N140 or N150 for 90s in .223?

[1911mag]

My money is on the mighty 90 VLD.


Let us know which one you decided to use.

Well I can say I can’t seem to shoot wife’s 223 like she can.
90’s shot ok nothing to brag about
2780, 34 ES, 9.7 SD on 12 shots

308 with 185Jugs
2705, 22 ES, 6.4SD 10 shots

308 won hands down on group size

Back out Sunday to shoot 223

 

[jlorenzo]

It seems like it would be a bit on the slow side to me (Re15.5). However, people have successfully used N150, which I had guessed was too slow and of insufficient bulk density to fit enough powder in the case. Both guesses were wrong, as evidenced earlier in this thread. Sometimes, there's nothing else for it but to actually load some rounds and determine empirically whether a given powder will work. I have seen a few comments by those that have tried out the Re15.5 in other cartridges. They seem to be very pleased with it and my understanding is that the temperature stability is excellent. Not everyone feels the need to hit the fastest node possible at safe operating pressure. So sometimes a powder that does not on the surface seem to have an optimal burn rate for a given cartridge/bullet weight can still work just fine, especially if the reloader isn't trying to get every last ounce of velocity out of the load. Giving up 25-50 fps velocity (as compared to using a different powder) will usually not be a deal-breaker as long as the precision and velocity ES/SD remain acceptable.

Would a powder that is ideal for 80gr also be ideal for 88/90 burn rate wise? I'm guessing you want slower powder for heavier bullets but then I hear the opposite sometimes also.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Generally, yes. However, powder burn rates as listed in various charts are really just a rough guide, not something that is written in stone. There are typically at least a few powders within a given "range" on a burn rate chart that in theory could all work well with a given cartridge and bullet weight. For example, powders within the same burn rate "range" as Varget might also include IMR4166, IMR4064, Re15, and N140, among others. Some might also lump H4895 in at the fast end of the Varget burn rate range, or N150 at the slow end. F-TR shooters loading for .308 Win have employed all of those powders at one time or another over the years. Likewise, I'd bet a lot of shooters loading for .223 Rem with heavy bullets have also. If you really want to know whether one works better than another in a specific application, it is usually necessary to do some actual testing.

I've used H4895 for ~80 .223 Rem loads, and it is also an excellent choice, even for the slightly lighter weight bullets. That is not to say it's the only choice. But as reloaders, we are sometimes limited to trying the powders we have on hand first, before going out and buying a pound of this or a pound of that just to try it. To do otherwise can be expensive and occasionally leave you with small jugs of powder you may not ever need or use again. Obviously, recommendations from others that are successfully using a certain powder in a very similar application provide a reasonable incentive to try something new if the powders on hand are not working acceptably. Reloading programs such as QuickLoad of GRT can also be very helpful as a preliminary guide to whether some specific powder might work in a given situation. If I was limited to only two powders to test in .223 Rem loads with bullets in the 80+ gr range, I'd likely pick Varget and H4895. So many shooters have been successful using either one of these powders with heavy .224" bullets that it's unlikely you'd go wrong with either one. Obviously, there are other choices, but those two powders have a very well-established track record in that particular application.

 

[mgdietrich]

90vld vs current Sierra 90. What are people using for loads with Sierra? How much do you drop your Berger load because of the longer bearing surface?

 

[Ned Ludd]

90vld vs current Sierra 90. What are people using for loads with Sierra? How much do you drop your Berger load because of the longer bearing surface?

I have only done some preliminary load development work with the 90 SMKs, but within the charge weight range I tested, velocities produced with H4895 for the 90 SMKs and 90 VLDs were comparable to within about 0.1 gr. As I recall, the 90 SMK bearing surface is only about .010" longer than that of the 90 VLD, which shouldn't cause much change in pressure. I tend to think about this issue as being analogous to doing a seating depth test with a single bullet. Moving a jumped bullet .010" in either direction will not typically affect velocity/pressure much, often not enough for most chronographs to reliably detect the difference. I doubt you will see differences in pressure/velocity due to the 90 SMKs slightly longer bearing surface that would be enough to markedly change your selected charge weight test range.

 

[calgarycanada]

Just trying to make a decision between these two powders. Can someone please tell me if N150 granule size is much bigger than N140?
For example, I liked IMR 4166 but it’s pain to weigh precisely as granules are quite big.

 

[mgdietrich]

N150 is larger, it works great with 90’s but you may need to have a drop tube to avoid powder crunch when seating. In a .196 freebore 25.0-25.2 seems to be a good load with N150 and be 2820-40fps with 30” barrel.

 

[calgarycanada]

N150 is larger, it works great with 90’s but you may need to have a drop tube to avoid powder crunch when seating. In a .196 freebore 25.0-25.2 seems to be a good load with N150 and be 2820-40fps with 30” barrel.

Thanks! Much appreciate it

 

[DR_2297]

Don’t rule out N135 either.

 

[1911mag]

Well I can say I can’t seem to shoot wife’s 223 like she can.
90’s shot ok nothing to brag about
2780, 34 ES, 9.7 SD on 12 shots

308 with 185Jugs
2705, 22 ES, 6.4SD 10 shots

308 won hands down on group size

Back out Sunday to shoot 223

Shooting both calibers now
Heather on Mouse gun against me and 308 on IL first F Class State shoot. Weather is going to be crap cold and rainy all day.
@Ned Ludd
First time shooting against my wife same class. Should be interesting
She was on fire practicing last week. By the way she still prefers 85.5’s over 90’s.

Well I can say I can’t seem to shoot wife’s 223 like she can.
90’s shot ok nothing to brag about
2780, 34 ES, 9.7 SD on 12 shots

308 with 185Jugs
2705, 22 ES, 6.4SD 10 shots

308 won hands down on group size

Back out Sunday to shoot 223

 

[Ned Ludd]

Heather on Mouse gun against me and 308 on IL first F Class State shoot. Weather is going to be crap cold and rainy all day.

Mike - that sounds suspiciously like a Kobayashi Maru test.

Best of luck to you both!

 

[Hohn]

I shot 3x600 today with also-ran scores in the 180s. This is not a serious ftr gun, but rather a rebarrelled 12fv in a GRS stock with a magpul bipod and wedge squeeze bag. 26” criterion Varmint 7tw. REM 7.5s priming.

So what, right? RL15.5 gave me the best SDs I’ve ever seen on our silver mountain targets. Single digits, where I’m normally upper teens or worse.

24.5gr was moderately crunchy with 88 ELDs because I’m limited to 2.722” by my short (for 88s) chamber. Target indicated avg speeds of 1900 flat, back calculating at our hot humid conditions today to 2750 from 26”. I’m pleased with that velocity since the pressure is low enough to keep primer pockets alive even on a hot day. In a real TR gun with proper throating, 15.5 could almost certainly hit 25gr and low to mid 2800s with probably less pressure than h4895. At 24.5 I’m having to soft jam to get pressure up to get speed.

 

[HPC]

Re "...short (for 88s) chamber..." - at 2.722, you're at least 0.050 above neck/shoulder junction with the 88 ELD-M pressure ring; and a 90 Berger in your chamber would be around 2.780. How much further forward would you go?

 

[6BR_Tikka]

Has anyone had a decent result using RS52 with 80eldm /amax 80.5/85.5 bergers or 88eldm / 90LRBT/VLD ?

Just picked up a few kg.

Thanks

 

[Dave Zander]

Using N140 with 85.5 hybrids with a 1:7 twist 28" barrel, shoots well. Cleaner than Varget a good bit.

 

[6BR_Tikka]

Using N140 with 85.5 hybrids with a 1:7 twist 28" barrel, shoots well. Cleaner than Varget a good bit.

What n140 load did you go to with the berger 85.5s?

 

[Dave Zander]

What n140 load did you go to with the berger

What n140 load did you go to with the berger 85.5s?

For the 85.5 g Berger bullets I’m using 23.5 g N140 , Lapua brass, federal 205m primer. Average velocity 2737 over 9 shots. Jumping .093”. Barrel is throated for 88g eld-m’s .
Extream Spread high to low was 27 FPS. .

Dave Z

 

[barefooter56]

Hey Guys,

Just picked up a rebarreled .223 for MR F-T/R, and I'm starting load dev again. Rifle has a 28" HV Bartlein with the ISSF/.169 chamber.


I plan to run 90gr VLDs, 90gr SMKs, or 88gr ELD-Ms behind Lapua brass and CCI primers.


I've got ~75+ lbs of Varget, and I know that's 'the powder', along with 4895 (which I have none of, and can't seem to find a consistent supply). I'm hopeful to find a good load with Varget, however I never could get it to work to my satisfaction in my last .223 setup for TR.


That brought me to looking at Vhit powders; they seem to have a very consistent supply here in the states, but I don't know many folks using it (I assume because it's historically been expensive).


That said, I've done some searching and it looks like N140 and N150 would both work; the VV load data seems to show them both pushing 90s at near identical velocities. My preference would be to grab N150 as I think it'd also be a good option for 200gr bullets in a .308 too, however my main focus is to get something ideal for .223s with 90s.


Anyone have any thoughts/experience/recommendations with either N140/N150 behind a 90gr class bullet in a .223? Any general ideas on expected velocities? The load data for the long throated 90/223 always seems to be off by a few gr/few hundred FPS.


Thanks in advance!
Mike

Edit: Not interested in the double based N5x series.

Mike,
N-150 would be a good choice here. It is considered a TEMP STABEL powder by VV and works very will with the 308 WIN. with a large variety of bullets and bullet weights.

 

[Laurie]

[As a not quite yet certified lunatic, my old F/TR Savage PTA in the too-heavy McRees Precision chassis target stock has been rebuilt as an F-open rifle complete with fat Benchmark 1:7 barrel and barrel-tuner. So, I expect to be starting from scratch again this winter on load development. We've had some potentially highly suitable powders arrive in Europe since my last efforts, notably an Re15 burning rate variant of Alliant Re17, - Nitrochemie's Reload Swiss RS52 - which may prove to be ideal with 80gn and heavier bullets. I always was an optimist, Ha! Ha! ]

Three years on from this post and a year or two with my over-FTR weight 223 and its Benchmark barrel, N140 is now working much better for me with 80s than it ever did in my original True-Flite. I've not tried 90s in this rifle, so can't comment there, and they're being left for another build that will be chambered solely for them. This is reformulated N140, so today's product.

(Sure enough, I was being optimistic over Reload Swiss RS52 which has been a considerable disappointment to me in 223 - pressures out too quickly even with 77/80s and shown a tendency to produce 4+1 split groups.)

Re15/Norma 203-B still works out the best though for me. However, since Norma powders were reintroduced here (UK) they lasted one import shipment only and the distributor has now pulled out, so that's the Re15 version only available again. It and other extruded Re grades are now very expensive here, much much more so than RS or Viht, so my stash is being kept for rifle No.2 and 90s. My other 'find' for 77/80s was Alliant AR-Comp which I'd really bought for 6.5 Grendel rather than 223. It's a tad fast-burning, so likely won't consistently match N140/150/Re15 in top-end MVs, and the same comments on UK pricing applies, so my pound and half remaining won't be replaced in any event.