Springfield XD Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
PLEASE USE PUBLISHED MANUFACTURER'S DATA FOR YOUR LOADS. USE THIS ONLY FOR REFERENCE.

Conditions:

Date: 8/16/2014
Location: Cheney Outdoor Shooting Range, Pretty Prairie, KS
Range: 100 yard
Temp: 82 deg F
Humidity: 70%
Pressure: 29.8 in
Wind: Calm
Sky: Clear
Gun: AR-15, 16" BBL, 1:8 twist

Components:

Powder: AA2015
Primer: CCI 400
Bullet: Sierra MatchKing .224" 69gr HPBT
Brass: PMC @ 1.755"
COAL: 2.245"

Results (5 shots each charge)

Load: 19.7gr
Avg Vel: 2227
SD: 33.6
ES: 82
Group: 1.211"

Load: 19.9gr
Avg Vel: 2247
SD: 17.4
ES: 46
Group: 1.186"

Load: 20.1gr
Avg Vel: 2279
SD: 14.9
ES: 39
Group: 0.868"

Load: 20.3gr
Avg Vel: 2299
SD: 20
ES: 52
Group: 1.066"

Load: 20.5gr
Avg Vel: 2293
SD: 14.3
ES: 27
Group: 0.866"

Load: 20.7gr
Avg Vel: 2341
SD: 18.8
ES: 46
Group: 1.506"

Load: 20.9gr
Avg Vel: 2353
SD: 31.5
ES: 71
Group: 1.954"

Comments:

Published data went from 19.7gr to 21.8gr... AA2015 is a faster powder for this heavy of a bullet so I stayed away from the max for this initial work up. No pressure signs noted throughout. Velocity and powder charged increased at pretty much the same rate, except for the differences between 20.3 to 20.7... funny thing was that 20.5 showed the best ES, SD, and grouping, with 20.1 following very close behind.

I thought I'd have to push this bullet to 2600fps to get it to stabilize correctly... Now I'm not shooting any farther than 100yds so I can't speak past that, but I thought I got some pretty good results at 100yds (2 sub MOA groups!)

Fred, I gotta hand it to you. You said a loss of 40-50fps per inch from test data... I fell a little over 37 fps per inch from published data. Thanks for your help and advice!

What do you guys think?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
Well, in keeping with your other thread, your SDs coincide with group size. That's a good thing.

2015 isn't the powder I'd use because I have X-Terminator and TAC I'll be using for this in the very near future. BTW, X-Terminator = AA 2230. I also have W748 and Varget that may seem some use but ultimately, I'm expecting the best results from TAC where I consider X-Terminator and 2230 a bit on the fast side. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Well, in keeping with your other thread, your SDs coincide with group size. That's a good thing.

2015 isn't the powder I'd use because I have X-Terminator and TAC I'll be using for this in the very near future. BTW, X-Terminator = AA 2230. I also have W748 and Varget that may seem some use but ultimately, I'm expecting the best results from TAC where I consider X-Terminator and 2230 a bit on the fast side. ;)

Thanks 57k, I've got some TAC on hand. I just need to do a little data research, and I'll work something up in the near future. I actually really liked these loads. They didn't feel hot, and the flash wasn't noticeable like it was with benchmark

On another note, I just bought the wife her Christmas gift, a CZ bolt gun in 223. It's a 24" 1:9 twist. Would 2015 be better suited for this gun, and if not, where is it best used?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
Thanks 57k, I've got some TAC on hand. I just need to do a little data research, and I'll work something up in the near future. I actually really liked these loads. They didn't feel hot, and the flash wasn't noticeable like it was with benchmark

On another note, I just bought the wife her Christmas gift, a CZ bolt gun in 223. It's a 24" 1:9 twist. Would 2015 be better suited for this gun, and if not, where is it best used?

Taylorjr, I take it you've seen Western's data at the Ramshot and Accurate websites. I have it on my computer as well as in printed form. If I had 2015, I'd probably try it as well. Kinda depends on the performance level you're after. And while I say X-Terminator/2230 are a bit on the fast side, that was kind of a blanket statement about their placement on the burn rate charts. Western's data for .223 and 5.56mm shows very little difference in charge-weight/pressure/performance between X-T and TAC. I'll definitely be working up X-T loads to compare to the TAC loads. Never used AA 2520 but Accurate calls it their "Camp Perry" powder, mostly based on use in SA M1As, but as far as Western's data, 2520 has a slight performance edge over TAC. We've had such good luck with TAC in .308 loads that I already have a bias for it in AR loads. Then again, I've made some pretty accurate .30-30 loads with X-T including True Cast gas check bullets. Better accuracy than 748 which a lot of old-time .30-30 shooters swear by. I know both powders will work just fine and there's 5.56mm data for both to go along with the .223 data. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Taylorjr, I take it you've seen Western's data at the Ramshot and Accurate websites. I have it on my computer as well as in printed form. If I had 2015, I'd probably try it as well. Kinda depends on the performance level you're after. And while I say X-Terminator/2230 are a bit on the fast side, that was kind of a blanket statement about their placement on the burn rate charts. Western's data for .223 and 5.56mm shows very little difference in charge-weight/pressure/performance between X-T and TAC. I'll definitely be working up X-T loads to compare to the TAC loads. Never used AA 2520 but Accurate calls it their "Camp Perry" powder, mostly based on use in SA M1As, but as far as Western's data, 2520 has a slight performance edge over TAC. We've had such good luck with TAC in .308 loads that I already have a bias for it in AR loads. Then again, I've made some pretty accurate .30-30 loads with X-T including True Cast gas check bullets. Better accuracy than 748 which a lot of old-time .30-30 shooters swear by. I know both powders will work just fine and there's 5.56mm data for both to go along with the .223 data. ;)
Taylor is my name, j and r are initials. Original, right? :eek: I have seen the data. I have it printed out and hanging at my bench for reference.

I guess I just need a little basic lesson... Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  • Longer barrels perform better with slower powders
  • Heavier bullets perform better with slower powders
  • On the list of powders I have available, from fast to slow, it goes 2015 -> Benchmark -> TAC -> Reloader 15

Thanks 57K
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,703 Posts
I would start using RL-15. it's the closest thing you have to Varget, and Varget is Sierra's choice for an accuracy load. Both powders will achieve similar velocities with identical charge weights.

Sierra says 25.3gr of either one with the COAL at 2.260" gave them the best accuracy n a Colt HBAR 20" with 1x7 twist using federal cases and Remington 7 1/2 primers.

http://accurateshooter.net/Downloads/sierra223ar.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
I was telling Taylor that I think he will like RL-15 with the 69's. Everyone I shoot Highpower with pretty much shoot 69's or 77's and the top 2 powders I find people using are RL-15 and Varget. As you stated, Sierra lists the most accurate load for the 69's as being the one with Varget as the powder. For the 77's it is RL-15.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,879 Posts
Taylor is my name, j and r are initials. Original, right? :eek: I have seen the data. I have it printed out and hanging at my bench for reference.

I guess I just need a little basic lesson... Please correct me if I'm wrong.

  • Longer barrels perform better with slower powders
  • Heavier bullets perform better with slower powders
  • On the list of powders I have available, from fast to slow, it goes 2015 -> Benchmark -> TAC -> Reloader 15

Thanks 57K

LOL! About as original as my handle which is a bit of a rhyme. Nothing to correct, you understand it pretty well. I also have 748 and Varget, but I'll concentrate on X-Terminator and especially TAC at first. Varget and RL15 are very close in burnrate according to the Hodgdon burn rate chart and I'll get to Varget eventually and agree with the other guys about using RL15, but it would not be a priority over TAC for me. Both TAC and X-T are very fine grained and dense with bulk density at 985 grams/liter and meter exceptionally well. I want to see how accurately my Uniflow will throw charges for .223 that really aren't much higher than magnum handgun loads with the slower burning powders.

Might not be a bad idea to make loads with both TAC and RL15 for comparison, but I don't know where you can find 5.56mm Nato data for RL15 where Western/Ramshot provides data for both TAC and X-T. Then again, NOSLER shows some pretty good loads with Benchmark with bullets up to 60 grs. in .223 Rem.


Correction, NOSLER shows 5.56mm data for TAC and RL15 where RL15 was the most accurate powder tested with their 77/80 gr. bullets. The only other bullet weight they used was 69 grs. where AA 2230 was the most accurate powder tested and AA 2230 = X-T. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
LOL! About as original as my handle which is a bit of a rhyme. Nothing to correct, you understand it pretty well. I also have 748 and Varget, but I'll concentrate on X-Terminator and especially TAC at first. Varget and RL15 are very close in burnrate according to the Hodgdon burn rate chart and I'll get to Varget eventually and agree with the other guys about using RL15, but it would not be a priority over TAC for me. Both TAC and X-T are very fine grained and dense with bulk density at 985 grams/liter and meter exceptionally well. I want to see how accurately my Uniflow will throw charges for .223 that really aren't much higher than magnum handgun loads with the slower burning powders.

Might not be a bad idea to make loads with both TAC and RL15 for comparison, but I don't know where you can find 5.56mm Nato data for RL15 where Western/Ramshot provides data for both TAC and X-T. Then again, NOSLER shows some pretty good loads with Benchmark with bullets up to 60 grs. in .223 Rem. ;)
I've got some RL15 rounds sitting in the box right now waiting for calmer winds than this weekend. I noticed that RL15 being an extruded powder, it didn't meter as well as Benchmark (dense and spherical, IIRC) but I weighed nearly every charge as I worked them up. TAC is next on the bench, and with at least a week until these Kansas winds die down, maybe I'll get some made up.

I've been loading to 223 data, but using NATO brass.... I think that's okay? haha I'm still new to all this.

I did find one particularly good load with 60grs and Noslers, and I think I'll be saving the Benchmark and the AA2015 that I also have for my wife's 24" 1:9 bolt gun unless this Benchmark/Nosler combo works out really well this weekend. Just need to get a good neck sizing die and I'll be GTG to load for her gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,558 Posts
taylorjr,

Agree that RL-15 being an extruded powder doesn't meter that great. I weigh out each charge, so doesn't really bother me. And yes you are correct, if you're using NATO brass load to 223 data if 5.56 data is not available. I shoot a lot of SMK's and the Sierra book only gives 223 data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Yeah I think as long as I watch the chrono data, I can push the SMK's a little faster than Sierra's load data. I need to get my Lyman book back from my buddy and get a few sources together.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top