88 ELDs and .223 load combos

[Ned Ludd]

You cannot arbitrarily "set aside case capacity". It is an important part of the equation. FWIW - I don't particularly care how you or anyone else works up their loads. Everyone is entitled to load however they like and there are many different ways to accomplish a single goal. You chose to repost a comment I made many months ago for reasons that are only known to you, and attempted to refute what I said about "optimal" seating depth. I responded. Now you want to continue with the "I know more than you" approach, and have obviously taken my response in a confrontational way. I'm not going to waste my time doing that. There are plenty of reasons why it is considered sub-optimal to seat bullets well below the neck/shoulder junction. Losing case volume needlessly is one. Donuts are another. I'm sure there are a few more. If you choose to seat bullets far down in the neck, that's great, I hope it works out for you. But even if it works well, it will not be optimal in my opinion and could be improved with a long bullet by using sufficient freebore. The good news is that my "opinion" counts very little, if at all, when it's someone else's rifle. Their opinion is really all that matters. Nonetheless, I will continue to post what I believe to be correct information and point out what I believe to be disinformation, for the simple reason that there are likely to be shooters that frequent this forum that may not have the experience to know the difference. Seating bullets way below the neck/shoulder is NOT optimal, even if it may work acceptably. It's the difference between getting away with something and getting everything possible, that's all.

 

[Hohn]

I apologize for coming over as confrontational.

Less than ideal is one thing, unacceptable is another. And I think there were times I was taking your assertions of "it's not ideal" as "only an ignorant fool would run these without a mile long freebore." Which isn't what you were saying.

Again, my apologies. Thank you for your comments.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I apologize for coming over as confrontational.

Less than ideal is one thing, unacceptable is another. And I think there were times I was taking your assertions of "it's not ideal" as "only an ignorant fool would run these without a mile long freebore." Which isn't what you were saying.

Again, my apologies. Thank you for your comments.

No worries. I was most definitely not implying anything negative about someone that chooses to run what I might personally consider a "sub-optimal" loading. In fact, people often run a specific load because they little choice due to having a certain setup other than not to participate. Others may choose to do so for a specific reason such as improved brass life, etc. In fact, I have done so myself, having worked up a load some time ago with Berger's 80.5 Fullbore bullet in a .223 Rem that has zero freebore. Although I figured out a way to get that load to work pretty well, it is that particular experience that put me in the position of not recommending for someone else to go down that road unless they absolutely have to.

I shoot with several friends that also use a .223 with 90s regularly. Of them, there are a couple that have chosen to run the 2775 fps node (30" barrels) because of the much better brass life. They are very fine shooters. In fact, one shooter in particular is a phenomenally good wind reader, something I would attribute at least in part to necessity, as even the 90s get blown around a little more that is desirable when loaded at the slower node, and certainly more than 200+ gr bullets out of a .308 Win. He does very well in matches running the slower node, probably a lot better than I would with the same load. But he is at somewhat of a disadvantage against shooters running 90s at the higher node, and even more of a disadvantage against shooters running .30 cal 200.20X bullets. Based on his shooting skills, I honestly believe he would be a threat to win every singe match (F-TR) at our club were he running the higher node in a .223, or if he chose to switch over to a .308 with 200s. Unfortunately, even outstanding wind reading skills are not always enough to make up for a large performance (BC, velocity, etc.) deficit if the conditions are challenging. That is also part of the reason why I generally advocate setting up a competition rifle to as "optimal" a level as is possible. At least some of your competitors will be also doing it.

I started shooting a .223 Rem with 90 VLDs in F-TR a number of years ago when very few other shooters here in the U.S. were actively doing so, and there wasn't a great deal of readily available information on "optimal" setups. As a result, it seemed as though the few of us that were using .223s at the time [admittedly, at least] largely had to re-invent the wheel, so to speak. The limited information available was largely from Robert Pitcairn's "A Mouse on Steroids", some of Laurie Hollands posts here at A.S., and a few bits and pieces elsewhere. The most positive thing that came out of that experience was that myself and others did a lot of our own testing, something that really isn't quite so essential now, as much better information is readily available at various online shooting forums. I still actively shoot a .223 Rem in F-TR and regularly test new developments as they become available. Between myself and a few others here at A.S., if something is commercially available, there is a very good chance one or all of us has already tested it.

I bought some of the Hornady 88 ELDMs about a year or so ago for testing purposes. Frankly, I like that bullet a lot. I have only one .223 with what I deem to be "sufficient" freebore to seat the 88s optimally (0.220" fb), and even that is a little too short in my opinion. Unfortunately, this rifle also has a 6.8-twist barrel that seems to enjoy shredding jackets on long .224" bullets, and the 88 ELDMs were no exception, so I stopped shooting them in that rifle. I have also done some load development with the 88s in another rifle throated for 90 VLDs with a more typical 0.169" fb (PTG's .223 Rem ISSF reamer) and a 7.0-twist barrel. In my hands, loads with H4895 and the 88 ELDM seated pretty far down in the neck that produced velocities of only about 2770-2780 fps also killed the primer pockets of Lapua brass in a single firing. My results using the 88s over N140 or Varget in that rifle were equally bad. I also carried out similar tests using Starline brass with slightly lower charge weights to accommodate the smaller case volume. At similar velocities, the Starline brass, which is much thicker through the webbing than Lapua, showed no evidence of primer pocket failure. However, I was not able to make the precision with Starline brass ever equal that with Lapua brass, and so I decided not to pursue using the 88s until I have a barrel chambered that should be better suited to getting the most out of the 88s high BC without killing the brass so quickly. I plan to eventually acquire a 31", 0.219"/0.224" Bartlein 5R blank, and have it chambered with 0.250" freebore, which should put the boattail/bearing surface junction of the 88s somewhere close to halfway out the neck when seated at ~.015" off the lands. With such a setup, I would anticipate a velocity in the neighborhood of 2870 to 2890 fps using H4895, with reasonable brass life and no jacket failures. I think it would be a real winner for midrange F-TR.

In any event, that does not mean that the 88s can't be made to shoot well at a slower node out of a rifle with a shorter freebore, I'm sure they can. My own experience trying to do that with the 88s was that Lapua brass life would not be so great even at the next slower node, although with a different rifle setup and perhaps a different powder or brand of brass, who knows? If someone is setting up a new rifle (or re-barrel), it is relatively simple to address such an issue. Otherwise, the most obvious choices are more limited: 1) run a shorter, lighter, lower BC bullet; 2) run the longer, heavier high BC bullet seated fairly deep in the case and take whatever you can get in terms of velocity and brass life; 3) use something like PTG's Uni-throater to extend the freebore of the rifle to better accommodate the longer, heavier, high BC bullet. Most shooters will usually choose either 1) or 2) to start, because they don't require permanently modifying the chamber, or purchasing an extra tool. Nonetheless, option 3) is not necessarily a bad way to go, especially if the barrel has some use to it, as it may serve to "freshen up" the cut of the throat a bit if it's somewhat worn.

 

[Hohn]

Great post, thanks.

I've looked into the PTG uni-throater option. And I'm trying to weigh right now the relative merits of options ! and 2. If I ever build a rifle dedicated to midrange .223 only, I'll probably do the uni-throater option.

The three heaviest ELDs will have equivalent windage at about the following speeds:
- 88 ELD @ 2750
- 80 ELD @ 2900
- 75 ELD at 3000

In this 26" CBI, I've only proven I can hit the first two speeds. Although the 80 ELD at 2900 was with 8208 xbr and is a bit too warm for comfort. I'm confident pp2k can hit 2900 also at lower pressure. 88 at 2750 seems mild enough I could run it indefinitely and not kill brass.

It seems reasonable that I can push a 75 to 3k in this barrel, but I haven't verified yet.

So at this point I'm at a three-way fork in the road and am collecting the data to see which way to go. Complicating matters a bit is that the ELDs always seem to want like .050" jump in my testing. So my shortish .090fb that is "throated for 80s" ends up being pretty much "ideal" for 75s when you account for jump.

I have a suspicion that I will end up being able to push 75s as fast as 3100 at the equivalent pressures. I've got case capacity to spare at 27gr with the 80s seated short, so I'm sure I have space to go 28 or even higher under a 75. But what I don't know is whether that will be enough to get me appreciably past 3000.

The only velocity data I have with PP2K and 75s is that 26.2gr put me at 2835fps.

More to come.

 

[davidjoe]

No worries. I was most definitely not implying anything negative about someone that chooses to run what I might personally consider a "sub-optimal" loading. In fact, people often run a specific load because they little choice due to having a certain setup other than not to participate. Others may choose to do so for a specific reason such as improved brass life, etc. In fact, I have done so myself, having worked up a load some time ago with Berger's 80.5 Fullbore bullet in a .223 Rem that has zero freebore. Although I figured out a way to get that load to work pretty well, it is that particular experience that put me in the position of not recommending for someone else to go down that road unless they absolutely have to.

I shoot with several friends that also use a .223 with 90s regularly. Of them, there are a couple that have chosen to run the 2775 fps node (30" barrels) because of the much better brass life. They are very fine shooters. In fact, one shooter in particular is a phenomenally good wind reader, something I would attribute at least in part to necessity, as even the 90s get blown around a little more that is desirable when loaded at the slower node, and certainly more than 200+ gr bullets out of a .308 Win. He does very well in matches running the slower node, probably a lot better than I would with the same load. But he is at somewhat of a disadvantage against shooters running 90s at the higher node, and even more of a disadvantage against shooters running .30 cal 200.20X bullets. Based on his shooting skills, I honestly believe he would be a threat to win every singe match (F-TR) at our club were he running the higher node in a .223, or if he chose to switch over to a .308 with 200s. Unfortunately, even outstanding wind reading skills are not always enough to make up for a large performance (BC, velocity, etc.) deficit if the conditions are challenging. That is also part of the reason why I generally advocate setting up a competition rifle to as "optimal" a level as is possible. At least some of your competitors will be also doing it.

I started shooting a .223 Rem with 90 VLDs in F-TR a number of years ago when very few other shooters here in the U.S. were actively doing so, and there wasn't a great deal of readily available information on "optimal" setups. As a result, it seemed as though the few of us that were using .223s at the time [admittedly, at least] largely had to re-invent the wheel, so to speak. The limited information available was largely from Robert Pitcairn's "A Mouse on Steroids", some of Laurie Hollands posts here at A.S., and a few bits and pieces elsewhere. The most positive thing that came out of that experience was that myself and others did a lot of our own testing, something that really isn't quite so essential now, as much better information is readily available at various online shooting forums. I still actively shoot a .223 Rem in F-TR and regularly test new developments as they become available. Between myself and a few others here at A.S., if something is commercially available, there is a very good chance one or all of us has already tested it.

I bought some of the Hornady 88 ELDMs about a year or so ago for testing purposes. Frankly, I like that bullet a lot. I have only one .223 with what I deem to be "sufficient" freebore to seat the 88s optimally (0.220" fb), and even that is a little too short in my opinion. Unfortunately, this rifle also has a 6.8-twist barrel that seems to enjoy shredding jackets on long .224" bullets, and the 88 ELDMs were no exception, so I stopped shooting them in that rifle. I have also done some load development with the 88s in another rifle throated for 90 VLDs with a more typical 0.169" fb (PTG's .223 Rem ISSF reamer) and a 7.0-twist barrel. In my hands, loads with H4895 and the 88 ELDM seated pretty far down in the neck that produced velocities of only about 2770-2780 fps also killed the primer pockets of Lapua brass in a single firing. My results using the 88s over N140 or Varget in that rifle were equally bad. I also carried out similar tests using Starline brass with slightly lower charge weights to accommodate the smaller case volume. At similar velocities, the Starline brass, which is much thicker through the webbing than Lapua, showed no evidence of primer pocket failure. However, I was not able to make the precision with Starline brass ever equal that with Lapua brass, and so I decided not to pursue using the 88s until I have a barrel chambered that should be better suited to getting the most out of the 88s high BC without killing the brass so quickly. I plan to eventually acquire a 31", 0.219"/0.224" Bartlein 5R blank, and have it chambered with 0.250" freebore, which should put the boattail/bearing surface junction of the 88s somewhere close to halfway out the neck when seated at ~.015" off the lands. With such a setup, I would anticipate a velocity in the neighborhood of 2870 to 2890 fps using H4895, with reasonable brass life and no jacket failures. I think it would be a real winner for midrange F-TR.

In any event, that does not mean that the 88s can't be made to shoot well at a slower node out of a rifle with a shorter freebore, I'm sure they can. My own experience trying to do that with the 88s was that Lapua brass life would not be so great even at the next slower node, although with a different rifle setup and perhaps a different powder or brand of brass, who knows? If someone is setting up a new rifle (or re-barrel), it is relatively simple to address such an issue. Otherwise, the most obvious choices are more limited: 1) run a shorter, lighter, lower BC bullet; 2) run the longer, heavier high BC bullet seated fairly deep in the case and take whatever you can get in terms of velocity and brass life; 3) use something like PTG's Uni-throater to extend the freebore of the rifle to better accommodate the longer, heavier, high BC bullet. Most shooters will usually choose either 1) or 2) to start, because they don't require permanently modifying the chamber, or purchasing an extra tool. Nonetheless, option 3) is not necessarily a bad way to go, especially if the barrel has some use to it, as it may serve to "freshen up" the cut of the throat a bit if it's somewhat worn.

Ned, or others, have you guys seen any groups size difference between CC BR-4 primers in a .223 and CCI 41’s? I think I’ve seen better .308 groups and definitely lower SD’s with the BR 4 primers.

I’m looking to shoot club TR with a .223 and won’t be loading so warm that 41’s would necessarily be advisable.

A second question is whether anyone has noticed the .223 with heavies to be be particularly sensitive to warm loads in terms of groups really opening up, despite brass and primers appearing to remain acceptable.

In my open guns brass life suffers a lot more and a lot sooner at the high end of charges than group size seems to, and I’m wondering if that’s not really as true in a .223, where I’m seeing warm charges shoot mediocre groups as 200.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Ned, or others, have you guys seen any groups size difference between CC BR-4 primers in a .223 and CCI 41’s? I think I’ve seen better .308 groups and definitely lower SD’s with the BR 4 primers.

I’m looking to shoot club TR with a .223 and won’t be loading so warm that 41’s would necessarily be advisable.

A second question is whether anyone has noticed the .223 with heavies to be be particularly sensitive to warm loads in terms of groups really opening up, despite brass and primers appearing to remain acceptable.

In my open guns brass life suffers a lot more and a lot sooner at the high end of charges than group size seems to, and I’m wondering if that’s not really as true in a .223, where I’m seeing warm charges shoot mediocre groups as 200.

David - I have almost exclusively used Fed 205s. Last fall before the reloading supply madness reached its full potential, I bought some CCI 450s and BR4s, just to have them on hand as an alternative in the event the Fed 205s at some point don't provide the desired results. I have not tested them with any .223 loads as yet. However, I did test them with a .308 Win/Varget/200.20X load and the ES/SD values increased markedly with both CCI primers as compared to the Fed 205s. As with any load workup, I think you can only know how a given primer might work by testing it.

It is possible you may be dealing with more than one issue here. In the past, I always targeted the 2840-2850 fps velocity range with 90 VLDs over H4895 with a 30" barrel. In my hands, they just flat out shoot in that velocity range. However, seating depth is the real key to getting them to shoot. I have found with multiple 30" Bartlein 5R barrels that the 90s like to tune in two different seating depth regions. One is with them seated approximately .004" and .007" into the lands. The other is with them seated to approximately .021" and farther off the lands. For me, the seating depth window off the lands has always been the wider of the two, and you don't have to deal with potential pressure issues that might be caused by seating them into the lands. I always felt the choice to seat the 90s in the region of at approximately .021" off the lands [actual seating depth subject to testing] was a no-brainer. However, that seating depth region doesn't seem to work for everyone. Some have, by necessity, found that seating them a short distance into the lands was the only place they could get them to tune in respectably. Only the rifle can tell you.

The 2840-2850 fps load is predicted by QuickLoad to be at least a couple thousand psi above SAAMI max, and brass life obviously suffers as a result. After tiring of replacing Lapua brass every 3-4 firings, I decided to slow the load down a bit, to the ~2820 fps range in the same rifle setup, just to be a bit easier on the brass and possibly mitigate any future jacket failure issues (FWIW - I've never yet lost a 90 VLD jacket in a 30" 7.0-twist 0.218"/0.224" 5R barrel). To my surprise, it tuned in every bit as well at that velocity as did the faster loads I had previously been running. I may have just caught the lower edge of the same node, but it worked surprisingly well. Again, seating depth was the real key to shrinking the groups. After that experience, it would not surprise me if someone could get the 90s to tune in at almost any velocity they wanted with the proper charge weight and seating depth testing regimen, barrel harmonics and optimal tuning theory be damned. As I mentioned previously, I know a few shooters that run the 90 VLDs at ~2775 fps from the same rifle setup and they shoot extraordinarily well. In fact, I have lately been fire-forming my .223 Rem brass on the first firing using that same slower load and it shoots stupidly well.

The bottom line is that it is not uncommon for loads at the high end of the usable pressure range to sometimes start behaving erratically. The real key to that is to never let the pressure get that high. In the small .223 Rem case, temperature-induced increase in velocity can be a problem, even with relatively temperature-resistant powders like H4895 or Varget. A 30 degree increase in temperature and the resultant velocity increase may easily be enough to cause a given tuned load to go out of tune, which is not at all the same thing as saying the load could not have been tuned at the higher [increased] velocity to start with, as long as the brass would withstand it. What I'm getting at is that in the small .223 Rem case, everything matters. Find a load that works well and gives acceptable ES/SD and precision within a given temperature range, then do some testing in temperatures outside that range so you know exactly how much the charge weight needs to be adjusted to keep you within a certain velocity/pressure window. If you need to adjust the load for various temperature changes on different days, or even between morning and afternoon matches in some locals where the daily temperature swing is large, so be it.

When you do the initial load workup, test a few different primers and see whether one primer gives reproducibly lower ES/SD values together with acceptable precision. If so, use that primer. I would not try to select a primer on the basis of its perceived brisance and expected cooler or warmer temps. The primer brisance can be critical for producing acceptably low ES/SD, but you really want to adjust the charge weight to account for temperature changes sufficient to throw a load out of tune, not change the primer. I'm not saying different primers can't give different velocities based on their brisance with the same charge weight, they can. I'm just saying if high temps and pressure may be an issue, I'd start by determining velocity over an appropriate temperature range and then adjusting the charge weight for the temperature accordingly. I assume the mechanism(s) by which switching primers can have such a dramatic effect on ES/SD and precision are very complex. At least, I have never personally heard any detailed mechanism described for primer brisance and its effect on precision and ES/SD that accounts for all behaviors people observed. It's far easier to simply accept that one primer may work better with a certain load than another, and then test empirically to determine which one to use, rather than to try to predict how a given primer might behave under certain conditions. In contrast, we know in advance exactly what increasing or decreasing charge weight within a relatively narrow range will do to velocity. So my suggestion would be to find (and use) the primer that gives you the best ES/SD and precision within the velocity range of a tuned load with the powder/bullet you've selected. If you need to account for pressure/velocity changes due to temperature variance, do it with charge weight.

The final issue I would touch on is that of the ultimate velocity of a tuned load. The difference in external ballistics (windage) between the slower ~2775 fps 90 VLD load I mentioned above and the brass-killing one running at 2850 fps is relatively small. As shown in the outputs below from JBM Ballistics, the difference in predicted windage at 600 yd is 0.9" (~0.1 MOA), and at 1000 yd is 3" (~0.2 MOA). Granted, these differences are not zero. Nonetheless, the fact is that increased velocity has a relatively small impact on reducing wind deflection as compared to increasing the BC of the bullet. At 600 yd, I would argue the difference in windage between these two loads is so small that most shooters would find it very difficult to ever tell the difference. My point is simply that wringing the most possible velocity out of a given load is all well and good. I have done it plenty of times, myself. But in the grand scheme of things, sacrificing a little velocity to obtain a very precise and more stable load/tune can sometimes be the better choice.