Help on spread!!

[L.Sherm]

Theres no arguing its shooting good now. Could be a combo of primer and nk tension to get the E.S. down.

 

[Chilly807]

Buckle up, I'll apologize for the length of this post right up front.

If you're not going to shoot further than 300 yds, I wouldn't touch anything either. If every group on any day comes out at .75 inch at 300 yards, you're doing something right. A lot of things, really.

Having said that, if you want to stretch it out to 500 or 600, you'll start to get more vertical than you'd like with ES close to 100 fps.

Just as a point of reference, I shoot a 223 to 800m as my F-class rifle, using 80 SMK's and 80.5 Fullbore bullets. Tough game with a 223, but it's fun.

I've had issues in the past with ES numbers over 50 fps, it simply won't hold the bull (5-ring) at 800 with that high a spread. You lose shots out the top and bottom. The same at 500 and 600, to a lesser degree

The 223 is notorious for high ES and SD, and there are some theories as to why that is.

I think that part of the problem is getting good, consistent combustion in the relatively tall, narrow case. Look at the latest and greatest benchrest and long range cartridges. Short, fat, and wide.

If you look at YouTube, there's a video from Keith Glasscock (Winning in the Wind channel), where he compares loading with a 505 beam scale to a high end electronic scale, loading for several different cartridges. One of those cases was the 223 Rem.
I'll spoil the suspense.. he said that while the electronic scale WAS more accurate, it wasn't enough better to be able to definitively say it was better than the old school beam scale when it came to results on the target and over the chronograph.
That was because there were several other factors adding "noise" to the results. Specifically, primer consistency, case volume, and neck tension, if I remember right.

He also found that the smaller cases were more prone to varied results. Less space, less powder, etc. Any variation in the components opens up the results more in a smaller case.
In other words, everything is smaller, so a given change in any of the factors results in a more dramatic variation. A larger case absorbs those variations and you see less swing from shot to shot.

I also load for 6.5 Creedmoor using the same tools and some of the same components (FGMM primers and Lapua brass). I tried changing primers, Federal gold medal match had the best results, but it still wasn't good in the 223. The 6.5, on the other hand, is stupid easy to get low ES and SD, but look at the shape of the 2 cases. Totally different.

Low neck tension isn't your friend in the 223 cartridge. The more you have, the better it works. The idea is that with more initial resistance to the bullet moving, pressure has time to build and combustion is more consistent throughout the burn cycle.

I did some testing a few years ago trying to get ES and SD numbers down in a 223.
I usually anneal at every firing, but I stopped doing that for about a dozen loadings of the same group of 12-15 cases.
At every firing past 2 or 3, the ES and SD got tighter and tighter as the cases got harder from being worked. The problem with that, is that they don't last as long if you don't anneal. Eventually I started getting split necks and bullets were getting dents from the seating die.

So, I'd traded one problem for another. No bueno.

I went back to annealing and tried using a smaller expander button, and dabbled with an expander mandrel for a while. Even with 4 thou of interference in the neck, the annealed brass wasn't tight enough. Again, no joy.

I will say that if you have a choice of 2 powders that will work in a 223 to give you X feet per second with bullet Y, then try using the one with the faster burn rate and see what happens. Slow powders don't lead to good combustion in a case that's already challenged in that dept to begin with. I can't point to any specific test that says that, but it's been my experience. Keep it safe, of course.

For me, I didn't have a lot of different powder choices to play with due to availability right after Covid. I use mostly N140 in the 223 now with 80 grain bullets. IMR 8208 wasn't bad either, but availability wasn't great.

So, back to the neck tension problem. I discovered a few years ago that when I crimped my deer rifle loads (32 Spl, of all things) that ES numbers dropped dramatically, we're talking 50% reduction.

Who wants to crimp a load for long range accurate shooting? I sure didn't, but it was worth a try, I thought.

For the princely sum of $15, I got a Lee Factory Crimp die. None of the bullets I use for F-class have a cannelure, but you really don't need one with the Lee die.

I found out right away that too much crimp isn't ideal. It makes dents in the brass, and squeezes the bullet more than it needs to be squeezed. If you look at what Lee tells you to do to set the die, they say to use between 1/4 and 1/2 turn of crimp. Those number will make sense if you read the instructions, I'm not going to go into it here.

My best results have been with slightly more than 1/4 turn of crimp. The brass doesn't get damaged, and my SD numbers dropped from 15-18 to under 10 on most days. You will get the occasional outlier when the tolerances from primer, brass, and powder charge stack in the wrong direction, but by and large it's greatly improved.

My group sizes haven't gotten noticeably bigger from crimping, as many think they will. My vertical dispersion at long range, however, is improved enough to make the juice worth the squeeze.

Do I crimp my 6.5 loads? Hell no.. they don't need it. Every 223 round I load gets crimped, though.

It may not cure what ails you. I'm not saying it'll fix the problem across the board. But, for $15, is it worth trying?

It works for me, best $15 I've spent in a while. And no, I don't work for Lee..

 

[DShortt]

Buckle up, I'll apologize for the length of this post right up front.

If you're not going to shoot further than 300 yds, I wouldn't touch anything either. If every group on any day comes out at .75 inch at 300 yards, you're doing something right. A lot of things, really.

Having said that, if you want to stretch it out to 500 or 600, you'll start to get more vertical than you'd like with ES close to 100 fps.

Just as a point of reference, I shoot a 223 to 800m as my F-class rifle, using 80 SMK's and 80.5 Fullbore bullets. Tough game with a 223, but it's fun.

I've had issues in the past with ES numbers over 50 fps, it simply won't hold the bull (5-ring) at 800 with that high a spread. You lose shots out the top and bottom. The same at 500 and 600, to a lesser degree

The 223 is notorious for high ES and SD, and there are some theories as to why that is.

I think that part of the problem is getting good, consistent combustion in the relatively tall, narrow case. Look at the latest and greatest benchrest and long range cartridges. Short, fat, and wide.

If you look at YouTube, there's a video from Keith Glasscock (Winning in the Wind channel), where he compares loading with a 505 beam scale to a high end electronic scale, loading for several different cartridges. One of those cases was the 223 Rem.
I'll spoil the suspense.. he said that while the electronic scale WAS more accurate, it wasn't enough better to be able to definitively say it was better than the old school beam scale when it came to results on the target and over the chronograph.
That was because there were several other factors adding "noise" to the results. Specifically, primer consistency, case volume, and neck tension, if I remember right.

He also found that the smaller cases were more prone to varied results. Less space, less powder, etc. Any variation in the components opens up the results more in a smaller case.
In other words, everything is smaller, so a given change in any of the factors results in a more dramatic variation. A larger case absorbs those variations and you see less swing from shot to shot.

I also load for 6.5 Creedmoor using the same tools and some of the same components (FGMM primers and Lapua brass). I tried changing primers, Federal gold medal match had the best results, but it still wasn't good in the 223. The 6.5, on the other hand, is stupid easy to get low ES and SD, but look at the shape of the 2 cases. Totally different.

Low neck tension isn't your friend in the 223 cartridge. The more you have, the better it works. The idea is that with more initial resistance to the bullet moving, pressure has time to build and combustion is more consistent throughout the burn cycle.

I did some testing a few years ago trying to get ES and SD numbers down in a 223.
I usually anneal at every firing, but I stopped doing that for about a dozen loadings of the same group of 12-15 cases.
At every firing past 2 or 3, the ES and SD got tighter and tighter as the cases got harder from being worked. The problem with that, is that they don't last as long if you don't anneal. Eventually I started getting split necks and bullets were getting dents from the seating die.

So, I'd traded one problem for another. No bueno.

I went back to annealing and tried using a smaller expander button, and dabbled with an expander mandrel for a while. Even with 4 thou of interference in the neck, the annealed brass wasn't tight enough. Again, no joy.

I will say that if you have a choice of 2 powders that will work in a 223 to give you X feet per second with bullet Y, then try using the one with the faster burn rate and see what happens. Slow powders don't lead to good combustion in a case that's already challenged in that dept to begin with. I can't point to any specific test that says that, but it's been my experience. Keep it safe, of course.

For me, I didn't have a lot of different powder choices to play with due to availability right after Covid. I use mostly N140 in the 223 now with 80 grain bullets. IMR 8208 wasn't bad either, but availability wasn't great.

So, back to the neck tension problem. I discovered a few years ago that when I crimped my deer rifle loads (32 Spl, of all things) that ES numbers dropped dramatically, we're talking 50% reduction.

Who wants to crimp a load for long range accurate shooting? I sure didn't, but it was worth a try, I thought.

For the princely sum of $15, I got a Lee Factory Crimp die. None of the bullets I use for F-class have a cannelure, but you really don't need one with the Lee die.

I found out right away that too much crimp isn't ideal. It makes dents in the brass, and squeezes the bullet more than it needs to be squeezed. If you look at what Lee tells you to do to set the die, they say to use between 1/4 and 1/2 turn of crimp. Those number will make sense if you read the instructions, I'm not going to go into it here.

My best results have been with slightly more than 1/4 turn of crimp. The brass doesn't get damaged, and my SD numbers dropped from 15-18 to under 10 on most days. You will get the occasional outlier when the tolerances from primer, brass, and powder charge stack in the wrong direction, but by and large it's greatly improved.

My group sizes haven't gotten noticeably bigger from crimping, as many think they will. My vertical dispersion at long range, however, is improved enough to make the juice worth the squeeze.

Do I crimp my 6.5 loads? Hell no.. they don't need it. Every 223 round I load gets crimped, though.

It may not cure what ails you. I'm not saying it'll fix the problem across the board. But, for $15, is it worth trying?

It works for me, best $15 I've spent in a while. And no, I don't work for Lee..

Very interesting observations. Thanks for taking the time to 'spell it out' here.

Since I have a Lee FCD, I'm going to check this and see what happens in my situation.

 

[Idaho-Lefty]

Thanks for the input!! I did load another text using Starline brass with same primer. The starline case capacity was around 2 gr less than the LC. Results were much better on velocities, although higher with same 23.2 gr . My 5 shot avg was 2870 withs a 19 fps spread and an SD of 6. Am pleased with this!

That,.. ^^^ kinda tells Me that, you had, Brass internal size variation, "Problems" with, the Mixed LC brass.
When I get my Next .223 Rem. Bolt Rifle, I will use, Starline Brass, IMR 8208xbr Powder ( Read about, very Low, ES by, MANY shooters even with, Heavy Bullets ) and, the Lee Collet crimper, Lightly Set, as Posted by chilly 807 .
I use, the Lee Collet crimp, Now, on my 5.56 / .223 AR loads and it, "works" well If, I don't, over Tighten !
PS; that is, an Amazingly GOOD Shooting, 1-7 twist, .223 Rem., Criterion Barrel, you Have there !!
Amazing how, a Good Barrel "Fixes", our Reloading "Issues" ,.. sometimes !

 

[Ralo79]

Buckle up, I'll apologize for the length of this post right up front.

If you're not going to shoot further than 300 yds, I wouldn't touch anything either. If every group on any day comes out at .75 inch at 300 yards, you're doing something right. A lot of things, really.

Having said that, if you want to stretch it out to 500 or 600, you'll start to get more vertical than you'd like with ES close to 100 fps.

Just as a point of reference, I shoot a 223 to 800m as my F-class rifle, using 80 SMK's and 80.5 Fullbore bullets. Tough game with a 223, but it's fun.

I've had issues in the past with ES numbers over 50 fps, it simply won't hold the bull (5-ring) at 800 with that high a spread. You lose shots out the top and bottom. The same at 500 and 600, to a lesser degree

The 223 is notorious for high ES and SD, and there are some theories as to why that is.

I think that part of the problem is getting good, consistent combustion in the relatively tall, narrow case. Look at the latest and greatest benchrest and long range cartridges. Short, fat, and wide.

If you look at YouTube, there's a video from Keith Glasscock (Winning in the Wind channel), where he compares loading with a 505 beam scale to a high end electronic scale, loading for several different cartridges. One of those cases was the 223 Rem.
I'll spoil the suspense.. he said that while the electronic scale WAS more accurate, it wasn't enough better to be able to definitively say it was better than the old school beam scale when it came to results on the target and over the chronograph.
That was because there were several other factors adding "noise" to the results. Specifically, primer consistency, case volume, and neck tension, if I remember right.

He also found that the smaller cases were more prone to varied results. Less space, less powder, etc. Any variation in the components opens up the results more in a smaller case.
In other words, everything is smaller, so a given change in any of the factors results in a more dramatic variation. A larger case absorbs those variations and you see less swing from shot to shot.

I also load for 6.5 Creedmoor using the same tools and some of the same components (FGMM primers and Lapua brass). I tried changing primers, Federal gold medal match had the best results, but it still wasn't good in the 223. The 6.5, on the other hand, is stupid easy to get low ES and SD, but look at the shape of the 2 cases. Totally different.

Low neck tension isn't your friend in the 223 cartridge. The more you have, the better it works. The idea is that with more initial resistance to the bullet moving, pressure has time to build and combustion is more consistent throughout the burn cycle.

I did some testing a few years ago trying to get ES and SD numbers down in a 223.
I usually anneal at every firing, but I stopped doing that for about a dozen loadings of the same group of 12-15 cases.
At every firing past 2 or 3, the ES and SD got tighter and tighter as the cases got harder from being worked. The problem with that, is that they don't last as long if you don't anneal. Eventually I started getting split necks and bullets were getting dents from the seating die.

So, I'd traded one problem for another. No bueno.

I went back to annealing and tried using a smaller expander button, and dabbled with an expander mandrel for a while. Even with 4 thou of interference in the neck, the annealed brass wasn't tight enough. Again, no joy.

I will say that if you have a choice of 2 powders that will work in a 223 to give you X feet per second with bullet Y, then try using the one with the faster burn rate and see what happens. Slow powders don't lead to good combustion in a case that's already challenged in that dept to begin with. I can't point to any specific test that says that, but it's been my experience. Keep it safe, of course.

For me, I didn't have a lot of different powder choices to play with due to availability right after Covid. I use mostly N140 in the 223 now with 80 grain bullets. IMR 8208 wasn't bad either, but availability wasn't great.

So, back to the neck tension problem. I discovered a few years ago that when I crimped my deer rifle loads (32 Spl, of all things) that ES numbers dropped dramatically, we're talking 50% reduction.

Who wants to crimp a load for long range accurate shooting? I sure didn't, but it was worth a try, I thought.

For the princely sum of $15, I got a Lee Factory Crimp die. None of the bullets I use for F-class have a cannelure, but you really don't need one with the Lee die.

I found out right away that too much crimp isn't ideal. It makes dents in the brass, and squeezes the bullet more than it needs to be squeezed. If you look at what Lee tells you to do to set the die, they say to use between 1/4 and 1/2 turn of crimp. Those number will make sense if you read the instructions, I'm not going to go into it here.

My best results have been with slightly more than 1/4 turn of crimp. The brass doesn't get damaged, and my SD numbers dropped from 15-18 to under 10 on most days. You will get the occasional outlier when the tolerances from primer, brass, and powder charge stack in the wrong direction, but by and large it's greatly improved.

My group sizes haven't gotten noticeably bigger from crimping, as many think they will. My vertical dispersion at long range, however, is improved enough to make the juice worth the squeeze.

Do I crimp my 6.5 loads? Hell no.. they don't need it. Every 223 round I load gets crimped, though.

It may not cure what ails you. I'm not saying it'll fix the problem across the board. But, for $15, is it worth trying?

It works for me, best $15 I've spent in a while. And no, I don't work for Lee..

Thanks chilly for the detailed info! I did do more tests today with the starline brass and my spread wad 19 FPS with an sd of 6.7. I will take that in a .223. I think mixed yr LC brass could have been some of the spread also.I have tried most thing you stated, always been a VV fan and was using n140, also tried the 135 with good results. But my best so far has been the faster 8208 xbr. I haven’t tried the crimp yet but as you say 15 bucks is worth a try! Appreciate the info

 

[Ralo79]

That,.. ^^^ kinda tells Me that, you had, Brass internal size variation, "Problems" with, the Mixed LC brass.
When I get my Next .223 Rem. Bolt Rifle, I will use, Starline Brass, IMR 8208xbr Powder ( Read about, very Low, ES by, MANY shooters even with, Heavy Bullets ) and, the Lee Collet crimper, Lightly Set, as Posted by chilly 807 .
I use, the Lee Collet crimp, Now, on my 5.56 / .223 AR loads and it, "works" well If, I don't, over Tighten !
PS; that is, an Amazingly GOOD Shooting, 1-7 twist, .223 Rem., Criterion Barrel, you Have there !!
Amazing how, a Good Barrel "Fixes", our Reloading "Issues" ,.. sometimes !

Hey lefty, I do agree the mixed LC brass had to be part of the extreme spread. As I said above, today’s results were much better using the Starline brass. The 8208 was what I used in the group I posted. Really like it. And yes the Criterion’s are good shooters for the price.! Definitely upped my accuracy! But at 64 yrs old this is my hobby, I don’t compete, just backyard fun!!