95 SMK in 223, anyone try yet?

[Ned Ludd]

G7 BC is effectively independent of velocity, remaining relatively constant over the typical velocity range we shoot. However, I believe what you're asking is at what velocity do the BC advantages of the 90s overcome (in terms of resistance to wind deflection) the performance of the 80s. Is that correct?

The typical Berger 80-something gr .224 bullet will have a G7 BC in the neighborhood of 0.227, the 90 VLD box value is 0.274. Using generic atmospheric inputs, in a full-value 10 mph wind JBM Ballistics predicts a 4.4 MOA (27.4") deflection at 600 yd for the Berger 80.5 Fullbore at 2950 fps, and 3.7 MOA (23.0") deflection for the 90 VLD at 2850 fps. Both of those are pretty reasonable velocities for tuned loads with those two particular bullets.

So there is a difference of about 4.4" in wind deflection for a full-value 10 mph wind between the two bullets at 600 yd. What this tells you is that if your ability to read the wind accurately is good to about a 3 mph difference, the effective difference in wind deflection between the two bullets at 600 yd would be about 1.5". In F-TR, that's a LOT...it's HUGE. Having shot both of these bullets, I can tell you that here is no comparison between the two in terms of wind deflection at 600 yd (or farther), the 90s will win hands down.

Obviously, wind deflection is not the sole arbiter of bullet performance. Precision, ease of tuning, cost, brass life, and other concerns are also part of the equation. In my hands, both the 90s and 80s seem to tune equally well and with very good precision, I haven't had issues tuning either one. I have had friends tell me they thought the 80.5 Fullbore, which is an outstanding design by the way, was easier to tune. So there may be differences in personal preferences and/or experiences. I suspect running the 80.5s at about 2950 fps would be easier on the brass as well. Pushing the 90s at 2850 fps out of a 30" pipe is a brass killer, maybe 3-4 firings tops in my hands. However, the performance is outstanding, so everyone must decide for themselves how much they're willing to spend in order to win in terms of competition.

 

[K22]

The uber-heavy .223 Rem bullets (88s, 90s, 95s) don't give up a huge amount in terms of wind resistance, but they can be loaded and fired with outstanding precision In F-TR competition due to the almost complete lack of recoil relative to a .308 Win pushing 200 gr bullets. This is especially true in midrange comps (out to 600 yd). The downside is generally poor brass life.

Thanks.

 

[Boisblancboy]

Thank you @Ned Ludd that answered my question and more.

If anyone has some experience running the 80’s at max I’d like to hear how many firings your getting out of your cases. Just curious

 

[davidjoe]

Ned, @Ned Ludd are you still driving these bullets? A few weeks back I built a 6.5 twist 1.25” straight taper Phoenix bipod .223 “Open” rifle with the thought to try these bullets with the advantage of 22 pounds. I don’t believe I had seen this thread at the time but groups like yours above, with no flyers, is the real trick in the .223 F-TR heavy bullet game, right?

My thinking was that if I can’t get good results with an Open weight, I won’t get them with a lighter rifle. At the same time, if the results are good, I now have established my benchmark in terms of performance to then chase and try to repeat with a proper TR weight rifle.

That’s where I now am, waiting on a Krieger Direct order of contoured 6.5’s, happily. The heavy gun shoots these very well, about the most fun 200 yard rifle I have, a distance where small wind calls are necessary, and a good scope shows real holes. To be fair, once broken in, it has shot moly VLD 90’s and A-Tip 90’s very well, also.

But these SMK bullets claim something like an 11% higher BC over the Berger 90 - at far less than that large a weight penalty. (By comparison the Berger 180 to 184 BC percentage difference is in virtually lockstep 1:1 proportion to the weight increase and many favor 180’s). I saw you reported a closer G7 than this, between the 95 and 90, from what you observed, not sure if you pointed the 90’s to get that, as they appear more tippable.

So these bullets, which also have a higher BC than the Hornady A-Tip 90 but do not cost close to as much, have a certain, undeniable triple buttered popcorn bucket and large Coke appeal (because I and probably everyone can actually score higher with 80’s and should just accept it). But I can’t point them sharper, and scratching deeper I think they shoot. At 23.0 grains of Varget, the same gun prints the 95’s an inch lower at 200 yards with less primer warmth than moly VLD 90’s, with 24.5 grains of powder.

I haven’t seen more follow ups since about this last post time period, which by far predated my foray into the bullet. From the standpoint of a potential 600 yard package, I’m wondering if anyone is pushing these into the 2,750+ speed.

If they truly don’t throw vertical flyers at midrange, then has anyone seen if they can match (start faster, cross slower, net same drift) the 200’s effective BC at 600 within similar life of the Palma case, that’s what I’m wondering, as well as about any blowups. I’m thinking that intended use in the Valkyrie bodes well for .223 survival.

 

[Ned Ludd]

davidjoe - FWIW - I worked up that load with the 95s when they first came out. I was largely lured by the claim of a higher BC than Berger's 90 VLD. I was cognizant of what the extra 5 grain bullet weight might do to the MAX achievable velocity/pressure as compared to the lighter 90s/88s, but wanted to try them anyhow. As it turned out, both myself and other F-TR shooters have found that with a 30" barrel and H4895, the 95s tune in quite well at around 2750 fps. If you try to push them faster than 2800 or so, brass life with Lapua brass isn't good at all. So in my hands the ~2750 fps node was the best they were going to be.

As a part of that load development, I also used LabRadar velocity decrease data in combination with JBM Ballistics to estimate BCs for the 90 VLDs and 95 SMKs, both fired on the same days. The reason I did this was that at the time, the only advertised BC values for the 95s were banded G1 values, which I crudely estimated might mean a G7 BC of around 0.305 or so; or slightly better than the 90 VLDs. In these tests, I came up with average G7 BC estimates for the pointed 90 VLDs of approximately 0.290, a number I have routinely obtained upon multiple outings over several years. The 95 SMKs yielded a G7 BC of ~0.295, which might mean just a tick better than pointed 90s, but more likely is indistinguishable given the LabRadar-based method used to estimate the BCs. From that I concluded that the 95s have a BC that is very close to pointed 90 VLDs, and can realistically be driven only about 100 fps slower in my file setups. So that basically means giving up about 100 fps "performance" using the 95s as compared to the 90 VLDs in a head-to-head comparison.

The two real strengths of the 95s are first that they tuned/grouped exceedingly well. Not better in my hands than the 90 VLDs, but at least with equally good precision. The second is that Sierra's jackets are clearly much tougher, as I've never been able to cause jacket failure with the 90/95 SMKs in a barrel that has blown up several 90 VLDs and 88 ELDMs. So the question for me was whether the ~0.2 MOA difference in predicted wind deflection at 600 yd was enough to sway my preference, and as it turned out it was. Arguably, that's such a small difference in predicted wind deflection that it may not matter. But psychologically, it did matter. I also only purchased (I think) five hundred of the 95s initially. I still have enough left to shoot at least a couple matches, but I have so far only used them for practice purposes.

My feeling is that the 95 is a very good bullet design, but that you'd optimally want to set a .223 Rem rifle up specifically to shoot them. To that end, I suspect a 32" barrel with a 0.219" bore and a chamber throated out with about 0.250" freebore might turn the trick and allow one to get a little more out of them than I could with my rifle setup that was better optimized for the 90s without running to pressure/brass life issues. I suspect that such a setup would also be optimal for Hornady's 90 gr A-Tip, which also has a longer BTO dimension that the 90 VLD. I haven't ventured into trying the 90 A-Tips for several reasons, including my experience of multiple jacket failures with the similar 88 ELDM, and the fact that Hornady suggests you really want to use their seating die/stem with the A-Tip bullets. FWIW - I also think the 88 ELDM is a very good bullet design, and by extension, the 90 A-Tip probably is as well (there are quite a few similarities between the two Hornady offerings). Nonetheless, I can't reliably use the 88s in my current rifle setup due to the jacket failures. So until I obtain new 0.219" bore barrel(s) for that rifle, which isn't going to happen any time soon as my current 0.218" bore barrel only has about 1000 rounds through it and I have another identical one cut and ready to go, I probably won't be trying the 88 ELDMs/90 A-Tips. Nonetheless, with the correct setup, I think either of those bullets would be an excellent choice.

 

[davidjoe]

That’s super information. Thanks for sharing the insight on that specific powder that has reached 2,750. I’ll be trying it. Early on, just checking the parameters with Varget, I was starting to really “ring” the 95 noses from compression. It made me think the jackets could be fragile, but Sierra is actually the one brand of bullet I’ve used, but never blown up, these included, as well as DTAC’s moving very fast.

That compression is mainly because I wanted to see how a standard spec throat would do by itself this first time around, which my gentleman smith politely indulged but sure didn’t suggest. The answer seems to be, - just fine with the Berger 90’s, but pretty intrusive with the 95’s, into the powder column at anything over 23.0 of Varget.

I know I could refine the freebore with a throater, but I’m curious about two more things, how quickly the throat erodes by itself so as to reach that same point I’d be starting it at, and also whether I would be giving up much velocity or not by seating them deeper, so as to still allow easy bolt closure, with possibly a little less powder being used. Specifically, I was wondering if by compressing the powder a little if I had to, I could get to the right accuracy and case life velocity (meaning still beneficial drift characteristics, passable group size in the calm, 5 reloads) without the downside of starting the throat at a place where it had a shorter accurate life.

I have a feeling that for several hundred rounds or more I won’t see the possibility of quite reaching that nice MV goal of 2,750, but I’m glad it is accurately attainable. I don’t like to jam bullets, or especially, to grind lugs, so I’ll run slower as necessary on the way up. I hope that if the lands erode to allow me to chase them, not so much for accuracy as for case capacity, that good accuracy potential is still there to be had, at the time. There could be cracking by then.

I haven’t set out to try this approach before, intentionally. I have before gotten a little carried away with a unithroater that I hand turned (I know how that sounds but very slowly, carefully, and centered) on a 7 mm (saum) Krieger that I believed needed it due to pressure signs starting at 3.0 grain lower normal charges. (My story with about 6 5-R sevens that I used consecutively in 3 pairs a few years back is that they were extremely accurate, but apparently tight bored I came to conclude, as I dealt with sporadic jacket failures for a couple of years.) I ended up with a chamber that had about 200 rounds of accurate Berger bullet life before I needed to switch to the longest bodied bullet I had, the Lapua 180.

Anything with a shorter body wouldn’t group. The 180 Scenar is certainly not a bad plan B bullet, but that experience has made me fairly hesitant to lengthen freebores. I worry, what happens when the longest body bullet there is no longer seals the throat. It also has made me wonder what the secret of Weatherby is, with their extremely long throats. They don’t seem to shoot poorly despite throats 2+ times longer that typical for the caliber, to accommodate pressure with their overbore magnums.

 

[LVLAaron]

Friend of mine shoots them in an FTR gun. 270 freebore. 24ish grains of varget. He's a tough competitor.

 

[cmillard]

Davidjoe, have you by chance tried 4320? it is roughly the same burn rate as varget, but the kernels are smaller which can allow for more powder in the case and better compression. When there was a lack of varget years back, I couldn’t get any to run in my 6BR so I gave 4320 a try and have really liked it

 

[Ned Ludd]

FWIW - IMR4320 has been discontinued. If you really like that powder and have a good supply, use it conservatively so it will last.

 

[cmillard]

That is too bad!!

 

[davidjoe]

Powders on the shelves have been just so scarce for months. I looked around Friday for 4895 and no H cans of any kind were available. And not just Hodgedon was absent. Inventory is actually worse now, than anytime this year, or my memory.

Monthly club match shooters are pulling out alternative cartridges and rifles in order to ration all their mainstays.

Although I’m anticipating thick mud, I’m going to try to tiptoe to the stand and throw up a XL pizza box today and try these 23.0 charge Varget 95’s at 600 in post rain calmer breezes.

That’s not much powder, I know. Looking to reach that 24.0 mentioned above as the throat lengthens, or if it doesn’t, trying some different seating dies.

 

[Laurie]

Ned, @Ned Ludd are you still driving these bullets? A few weeks back I built a 6.5 twist 1.25” straight taper Phoenix bipod .223 “Open” rifle with the thought to try these bullets with the advantage of 22 pounds. I don’t believe I had seen this thread at the time but groups like yours above, with no flyers, is the real trick in the .223 F-TR heavy bullet game, right?

Hey, so there are two of us idiots on the planet!

Over here in the UK, 223 sees MUCH less use in F/TR than in the US, in fact at national league level nobody shoots it AFAIK. So, I'm pretty confident I have the only F-Open 223 in the UK.

However, I've chambered it short mainly for 80s, and intend to shoot it as a low recoil fun-gun up to 300 yards, anything further being in the nature of experiment only. (I'm up against a battery of 284s, 7SAUMs and 7WSMs, 300WSM even in 500 yard matches alongside some very hot and heavy bullet 6.5 Creedmoor loads, so even my longstanding and much-loved 7mm-08 Open short-distance rifle is now running uphill and metaphorically wheezing!) Of course, in the UK we pairs shoot. so a very light-recoiling rig offers fewer benefits than to you string-shooters.

 

[Laurie]

I also used LabRadar velocity decrease data in combination with JBM Ballistics to estimate BCs for the 90 VLDs and 95 SMKs, both fired on the same days. The reason I did this was that at the time, the only advertised BC values for the 95s were banded G1 values, which I crudely estimated might mean a G7 BC of around 0.305 or so; or slightly better than the 90 VLDs. In these tests, I came up with average G7 BC estimates for the pointed 90 VLDs of approximately 0.290, a number I have routinely obtained upon multiple outings over several years. The 95 SMKs yielded a G7 BC of ~0.295, which might mean just a tick better than pointed 90s, but more likely is indistinguishable given the LabRadar-based method used to estimate the BCs.

Where are you Bryan Litz / Applied Ballistics when we need you? With all the new bullet models of the last couple of years, Ballistics Performance of Rifle Bullets 3rd edition is already out of date and we need an updated edition. (Bryan doesn't seem to be a Forum member these days as I can't find his old bsl135 name and his external ballistics topic category has also disappeared as far I can see.)

The two real strengths of the 95s are first that they tuned/grouped exceedingly well. Not better in my hands than the 90 VLDs, but at least with equally good precision. The second is that Sierra's jackets are clearly much tougher, as I've never been able to cause jacket failure with the 90/95 SMKs in a barrel that has blown up several 90 VLDs and 88 ELDMs.

Good to know Ned, but I'm a little surprised on the first point, albeit pleasantly surprised. I'd thought that all of Sierra's new model heavyweight MKs were scaled-up or down variants of a single uber-VLD design and in the larger calibres they seem to be absolute beggars to 'tune'. I gave up on the 183gn 0.284 SMK in my 284 and I can't recall many F/TR fans of the 200gn 0.308 either.

 

[davidjoe]

Hey, so there are two of us idiots on the planet!

Over here in the UK, 223 sees MUCH less use in F/TR than in the US, in fact at national league level nobody shoots it AFAIK. So, I'm pretty confident I have the only F-Open 223 in the UK.

However, I've chambered it short mainly for 80s, and intend to shoot it as a low recoil fun-gun up to 300 yards, anything further being in the nature of experiment only. (I'm up against a battery of 284s, 7SAUMs and 7WSMs, 300WSM even in 500 yard matches alongside some very hot and heavy bullet 6.5 Creedmoor loads, so even my longstanding and much-loved 7mm-08 Open short-distance rifle is now running uphill and metaphorically wheezing!) Of course, in the UK we pairs shoot. so a very light-recoiling rig offers fewer benefits than to you string-shooters.

Its rare to see a .223 here, as well. I think the single gun for all distances approach is just too logical. That means the .223 has to nearly equal the .308, so that sheer aesthetics of its handling tips the scales. Every good new .224 is accompanied by née 30’s it seems

Over here the 90 A-Tip .224, representing the high $ end, is a mere 5 cents cheaper than a 190, 230 or 250. The .224 heavies are in a purely cost sense, priced as delicacies, while our appetites for cleans is ravenous and less particular.

The .308 cannot match the powder to bullet weight ratio of the .223 or its ideal .284ish tall column for flattening the spike. That’s baked into the genes. What’s also a fact of natural science is that of identical shapes and materials, the “bigger” caliber version has a higher BC. But the dwindling BC gap between the two makes the saga intriguing!

 

[Ned Ludd]

Good to know Ned, but I'm a little surprised on the first point, albeit pleasantly surprised. I'd thought that all of Sierra's new model heavyweight MKs were scaled-up or down variants of a single uber-VLD design and in the larger calibres they seem to be absolute beggars to 'tune'. I gave up on the 183gn 0.284 SMK in my 284 and I can't recall many F/TR fans of the 200gn 0.308 either.

Laurie - I suspect the reason for this may lie in the design of the 95 SMK, which has a longer bearing surface than does the 90 VLD. In fact, the nose of the 95 SMK almost looks ridiculously short at first glance to someone used to handling the 90 VLDs. However, they shoot very well. In contrast, the 200 SMK appears to have a shorter bearing surface and a relatively long nose as compared to some other bullets in the .30 cal 200 gr weight class. Perhaps the 200 SMK design pushed the concept of long nose/short bearing surface/high BC a little too far, whereas the 95 longer bearing surface of the 95 SMK lends a little greater stability. This is only a guess based upon visual inspection of these bullets as I am not a bullet designer/ballistician by any stretch of the imagination. But it certainly fits with the observed behaviors.

 

[Laurie]

Thanks Ned. Yes, the 284 SMK is all nose and not much bearing surface, so I assumed the 224 95 would be similar. Good to hear otherwise.

It's academic for me really now. My new 223 barrel is 7-twist, so a bit (lot!) slow and I have such a vast collection of 80gn Berger VLDs, Berger 80.5s and the new 85.5 plus four different makes / designs of 90s, I couldn't justify the outlay for yet another and even heavier bullet even if I could chamber and stabilise it.

 

[BP1]

I’m fixing to start playing with the 85.5s for midrange and see how they and myself do with them.

 

[davidjoe]

I saw some really nice results today at 600 yards then 200 yards to finish out a set of bullets but I want to hold off on specifics because I think that fireformed brass will now close the 1.5 grain gap somewhat between the 95’s and 90’s.

Just generally the speaking, the 95’s at 23.0 grains struck about 1.7 moa lower than the 90’s at 24.5 grains, but the vertical and horizontal group size was better, and they didn’t drift any more than the 90’s though clearly going much slower. So much for the calm day idea, the bullets drifted in the wind 2.0+ moa right, 12-15 inches, a lot for this rare north wind day, from a 200 yard zero, and with constant aim points the variance in wind with the 95’s is better than what I’d have expected with a 200 .308.

Since I believe a lot of improvement remains to be had still with up to another grain in the case, I’d rather try that then speak apples to apples results. Already at 23.0 grains though, “below” no pressure signs at all, I’d still pick the 95’s at 600 over the 90’s at 24.5 even if constrained to that cold load. I didn’t repoint these 90’s, but shooting both as they come, I see an real advantage at least on a windy day.

 

[avidflyer]

I saw some really nice results today at 600 yards then 200 yards to finish out a set of bullets but I want to hold off on specifics because I think that fireformed brass will now close the 1.5 grain gap somewhat between the 95’s and 90’s.

Just generally the speaking, the 95’s at 23.0 grains struck about 1.7 moa lower than the 90’s at 24.5 grains, but the vertical and horizontal group size was better, and they didn’t drift any more than the 90’s though clearly going much slower. So much for the calm day idea, the bullets drifted in the wind 2.0+ moa right, 12-15 inches, a lot for this rare north wind day, from a 200 yard zero, and with constant aim points the variance in wind with the 95’s is better than what I’d have expected with a 200 .308.

Since I believe a lot of improvement remains to be had still with up to another grain in the case, I’d rather try that then speak apples to apples results. Already at 23.0 grains though, “below” no pressure signs at all, I’d still pick the 95’s at 600 over the 90’s at 24.5 even if constrained to that cold load. I didn’t repoint these 90’s, but shooting both as they come, I see an real advantage at least on a windy day.

curious what freebore you tried with the 95’s ?

 

[Ned Ludd]

curious what freebore you tried with the 95’s ?

I was using 0.220" fb and although it worked just fine, a little longer would have been more optimal. Somewhere around 0.250"-ish would have been better, maybe even a bit longer, but 0.220" is the longest .223 Rem throat I have.