90gr from 1/8 223

[natdscott]

Just use the 80 SMK, the 82 Berger or 80.5 Berger, or one of the Hornady 80-ish class bullets (NOT the 88).

Learn to call wind, and the 80/82s I mention above are easily 4-6" bullets from an 8.0 twist, even at sub-500' amsl, and even in just a 20" tube. Been there, got the gold stuff to prove it.

The 7.7" Krieger and Bartlein tubes are about the BEST standard-production tubes for heavies. One could argue the 7.0" as well. They will run any of the 80-class into seriously tiny groups.

But even having said THAT...the 90's will keyhole and fly sideways unless the barrel is pretty long. The 7.0" can be made to work just fine for the mid-80 to 90-grainers IF if is a good length (26"+) barrel. Just ask Bob Gill.

But um. If you want to shoot 90s, and you don't want a Palma barrel, then you need a 6.5-6.6" twist barrel.

Sorry...but these little *&^er's are really pointy; they have to be treated with respect. My COAL in my Long Range loads is over 2.600".

 

[kzin]

Thats for a 10mph full value. XTR is talking about a switch.

Run the 77 at 10mph and 7mph. Whats the change?
Run the 90 at 10mph and 7mph. Whats the change?

Now what is the difference between the two?

Thats the number that really matters, and is what Wade is getting at.

.39"
On a 1.79" 10 ring with NO wind flags on the range.
No doubt 90s and 1/8 would be dumb long term.
90s out of an appropriate barrel seem close to worth it even at 200

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Wut?
I'm seeing about 1.3 inches difference at full value 10mph between 77s and 90s at 200 on the online calculator. Are 80s that much closer to 90s than 77s? Don't have time right now to look up 80s specs and punch them in.

I have a 1/7 30" savage ftr that should shoot 90s fine. I was just wondering how bad it would be to run some through my 26" 1/8 AR or even my 20" 1/8 AR. I currently shoot FGM 77s most of the time out of all 3.

Long term I think I want a 1/6.5 20" 224 Valkyrie AR for 90s but from what I'm hearing I'm not in a rush to go there yet.

Wade was talking about the 80gr bullets, not the 77gr bullets. There is a huge difference between the two bullets. The 77gr are designed to have that weight and still be able to be loaded to magazine length in an AR-15 (2.26 inch OAL). The 80grainers are all designed to be loaded one at a time as they are way too long to fit in the AR-15 magazine. They are very long and very efficient in the air compared to the 77grs.

If you look at Sierra's site; their 77gr has a BC of .362, their 80gr has a BC of .460 and the 90s have a BC of .560. For 200 yards, you'll get the 80s to go faster than the 90s and the added BC of the 90s doesn't come into play yet. Also, you'll get about the same velocity as the 77grs but with the 80s, you'll have another 100 points of BC and that makes a huge difference.

The 77grs are nowhere near the match bullets the 80s are.

 

[Ned Ludd]

.39"
On a 1.79" 10 ring with NO wind flags on the range.
No doubt 90s and 1/8 would be dumb long term.
90s out of an appropriate barrel seem close to worth it even at 200

Yes, the 80.5s and 82s have much higher G7 BCs than 177s (~0.228 vs 0.193), and the 90s (G7 BC ~.274) are a similar increase over the 80s. Both have BCs that are increased above the next lower weight group by about 20%, which is huge. Pushing the lighter bullet faster will make up for a little bit of the BC differential, but typically not enough to ever fully overcome the deficit unless the BCs were pretty close to begin with.

I have a .223 I had built as a "trainer" for F-TR that shoots both factory FGMM 77s and 80.5 handloads extremely well. The difference between the two bullets is significant at 600 yds if there's much wind; likewise, the 90s are significantly better than the 80s at 500-600 yd and farther. However, at 200 yd, it's unlikely you will be able to shoot the difference in wind deflection between 80s and 90s. So at that point it becomes an issue of which can be tuned to your setup more easily. The 80.5 and 82 are both tangent ogive bullets and should be relatively forgiving with regard to seating depth as opposed to the 90 VLDs, which require very close attention to seating depth in order to get them shooting optimally. Between that and your slow barrel twist rate, there's really no good reason to be thinking about trying the 90s; they're not going to be any advantage whatsoever, and likely will bring a significant disadvantage in that specific setup.

In contrast, shooting the 90s out of a 28" or longer barrel with an appropriate twist rate (7.0 is really all you ever need) and a long enough freebore to seat them optimally is a real pleasure. At some point down the road when you decide to re-barrel that rifle, it is possible to load both the 80s and the 90s using a 7-twist barrel chambered with the .223 Rem ISSF reamer with 0.169" freebore. It's a little on the long side for the 80.5s, but it works. That way, you wouldn't be losing the ability to continue shooting the 80s, but could take a run at loading the 90s to see how you liked them.

 

[XTR]

...
No doubt 90s and 1/8 would be dumb long term.
90s out of an appropriate barrel seem close to worth it even at 200

You misunderstand me. You asked about a very specific application, in your application I would not attempt to run the 90s. It doesn't make sense for a number of reasons noted above.

Personally, I shoot a lot of mid range with 90VLDs. I do it in a bolt gun that is set up for them, and I highly recommend it to anyone, but you need to set it up the right way. I don't have a load for anything else in that rifle*. If I'm shooting it it's sending 90s.

*I used to have an 80Amax load that I played with at 300 yards but I ran out of them.

 

[kzin]

You misunderstand me. You asked about a very specific application, in your application I would not attempt to run the 90s. It doesn't make sense for a number of reasons noted above.

Personally, I shoot a lot of mid range with 90VLDs. I do it in a bolt gun that is set up for them, and I highly recommend it to anyone, but you need to set it up the right way. I don't have a load for anything else in that rifle*. If I'm shooting it it's sending 90s.

*I used to have an 80Amax load that I played with at 300 yards but I ran out of them.

I have no problem with the general gist. The specific numbers you quoted were off from mine by a few hundred percent.
80s vs 77s explains some of it but still you mis-estimated, exaggerated for effect or your calculator is different than mine.

It's only a significant issue to me if my numbers are wrong. Thanks for the input.

 

[XTR]

90 VLD @ 2800FPS, 200 yds, windage in a 10MPH full value wind = 2.3 inches
80 Fullbore @ 2875, 200 yds, windage in a 10MPH full value wind = 2.7 inches

From this we extrapolate a drift of .23 and .27 per MPH respectively. The difference in windage per 1 MPH of wind is .04 inches.

If you miss a 3 MPH shift, the difference in point of impact between the bullets is .12 inches. If you can hold that you are awesome. If you miss a 10 MPH shift, well nothing is going to help that, but both shoot them somewhere other than the 10 ring.

Numbers from JBM:
Temperature: 85.0 °F
Pressure: 29.92 in Hg
Altitude: 0.0 ft

 

[kzin]

the question

90 VLD @ 2800FPS, 200 yds, windage in a 10MPH full value wind = 2.3 inches
80 Fullbore @ 2875, 200 yds, windage in a 10MPH full value wind = 2.7 inches

From this we extrapolate a drift of .23 and .27 per MPH respectively. The difference in windage per 1 MPH of wind is .04 inches.

If you miss a 3 MPH shift, the difference in point of impact between the bullets is .12 inches. If you can hold that you are awesome. If you miss a 10 MPH shift, well nothing is going to help that, but both shoot them somewhere other than the 10 ring.

Numbers from JBM:
Temperature: 85.0 °F
Pressure: 29.92 in Hg
Altitude: 0.0 ft

Thanks,
.12 is a lot different than the .39 I got with 77s.
I still need to run 80s and see if that is that big a difference in the calculator I use, could be.

I don't quite follow the 'if you can hold that' logic.
Even .12 can be the difference between clipping a line and not clipping it once in 30 shots at 200.

The radius of my x ring at 200 is .4475". Adding .12" to the radius of my group for the day may cost me something on the scoreboard. I've never embraced the wind bucking stops being important at shorter ranges thinking. Unless there is a major trade-off in recoil or intrinsic accuracy.

Unless they are intrinsically less accurate I don't see why 90s aren't always the better choice at any range.(assuming proper setup which 1/8 won't ever be). If they are intrinsically less accurate then it becomes a tricky choice to use them at any range.

 

[natdscott]

They are not intri

the question


Thanks,
.12 is a lot different than the .39 I got with 77s.
I still need to run 80s and see if that is that big a difference in the calculator I use, could be.

I don't quite follow the 'if you can hold that' logic.
Even .12 can be the difference between clipping a line and not clipping it once in 30 shots at 200.

The radius of my x ring at 200 is .4475". Adding .12" to the radius of my group for the day may cost me something on the scoreboard. I've never embraced the wind bucking stops being important at shorter ranges thinking. Unless there is a major trade-off in recoil or intrinsic accuracy.

Unless they are intrinsically less accurate I don't see why 90s aren't always the better choice at any range.(assuming proper setup which 1/8 won't ever be). If they are intrinsically less accurate then it becomes a tricky choice to use them at any range.

The 90 Berger VLD is not intrinsically less accurate than smaller brethren, but like any of the other "Super VLDs", it can be kinda ticky.

I have not seen any load at any length do more than 1.1 MOA, and the best will hold under 0.2...the trick is of course keeping it tuned. Honestly though, at least in my rifle, it's not as bad as I thought. It's at least a 0.005" window.

 

[Iowa Fox]

Precision Reloading used to sell sample packs of Berger Bullets reasonable, not sure if they still do. Wouldn't cost much to see first hand what they do so you could let us all know just how they did for you at 300 & 600.

 

[7Fingers]

I built a .223 for the sole purpose of running 90s, 28” 7 twist .269 free bore. It is a laser!!!
This is 5 shots at 100yds

 

[dcali]

The 90s are a poor choice anyhow at 200 yards. You will most likely find better accuracy with a shorter bullet. But I would start with something in the 69-77 grain range for a 1:8. (I've gotten very good results from Sierra 77s). BC isn't everything, especially at short range. I've seen the 90s shoot lights out in a fast twist, so it can be done. But it's not optimal until you push the range out a little further.

 

[eric n]

Something else to keep in mind.
If you have to scratch that itch with 90s at 200, buy a lot of them. I don’t know if Berger has stepped up production since they moved but availability has been an issue in the past. I imagine there will be even more demand with the rise of the Valkyrie.

 

[Kurt Blasser]

View attachment 1060858 I built a .223 for the sole purpose of running 90s, 28” 7 twist .269 free bore. It is a laser!!!
This is 5 shots at 100yds

Load?

 

[Nature Boy]

View attachment 1060858 I built a .223 for the sole purpose of running 90s, 28” 7 twist .269 free bore. It is a laser!!!
This is 5 shots at 100yds

Yes, I’d like to know the specifics as well.

I’ve set up my son’s Savage to shoot the 90g VLDs for F/TR mid range. 24.2g of Varget goes 2,695fps. I believe our last match got him his Master classification. Not too shabby considering he shot his first match in August

5 shot groups at 100 are constantly in the 2’s

 

[Beau]

Under stabilized bullets are much more sensitive to wind than properly stabilized bullets.

 

[Ned Ludd]

View attachment 1060858 I built a .223 for the sole purpose of running 90s, 28” 7 twist .269 free bore. It is a laser!!!
This is 5 shots at 100yds

7fingers - It is actually 0.269" freebore? Or is it 0.169", which is what is cut with PTG's 223 Rem ISSF reamer?

Beau - what's your point? On paper, a 6.8-twist barrel would be the minimum required for most .223 Rem shooters to fully stabilize the 90 VLDs. However, quite a few F-TR shooters using twist rates faster than 7 have experienced jacket failures during matches. A 7.0-twist is sufficient with the 90s in a .223 Rem to get the vast majority of the resistance to wind deflection they offer, while at the same time reducing the risk of a jacket failure and loss of 10 points, which pretty much puts you out of the running on a single shot. For others using cartridges with a little more horsepower, they might be able to go as low as 7.2-twist or so without giving up too much resistance to wind deflection. However, much slower of a twist than that and you'd be giving it up needlessly.

 

[Kurt Blasser]

Yes, the 80.5s and 82s have much higher G7 BCs than 177s (~0.228 vs 0.193), and the 90s (G7 BC ~.274) are a similar increase over the 80s. Both have BCs that are increased above the next lower weight group by about 20%, which is huge. Pushing the lighter bullet faster will make up for a little bit of the BC differential, but typically not enough to ever fully overcome the deficit unless the BCs were pretty close to begin with.

I have a .223 I had built as a "trainer" for F-TR that shoots both factory FGMM 77s and 80.5 handloads extremely well. The difference between the two bullets is significant at 600 yds if there's much wind; likewise, the 90s are significantly better than the 80s at 500-600 yd and farther. However, at 200 yd, it's unlikely you will be able to shoot the difference in wind deflection between 80s and 90s. So at that point it becomes an issue of which can be tuned to your setup more easily. The 80.5 and 82 are both tangent ogive bullets and should be relatively forgiving with regard to seating depth as opposed to the 90 VLDs, which require very close attention to seating depth in order to get them shooting optimally. Between that and your slow barrel twist rate, there's really no good reason to be thinking about trying the 90s; they're not going to be any advantage whatsoever, and likely will bring a significant disadvantage in that specific setup.

In contrast, shooting the 90s out of a 28" or longer barrel with an appropriate twist rate (7.0 is really all you ever need) and a long enough freebore to seat them optimally is a real pleasure. At some point down the road when you decide to re-barrel that rifle, it is possible to load both the 80s and the 90s using a 7-twist barrel chambered with the .223 Rem ISSF reamer with 0.169" freebore. It's a little on the long side for the 80.5s, but it works. That way, you wouldn't be losing the ability to continue shooting the 80s, but could take a run at loading the 90s to see how you liked them.

Where can I find the 223 Rem ISSF reamer with .169 freebore?

 

[XTR]

Pacific Tool and Gauge sells that particular design.

 

[natdscott]

...only if she's 5' 3".