Hornady 88 ELD

[swimster]

Try a different powder. Your rifle may not like RL22 much. IMR4350 or H4831sc may surprise you.

EDIT: My 22BR shot RL-17 and RL-16 very poorly - ~1" at 300 yards. IMR4350 shoots 0.5" or less at 300. The 88 is not jump sensitive. I found that it liked a little jump though - 0.020"

I tried seating the 88s 5 and 10 in the lands and 10 in seams to be the magic number still using RL22. I have an 7 twist Bartilien on it.

 

[Lance21]

I've blown up Berger 90 VLDs @ ~2850 fps, and the Hornady 88s @ ~2830 fps in this 6.8-twist barrel. 2830 fps in a 6.8-twist barrel translates to ~299.7K RPM, and 2850 fps to ~ 301.8K RPM. In a 7-twist barrel, the RPM values drop to the 291K to 293K range. I don't know if the "straw that broke the camel's back" point lies in between those two ranges, but I do know I've never lost a 90 VLD from a 7.0-twist barrel at the same velocity (2850 fps). Further, I've recently been shooting Sierra 90 SMKs at ~2850 fps and Sierra 95 SMKs at ~2750 fps out of the same out of the 6.8-twist barrel, and not had any jacket issues with either one. So it's hard to say definitively whether the barrel has any issues; however, I'm inclined to doubt it given the lack of any jacket issues with two different Sierra bullets.

There is a lengthy thread on jacket issues with the Hornady ELDM bullets that has led me to suspect contacting them about this issue wouldn't be of much help, but in fairness, I have not tried. I have contacted Berger about the jacket issues with the 90 VLDs on multiple occasions. The take home message was essentially that if I'm going to run them over 300K RPM, all bets are off.

The main consideration with the 95 SMKs and 88 ELDMs is that they have very long bearing surfaces, which require considerable freebore to seat them optimally in a .223 Rem case. The 6.8-twist barrel has 0.220" freebore, which is sufficient, although 0.250" or 0.275" would be even better IMO. My .223 with a 7-twist barrel does not have sufficient freebore to seat either of those bullets optimally. Eventually, I'll replace the 6.8-twist barrel(s) as a 7-twist is sufficient for either one of those bullets. However, the current barrel only has about 1500 rounds through it and I had a second identical barrel chambered when the rifle was built. That is why I've worked up loads with the two Sierra bullets, so that I don't lose the use of that rifle in F-TR competition with the barrels I currently have. If you ever lose a jacket in the middle of a match where you were competing for the win, the confidence level drops to zero pretty quickly.

I generally consider barrels an expendable commodity, but the 6.8-twist barrels are also threaded for a tuner. Collectively, I'd rather not just throw away the cost of half-life barrel and a brand new one if I can find a bullet/load combination that is tolerant of the faster twist rate. Eventually, they'll both be shot out and subsequently replaced with 7-twist barrels having sufficient freebore to load the 88s optimally. Ulitmately, my issues might stem from that specific fast twist barrel I've been using, the velocity I'm pushing these bullets, or might even be a Lot#-specific bullet problem. But it's hard to definitively pinpoint exactly where the problem originates. Nonetheless, as long as I have something else that works, I won't lose the use of the rifle. Eventually, I'd like to shoot those 88s again because except for the jacket failures, I was very pleased with how easily they tuned in and the precision they offered.

Is your bore .218? If so that's your problem in my opinion. Go to a .219.

 

[Tireguy]

Is your bore .218? If so that's your problem in my opinion. Go to a .219.

Agreed.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Is your bore .218? If so that's your problem in my opinion. Go to a .219.

Agreed.

I'm aware of the benefits of a 0.219" bore in terms of minimizing jacket failures. You are both correct, it's a very good fix for the issue. Alternatives include the use of Sierra 90 or 95 gr Matchkings, which have a markedly tougher jacket.

 

[rebel107]

Any more information on the 88gn ELD's? I have 7 twist Kreiger throated for the Berger 90 vld and the 90's group ok out to 500yds @2850fps but losing brass with primer pocket issues. So, I thought maybe the 88's might be worth a try to lower the pressure and group as good as the 90's. I'm using Varget only. Anyone have a suggested seated depth to try the Hornady 88's.

 

[Jdne5b]

Any more information on the 88gn ELD's? I have 7 twist Kreiger throated for the Berger 90 vld and the 90's group ok out to 500yds @2850fps but losing brass with primer pocket issues. So, I thought maybe the 88's might be worth a try to lower the pressure and group as good as the 90's. I'm using Varget only. Anyone have a suggested seated depth to try the Hornady 88's.

the Hornadys need quite a bit more throat than the 90vld. They have a longer bearing surface so they won't lower pressure just by switching. They shoot great, I ran them in something around a .235 freebore and jammed .010.

If you want better brass life, slow that load down (sacrilege I know). 2750-2775 shoots great for me with 90vld and I'm on my 7th loading with Starline 5.56 and haven't lost a case to loose primer pocket yet.

 

[Ned Ludd]

In my hands, there is a very nice node with the 90 VLDs over H4895 at about 2840-2850 fps from a 30" pipe. The 88s over H4895 tuned in just a tick faster, maybe 2875-ish, probably due to the lighter weight. IMO - both loads were running on the same accuracy "node". Both loads were equally hard on brass, maybe 3-4 firings tops, before the primer pockets were gone, some were done after only a couple firings. Both those loads were predicted to be running pressure in the 57.5K psi range according to Quickload, or about 2500 psi over SAAMI MAX of 55K psi for .223 Rem. That prediction fits pretty well with the poor brass life. Unfortunately, that is the cost of running the high node with heavy bullets in .223 Rem. There are various tricks you can try to make things a little better, such as using a longer freebore, a different [tougher] brand of brass, a 32" barrel etc., but you still are not likely to completely get away from the effect of excessive pressure for that cartridge when trying to push heavies at velocities in the mid 2800s or faster. As Jeremy noted, 90 VLDs running at around 2750-2775 fps is an excellent load, but you'll be giving up about 75 fps or so worth of resistance to wind deflection, whatever that is worth. It's not a huge difference, but it's not zero, either, so I get the notion of not wanting to slow a load down and give up any performance at all. Nonetheless, poor brass life and a few bullet jacket failures may sometimes force one to do what they would not do otherwise.

In side-by-side comparisons using LabRadar velocity drop data, the 88s were actually predicted to have a slightly higher BC than the 90 VLDs, although Hornady's advertised value is slightly lower. There is the caveat regarding accuracy of BCs predicted using velocity drop measured over such a short distance, but by my thinking, a side-by-side direct comparison of two bullets ought to produce a reasonably fair estimate. I found the 88s to be have extremely uniform OAL measurements straight out of the box. In fact, all the bullets I've measured and fired from one particular Lot# of the 88s had an OAL variance of .0015", which is much better than any other lead-core bullet I've ever used. The main issue I had with the 88s was jacket failures from a 0.218" bore barrel. The same barrel also blew up a few 90 VLDs, to the point that I simply couldn't trust using it in matches any longer. As has been noted by others, going to a 0.219" bore should largely solve the issue of jacket failure. However, that won't solve the poor brass life issue for anyone that wants to run the high node velocities (i.e. 2850+ fps). I am currently having a couple 0.219" bore barrels chambered for that rifle, and will return to testing/using the 88s when it is finished.

I have spent some time and effort looking into alternative brands of .223 Rem brass to Lapua, which I know from many thousands of cases won't stand the pressure of loads at the high node for very long. There are certainly brands of brass that have markedly thicker casehead/webbing than does Lapua, and therefore will likely take the pressure a bit better. Lake City and Starline are among the other brands that I have tried. The problem is that neither provided accuracy/precision equal to what I could obtain using Lapua brass, and both required far more effort up front to render them acceptable (to me) for use in matches, particularly in terms of prepping the flashholes and primer pockets, and attempting to cull out cases with excessively non-uniform case wall thickness. So even thought they may stand up to high pressure a bit better than Lapua and provide a few more firings before the primer pockets give up, you're not really getting away with anything as considerably more effort will be involved in the initial brass prep. Perhaps there is a brand of .223 Rem brass out there that has the precision/accuracy I have come to expect from Lapua, but with a thicker casehead/webbing so as to better withstand the high pressure. I have not found it yet, but I'm always looking. I think the bottom line is that we're really asking a LOT of the .223 Rem case to drive heavy bullets at such velocities. One can either accept the poor brass life usually obtained with Lapua brass when running the high node, look for a suitable [and equal] replacement, which may or may not actually exist, or slow the load down a bit and accept the slight increase in wind deflection.

 

[CADDIE5]

What barrel maker offering 0.219" bore barrels. I know Brux doesn't. Thanks

 

[Ray123]

Run the numbers yourself here:

https://bergerbullets.com/twist-rate-calculator/

It will give you a better feel for the minimum twist rate necessary at your specific elevation and atmospheric conditions. OAL for the 88s is ~1.240" and the average G7 BC in my hands is ~0.300.

Nope, not according to Berger stability twist rate chart. Not even at 4000 feet and 80 degrees. Elevation being the largest variable. You only get to 1.3 and ya need at least 1.5 on the chart. They say it may be able to shoot good groups at short range but it's not stable, and a significant loss of BC will occur. The box of 88 eldm I have say 7 twist. I shoot them in a 6.5 twist.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Nope, not according to Berger stability twist rate chart. Not even at 4000 feet and 80 degrees. Elevation being the largest variable. You only get to 1.3 and ya need at least 1.5 on the chart. They say it may be able to shoot good groups at short range but it's not stable, and a significant loss of BC will occur. The box of 88 eldm I have say 7 twist. I shoot them in a 6.5 twist.

Maybe you should look into the concept of gyroscopic stability a little deeper than you apparently have. I've shot many of the 88s out of a 6.8-twist barrel. Other than the jacket failures, they were fine. They shot well and they were not even remotely close to being gyroscopically unstable.

So exactly where is it written that an Sg of 1.5 is the minimum? That actually came from Bryan Litz. However, for some time prior to using 1.5 as the current "minimum" acceptable Sg for "full stability and BC", the minimum necessary Sg he touted was 1.4. So which is it? 1.4? 1.5? Maybe next month it will be 1.6. The fact of the matter is that bullets running at an Sg of 1.4, or even as low as 1.25 to 1.30 don't just fall out of the sky. Nor are they gyroscopically "unstable". They merely behave as if the BC is a bit lower than it actually is. Maybe you're unaware of this fact, but the gyroscopic stability of a bullet actually increases as it goes downrange because the linear velocity falls off much faster than the rotational velocity. Thus, the bullet gyroscopic stability actually increases throughout its super-sonic trajectory. Unless someone were running the 88s out of a short barrel at a velocity of only 2570 fps (or less), they would still retain an Sg of 1.40, which is more than sufficient for reasonable performance, exactly as I stated. Even Hornady suggests that a 1:7 twist is sufficient. In fact, their minimum recommended twist rate for the 88s is...wait for it...1:7. Do you really think they would recommend a twist rate that was grossly insufficient as you seem to be implying?

BTW - below is the actual output from Berger's Twist Rate Calculator for the 88 ELDM using G7 BC = 0.300, OAL = 1.245", 2850 fps, 7-twist, 70 degrees F, and 1000 ft elevation as the inputs. It seems a bit different that what you claimed. In fairness, Berger's Twist Rate Calculator does not have an input for ballistics tips, which the 88 has. But that's really a moot point because if you use a twist rate stability calculators such as JBM, which does have a ballistic tip input, the predicted Sg only gets higher.

 

[Tireguy]

What barrel maker offering 0.219" bore barrels. I know Brux doesn't. Thanks

Bartlein does.

 

[Jdne5b]

I use Bartlein .219, but this is straight from Bruxs website. Unless their order form is incorrect it appears they do.

 

[Ned Ludd]

What barrel maker offering 0.219" bore barrels. I know Brux doesn't. Thanks

As Jeremy already noted, Bartlien does. I believe they refer to the 0.219 bore barrels as their "5.56 cal barrels". I have only used Bartlein, so you'd need to call anyone else directly and ask.

 

[Stumpy1]

When last I talked with Norm, he won't do a fast twist (less than 8") in a 0.219 bore for 22CF.

That is the way it is on the website as well.

Frank

 

[Jdne5b]

Hawk Hill lists .218 and .219
Muller Works, Shilen, Rock Creek don’t list bore sizes online. Pretty sure Krieger is only .218 also.

 

[Ray123]

Maybe you should look into the concept of gyroscopic stability a little deeper than you apparently have. I've shot many of the 88s out of a 6.8-twist barrel. Other than the jacket failures, they were fine. They shot well and they were not even remotely close to being gyroscopically unstable.

So exactly where is it written that an Sg of 1.5 is the minimum? That actually came from Bryan Litz. However, for some time prior to using 1.5 as the current "minimum" acceptable Sg for "full stability and BC", the minimum necessary Sg he touted was 1.4. So which is it? 1.4? 1.5? Maybe next month it will be 1.6. The fact of the matter is that bullets running at an Sg of 1.4, or even as low as 1.25 to 1.30 don't just fall out of the sky. Nor are they gyroscopically "unstable". They merely behave as if the BC is a bit lower than it actually is. Maybe you're unaware of this fact, but the gyroscopic stability of a bullet actually increases as it goes downrange because the linear velocity falls off much faster than the rotational velocity. Thus, the bullet gyroscopic stability actually increases throughout its super-sonic trajectory. Unless someone were running the 88s out of a short barrel at a velocity of only 2570 fps (or less), they would still retain an Sg of 1.40, which is more than sufficient for reasonable performance, exactly as I stated. Even Hornady suggests that a 1:7 twist is sufficient. In fact, their minimum recommended twist rate for the 88s is...wait for it...1:7. Do you really think they would recommend a twist rate that was grossly insufficient as you seem to be implying?

BTW - below is the actual output from Berger's Twist Rate Calculator for the 88 ELDM using G7 BC = 0.300, OAL = 1.245", 2850 fps, 7-twist, 70 degrees F, and 1000 ft elevation as the inputs. It seems a bit different that what you claimed. In fairness, Berger's Twist Rate Calculator does not have an input for ballistics tips, which the 88 has. But that's really a moot point because if you use a twist rate stability calculators such as JBM, which does have a ballistic tip input, the predicted Sg only gets higher.

What's your point? I've shot 88s out of a 6.5 twist you shot them out of a 6.8 twist...both worked and appeared stable to us, and are both faster twist than required by Hornady...so they should work. I not arguing the numbers of the experts, but they have radar, and rocket science educations to back them up, even if the recommendation varies slightly... so I'd try to get the best BC out of their products as possible, and use the twist they recommend, or faster for their bullets, and the twist rate stability calculators should help in that estimation, but it doesn't seem prudent to go below the recommendation, and loose the BC you're trying to achieve in the first place.

 

[Lance21]

I'm kind of surprised you're having bullet failure with a 6.8tw at only 2830. Unless something is wrong with your barrel, and I'm not suggesting there is, that doesn't say much for the construction of those Hornady 88's and is not only surprising they're coming apart, but concerning as well.

Have you talked to Hornady about them coming apart on you at such a slow velocity? That's a little less than 300,000 rpm and I'd think they would hold together at that rpm. I'm spinning the 80gr ELD-M almost 330,000rpm from my 28in Krieger 8tw and they aren't coming apart.

My guess is concerning bullet failure it's the bore size. .218 fast twist will pop bullets a LOT more than a .219 bore.

 

[Ned Ludd]

What's your point? I've shot 88s out of a 6.5 twist you shot them out of a 6.8 twist...both worked and appeared stable to us, and are both faster twist than required by Hornady...so they should work. I not arguing the numbers of the experts, but they have radar, and rocket science educations to back them up, even if the recommendation varies slightly... so I'd try to get the best BC out of their products as possible, and use the twist they recommend, or faster for their bullets, and the twist rate stability calculators should help in that estimation, but it doesn't seem prudent to go below the recommendation, and loose the BC you're trying to achieve in the first place.

My point is simply that all I said was that a 7-twist is plenty. You quoted my post and said, "Nope", as if that statement was somehow wrong and then provided some hokey Sg numbers that you got from I don't know where. Except a 7-twist IS plenty, exactly as I stated, exactly as Berger's Twist rate calculator suggests, and exactly as the manufacturer recommends as the minimum twist rate necessary to stabilize the 88s.

Sure, you can run a faster twist rate than 7. Unfortunately, that also increases the risk of jacket failure as the twist rate increases, something that I know from personal experience is far worse than giving up 2% percent of the intrinsic BC, a value so small most shooters would never even notice the difference.

 

[Ray123]

I agree a 7 twist is plenty according to the sticker on the box of bullets, and said that... so I didn't understand what your point was, because we are both running stabilizing twist rates ... we actually agree that a 7 twist is recommended. I run the 88s in a 6.5 twist, not needed but I generally run 95 gr SMK, not 88 gr.
The "Nope" was for the 8 twist, at the beginning of this discussion...not a 7 twist ....and that's NOT according to me, but according to the Berger twist rate calculator recommendation. So I was exploring the 8 twist and reporting on the recommendation for that twist...and it was not sufficient according to them... but those who want to run em in an 8 twist are certainly welcome to do so. ...So if your shooting a 7 twist we were not on the same page, as I was discussing the 8 twist recommendations.
7 twist is good to go according to the bullet maker and the twist calculator, and most everyone probably would agree.

 

[urbanrifleman]

My 8 twist 22xc shoots the crap out of the 88s.