out I should be able to post results. Last two weekends we have been rained out so it was back to the indoor range with pistols.

Outside of the load the next most important thing for me is trigger control. Take your time it is not unusual for me to take 20 min to fire 10 rounds. Only load 2 rounds per magazine (20 round mags), helps in keeping the rate of fire down. As to triggers I find it takes about 200 rounds for the triggers to smooth out unless you do a trigger job (I am not that talented).

Spend your time on basics like taking the same position each time, hold on your rifle (cheek weld), target accusition, trigger control and your groups will become tighter and tighter. Fortunely paper targets do not have to be snap shot. (LOL)

You mentioned that you were shooting open sights, I would recommend you put some inexpensive glass (scope) on your rifle to start you can get more expensive scopes at a latter time. I don't know what you eye sight is like, but if you are like me, scopes make a world of difference.

Good luck and as always have fun with it.
Jim

[Longdayjake]

Generally, the powder that produces the highest velocity in a long barrel will also produce the highest speed in a shorter barrel... the trade-off for keeping that velocity is muzzle blast.

This is not true. In fact, for someone with 9,000 posts to say this is a little strange. If this was the case, then we should be using pistol powders in our rifles for every load. There comes a point when fast powders are ideal for short barrels because they will be mostly spent by the time the bullet leaves the barrel but not too good for longer barrels. Sometimes, a faster powder works well from a longer barrel as well, but often a slower powder is required to extract the very most velocity out of a round. Hence, the purpose of ultra slow powders for magnum cartridges.

6.5 grendel is a good example of this principle. For the heavier bullets TAC gets some higher velocities from longer barrels, but when you shorten the barrel you need a faster powder to get the best velocity from that barrel length. If you were to use the faster powder in the longer barrel you would reach your pressure limits before you got to use the whole case full of powder and you would end up with lower velocities or even worse a blown up gun if you fill the case.

[Nnobby45]

"The only difference I can see is that the Hodgdon chart states a 24" barrel was used and mine is a 16"."

That's part of it, the fact that your rifle isn't the same as Hodgedon's is the rest. Manual makers tell us what they got in their rig, they haven't a clue how it will work for the rest of us.

Not only part of it, but a huge part of it. Don't have a chart with me to determine what velocity loss per inch of bbl. length would be, but it would be considerable.

Cut Hodgdons a little break. All they can do is test the loads in their firearms. It's not possible for them or any other company to know precisely what's happening inside your rifle's chamber, or what bbl. length you have. There's info available if you want to Google around and do a little research on vel. loss in .223 short bbl. carbines.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Longdayjake

This is not true. In fact, for someone with 9,000 posts to say this is a little strange. If this was the case, then we should be using pistol powders in our rifles for every load. There comes a point when fast powders are ideal for short barrels because they will be mostly spent by the time the bullet leaves the barrel but not too good for longer barrels. Sometimes, a faster powder works well from a longer barrel as well, but often a slower powder is required to extract the very most velocity out of a round. Hence, the purpose of ultra slow powders for magnum cartridges.

6.5 grendel is a good example of this principle. For the heavier bullets TAC gets some higher velocities from longer barrels, but when you shorten the barrel you need a faster powder to get the best velocity from that barrel length. If you were to use the faster powder in the longer barrel you would reach your pressure limits before you got to use the whole case full of powder and you would end up with lower velocities or even worse a blown up gun if you fill the case.

You completely ignored the word "generally". It is, in fact, "generally" true. The powder that produces the fastest speed in a 24" barrel will also usually produce the fastest speed in a 20" barrel, probably 18, probably 16. There may be, almost certainly are exceptions, but it is *generally* true.

It doesn't happen between very short and long barrels because peak pressure gets in the way.

It IS generally true if you work within reason... rifles/rifles.... handguns/handguns.

The powder that produces the highest speeds in an 8" barrel will also *generally* produce the highest in 5" barrels.

*Generally*

[Longdayjake]

What you said may generally be true with pistols. Be careful when trying to transfer that idea over to rifles. In my experience it is "generally" untrue. There is a huge difference in ideal powders when going from a 24" barrel to a 16" barrel.

[mrawesome22]

I thought the 4895 was giving 400fps slower results before? Did yoi find info claiming that 4895 was going to produce 3300fps somewhere?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Longdayjake

What you said may generally be true with pistols. Be careful when trying to transfer that idea over to rifles. In my experience it is "generally" untrue. There is a huge difference in ideal powders when going from a 24" barrel to a 16" barrel.

It's just as true with rifles as handguns, if not more so.

Check the Hodgdon website. Switch from rifle (generally 24") to handgun for the same rifle cartridge (generally 14 or 15") and look at the data. Very often, the highest velocities are the same powders.

Not always, but generally.

[UtopiaTexasG19]

mrawesome22
Yes, The Hodgdon chart for the .223 using H4895 shows 3315 fps for the load I described in my original post. The only difference in the load chart and my set up is barrel lenght, thus my original question.

[mrawesome22]

Yeah I see that now. But with your barrel length, I don't think you'll ever come close to 3300fps.

Every suitable powder is getting close to maxing out PSI at around 2900-3000fps in that barrel length in QL.

And I know QL should optimally be adjusted using a fired case and measuring the water capacity, but it will generally get you close using the default settings.

So if it were me, I'd be trying to find the most accurate powder that will give acceptable velocity in the 2900-3000fps range.

And as stated before, move that chrony out to 15ft. 20ft would be even better

[243winxb]

The average on the H4895 loads were 2912fps and the W748 loads were 2854fps.

Good velocity for a 16". My M16A1 14.5" went 2766 fps average with IMR 4198-21.5gr-55gr Win. fmjbt. The M16 carbine has a gas port larger in diameter & closer to the chamber than the rifle.

[Unclenick]

CAUTION: The following post includes loading data beyond currently published maximums for this cartridge. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. Neither the writer, The Firing Line, nor the staff of TFL assume any liability for any damage or injury resulting from use of this information.


UtopiaTexas19,

As mentioned earlier by Peetzakilla, the setup in QuickLOAD requires some gun-specific and sometimes powder lot-specific data to be exact. For example, the default case water overflow capacity in QL for .223 is 28.8 grains, but that's for IMI or some other very heavy brass. Most of the brass out of my AR measures 30.5 grains water overflow capacity after firing. That number's what determines powder performance.

In your case, if I adjust the default to 30.85 grains of water capacity, as if your chamber is just slightly bigger than my AR's chamber (which is a fairly tight match chamber), then 26 grains of H4895 gives exactly 2912 fps using 2.200" COL with your bullet choice. If I then substitute 26.2 grains of 748 into that adjusted case volume, I get 2860 fps, which is within 26 fps of the 2854 you measured. So I think QuickLOAD tracks your gun and chamber pretty well when adjusted for it, and I would allow that the powder lots of 4895 and 748 as measured for the program database can have a few percent different burn rate than what you have, and that often accounts for velocity discrepancies in the predictions.

If I substitute 24 grains of RL10X, as I recommended to you earlier, I get 3034 fps, but at 55,800 psi. That is a just over SAAMI maximum of 55,000 psi, though well within the 4% error SAAMI's spec system allows. 23.8 grains should be below 55,000 psi and still gets 3010 fps. Either load is still well under the CIP/NATO maximum of 62,366 psi. If you go by that standard you could go to 24.8 grains of RL10X and get 3127 fps according to QL adjusted to your gun.

That takes some care as it is above published loads you'll find on this side of the pond. Charles Petty did test 24.5 grains in his workups in his Cooper Phoenix, and in your barrel that should get about 3090 fps. It's probably about the limit I would use in your shoes, though I would adjust down if a lower charge proved more accurate. As always, though, start 10% lower (22 grains) and work up in steps not over 2%, while watching for pressure signs.

[Jim243]

then 46 grains of H4895 gives exactly 2912 fps using 2.200" COL

You do mean 26 grains, right??


Jim

[Doodlebugger45]

What? You mean you've never compressed a powder by 177% before?

[Unclenick]

Yep! You get some of those new faster-than-light nutrinos and bombard the powder until it is twice as dense, or your brass is twice as large, relativistically speaking, then load away.

Not.

Typomania. I fixed it. Thanks.

[Nnobby45]

You completely ignored the word "generally". It is, in fact, "generally" true. The powder that produces the fastest speed in a 24" barrel will also usually produce the fastest speed in a 20" barrel, probably 18, probably 16. There may be, almost certainly are exceptions, but it is *generally* true.

Not from this 'ol handloaders point of view.

When a bullet has left the muzzle, and the powder is still burning, that's wasted powder and engergy not propelling the bullet. Much less energy is wasted in longer bbl's. since the powder burns more efficiently.

A faster burning powder will, to a reasonable extent, be more efficient in shorter barrels. That's what's *generally* true.

I don't think the military has the desire to experiment with special ammo, using faster burning powder, to offset velocity loss in the M4 Carbine.

Not saying the faster burning powder would produce velocities equal to the standard bbl's. that utilize slower burning powder--just that it will offset it to some extent.

[Jim243]

Yep, I'm still trying to figure out how to get that 30-06 case into my 223 (LOL)

Newtrinos you say, Sorry Unclenick I could not resist.

Jim

[Jimro]

I don't think the military has the desire to experiment with special ammo, using faster burning powder, to offset velocity loss in the M4 Carbine.

Uhm...one of the things "enhanced" by the M855A1 "Enhanced Performance Round" was velocity.

Back in 2007 St. Marks forumulated a powder that pushed the 77gr SMK fast enough to track the same ballistic path as M855.

So yes, the military is working to offset the velocity loss of the M4 carbine.

Jimro

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Nnobby45

Not from this 'ol handloaders point of view.

When a bullet has left the muzzle, and the powder is still burning, that's wasted powder and engergy not propelling the bullet. Much less energy is wasted in longer bbl's. since the powder burns more efficiently.

A faster burning powder will, to a reasonable extent, be more efficient in shorter barrels. That's what's *generally* true.

I don't think the military has the desire to experiment with special ammo, using faster burning powder, to offset velocity loss in the M4 Carbine.

Not saying the faster burning powder would produce velocities equal to the standard bbl's. that utilize slower burning powder--just that it will offset it to some extent.

The wasted powder going out the barrel has nothing to do with the speed achieved in the barrel.

The wasted slow powder is the reason why the slow powder is better than a fast powder as the barrel length increases.... It's still building pressure. But that doesn't mean that the slower powder is worse at making velocity in the shorter barrel, it just means it's better in a longer barrel.

The velocity is a function of the average pressure behind the bullet.

Fast powders build pressure quickly and drop off quicker.

Slow powders build slower and hold longer.

Yes, slow powders are often "wasted" in shorter barrels. They also tend to produce more muzzle flash and blast. That's not the point.

They produce more flash and blast because they're still pushing hard on the bullet, where the faster powder is losing pressure.

Faster powder, more efficient. Slower powder, generally high velocity.

Efficiency is one thing. Raw speed is another. I'm not saying that the slow powder is a better choice, just that it will *generally* be faster.

It's not an exact science, it always falls apart at some barrel length. It might be 28 and 20 for one cartridge/bullet, 24 and 15 for another, maybe 20 and 18.

Think about it... was the powder that produces the most speed at, say, 24" , actually SLOWER than some other powder at 23? Not likely. What about 22? Not likely. It's not making up all that speed and more in 2 inches of barrel. Most likely, even at 21, 20, 19.... it's STILL faster.

It may not be "better" for any number of reasons, but it's probably faster.

[Jimro]

You see this with 22 rimfire target rifles all the time, the long 28" barrels giving less velocity than the shorter 18 and 20" barrels using the same ammunition.

There is a point of diminishing returns on barrel length. Although you can do a lot to make up for a short barrel by appropriate powder selection on your handloads, or maximize the length of a long barrel with handloads.

I traded a 24" barreled Savage 10 for a 20" version because I figured that with all the powder burning out by 18" of barrel that a shorter barrel that was easier to haul around (for a bull barreled tactical rifle) was more to my liking. The guy I swapped with was looking to maximize velocity so he could play long distance assistance out past 700 without issues. His handloads filled with a max charge of TAC are probably a tad faster than my three grains below max IMR4064 loads.

Jimro