• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Sierra sixth edition load data

DLT

Silver $$ Contributor
I’m no idiot but far from the sharper side of things. I have been breezing through load data for 223 in my manual and I don’t know if Sierra screwed up or if there is a valid reason for what they published. This is concerning their data for gas guns with a 20” barrel vs a bolt gun with a 24” barrel. Why under a few bullets do they list way higher charges for the ar15 when we know they can’t run pressures a bolt gun does

378E8CE3-EB67-49A2-9566-743F65B70FDA.jpeg


1D5D9A3B-F7B6-4698-B315-87CD73226FD0.jpeg

Top two pictures show 50gr for gas gun vs bolt . Next two are for the 69gr class

0B22A64D-E94E-4FBA-9DB4-DB4FB2B6B9F6.jpeg67254651-901C-4D16-B32B-690700078216.jpeg
 
Which loads specifically look too high to you?
For the 69 grain bullets, the max loads they show for TAC, 8208, 2520 and 2460 all look fine to me.
In either a 556 or Wylde chamber, I've used 25.7 of 2520 with no pressure signs; GRT shows it well below max pressure.
 
The data for bolt guns was redone for the 6th edition and performed using SAAMI testing as opposed to their previous methods. The AR loads are the same as the 5th Edition and developed in an actual rifle not a SAAMI test fixture.

Does it make a difference. For a 55gr bullet the 5th Edition load for H335 was 27.5 gr and the 6th Edition is 24.9 gr.
 
Which loads specifically look too high to you?
For the 69 grain bullets, the max loads they show for TAC, 8208, 2520 and 2460 all look fine to me.
In either a 556 or Wylde chamber, I've used 25.7 of 2520 with no pressure signs; GRT shows it well below max pressure.
None look to high to be but why would the max grains for varget in the 69gr in particular be lower for their bolt gun vs the gas ? Look at the 50gr h335 in gas they list 26.4, bolt gun its 25.1 totally bass akwards lol. Pretty big difference
 
Hmm. Don't know.
Sierra tech line is usually pretty good. Maybe a good question for them.
I have talked to them before over the bc they lists for some of their bullets. The guy I talked to sure did not impress me much. Hold on……..
BC5C50BD-3249-481F-A14E-84E8E0037BC2.png

I talked to them last year about this. Would you not think somebody would address it ? Shouldn’t bc be higher the faster travels ? I can’t be the only nutcase to notice. It’s like that for a couple of their bullets. I don’t want to rant on them. But I know it’s been brought up in the past
 
The more you thumb through various manuals, or different companies manuals, the more cloudy the picture.

Start low, work all the way up until you see pressure, outlandish velocity, and/or groups clearly deteriorating. What ever charge that may be, is max + X . That Is all that matters to you.

Its weak actions and lever actions where you need to be very careful, and somewhat conservative, or you may loosen your rifle up.
 
The more you thumb through various manuals, or different companies manuals, the more cloudy the picture.

Start low, work all the way up until you see pressure, outlandish velocity, and/or groups clearly deteriorating. What ever charge that may be, is max + X . That Is all that matters to you.

Its weak actions and lever actions where you need to be very careful, and somewhat conservative, or you may loosen your rifle up.
Correct I’m not concerned with finding max. I just didn’t know why the big difference in my manual if there was any reason behind it
 
Folks, to the first order, pressure and velocity are coupled, but not one for one between different guns.

Now we add the concept that the powders, primers, brass, and bullets also have some variations over time, and we have some scatter between the versions of the books based on those combinations.

For example in a given rifle you could expect that if a pressure went up, so did the speed. However, pull a different rifle off the rack and the fundamentals stay the same but the pressure plot changes even if it is ammo from the identical batch.

Since force, acceleration, pressure, and velocity are all related in basic terms, we have to remember that the velocity results from an integration of the pressure over time. So think of it like the area under the pressure curve.

Two different barrels of the same caliber, but different chamber designs and lengths, can run the same ammo safely enough, but the two can give significantly different velocities because their pressure curves were slightly different.

As a result.... Any generation or revision of their ammo manuals can be different based on the test barrels and what the barrels, bullets, powders, etc., are doing at that era.

Now that we have said the above.... the tolerance and noise in pressure plots and the difference in velocities between guns is not tight enough to say your barrel will exactly track their data even if it is the same length.

That said, if you are following good practice with respect to safety, and not playing at the high end of pressure, your safety margin should still keep you in the green zone with the majority of guns and the recipes from load manuals.

Between high quality service rifle barrels and all the variations of the junk out there, and the differences in sporter barrels and hunting guns, then the the high quality match guns, the same ammo will show a wide variation in speed (pressure). If by magic you could test some of the ammo from a different era in those same guns, would you be that surprised if the velocity was different?

We load military ammo to specification using bulk propellants that must be adjusted by the batch. It still has to stay within pressure limits, but the charges can be adjusted to match the speed requirements within those limits. In those contexts, the standardization of the rifles is a big part of the picture.

When starting into strange territory with loading, try to keep all that scatter in mind. Try to reference as many different manuals/sources as you can and pay attention to the basic differences in their test methods if they list them.

There are differences between habits of the different manuals that range from test machines to actual commercial rifles. Don't be too upset if your rifle doesn't exactly track their data, but also be on the watch for signs of trouble. When we load the ammo, it is our responsibility to own the results.
 
Folks, to the first order, pressure and velocity are coupled, but not one for one between different guns.

Now we add the concept that the powders, primers, brass, and bullets also have some variations over time, and we have some scatter between the versions of the books based on those combinations.

For example in a given rifle you could expect that if a pressure went up, so did the speed. However, pull a different rifle off the rack and the fundamentals stay the same but the pressure plot changes even if it is ammo from the identical batch.

Since force, acceleration, pressure, and velocity are all related in basic terms, we have to remember that the velocity results from an integration of the pressure over time. So think of it like the area under the pressure curve.

Two different barrels of the same caliber, but different chamber designs and lengths, can run the same ammo safely enough, but the two can give significantly different velocities because their pressure curves were slightly different.

As a result.... Any generation or revision of their ammo manuals can be different based on the test barrels and what the barrels, bullets, powders, etc., are doing at that era.

Now that we have said the above.... the tolerance and noise in pressure plots and the difference in velocities between guns is not tight enough to say your barrel will exactly track their data even if it is the same length.

That said, if you are following good practice with respect to safety, and not playing at the high end of pressure, your safety margin should still keep you in the green zone with the majority of guns and the recipes from load manuals.

Between high quality service rifle barrels and all the variations of the junk out there, and the differences in sporter barrels and hunting guns, then the the high quality match guns, the same ammo will show a wide variation in speed (pressure). If by magic you could test some of the ammo from a different era in those same guns, would you be that surprised if the velocity was different?

We load military ammo to specification using bulk propellants that must be adjusted by the batch. It still has to stay within pressure limits, but the charges can be adjusted to match the speed requirements within those limits. In those contexts, the standardization of the rifles is a big part of the picture.

When starting into strange territory with loading, try to keep all that scatter in mind. Try to reference as many different manuals/sources as you can and pay attention to the basic differences in their test methods if they list them.

There are differences between habits of the different manuals that range from test machines to actual commercial rifles. Don't be too upset if your rifle doesn't exactly track their data, but also be on the watch for signs of trouble. When we load the ammo, it is our responsibility to own the results.
I know that, im sure many many on here knows that. It’s good that we need to remind ourselves once in a while not all data is the same nor is all rifles, chambers, lots of powder is the same. It however does not explain to me why sierras data in their own book has such a huge difference.
 
I'll repeat: The data for bolt guns was redone for the 6th edition and performed using SAAMI testing as opposed to their previous methods. The AR loads are the same as the 5th Edition and developed in an actual rifle not a SAAMI test fixture.

The 5th edition bolt gun data was obtained from a Rem 600 with a 1 in 14 barrel. The level of instrumentation was not given. Someone with the full 5th edition may be able to help here. The 6th Edition data for 223 Bolt is based on SAAMI test methods using a Universal Receiver and Test Barrel instrumented per SAAMI. The AR data was taken on a Colt HBR. It is not clear what methods were used to determine the Maximum loads for versions prior to the 6th Edition. May manufactures originally tested loads and set max loads based on looking for pressure signs on the brass just as reloaders do. If this was the method used for the AR it's likely the pressures are over SAAMI maximum.

Load manuals get updated primarily to add new powders/bullets and most of the data doesn't change from one version to another. Sierra did a major change for the 6th Edition for certain caliber/cartridges.
 
The 6th Edition data for 223 Bolt is based on SAAMI test methods using a Universal Receiver and Test Barrel instrumented per SAAMI. The AR data was taken on a Colt HBR.

Yes, exactly this. Chamber form (in particular freebore length and leade angle aspects) makes a large difference to 223 Rem loads and the two Sierra test-vehicles are apparently markedly different in this respect. Unfortunately few manuals make any mention of 223 chamber differences, the new Lyman 51st edition being an exception. With so many variations now in use in 223, testers and manual compilers are in a difficult position of course, so they likely use the industry norm SAAMI dimensions for their pressure barrels with its very short freebore. I say 'likely' because with the sole exception of Lyman, they don't tell us what chamber their test loads were chambered in.

As far as I can see the Colt AR-15 HBar competition rifle barrel and chamber in Sierra's Gas Gun tables have a very long freebore indeed as the quoted COAL for the 80gn Sierra MK is 2.550", no less than 290 thou' longer than the SAAMI 2.260" maximum. When I ran a 'modified Wylde' chambered AR some years back (modified in that it had a few more thou' freebore than the normal Wylde), 2.440" COAL was my 80 SMK max before being jammed into the lands, and as I understand it, the true 5.56 NATO chamber has no more freebore than the Wylde variant, at least insofar as commercial reamer providers' drawings show, so Sierra's gas-gun loads appear to be based on a 5.56 Plus chamber.

@DLT to get a perspective on the importance of this matter and just how much chambers can actually vary between extremes, do a search on 223 Rem FTR rifle chambers and loads on this forum and in particular posts by @Ned Ludd on his barrels. The starting point for FTR 223 rifles shooting heavies (>80gn) match bullets is the PT&G '223 Rem ISSF Chamber' which has 0.169" freebore length compared to the SAAMI chamber likely used in Sierra's 'Bolt Gun' tables which will have 0.025" as well as a much shorter, sharper leade (transition) into the lands. However, 169 thou' is the starter for 10 in 223 uber-heavy bullet and freebores approaching or even exceeding 200 thou' are in use. The point is that long, heavy bullets being loaded for specialised purposes simply cannot be loaded into a 223 case at any COAL and still function in the SAAMI chamber. Moreover, the powder charges being used in these super-long freebore chambers are way above those quoted as maxima in powder and bullet manufacturers' tables. Because the Colt AR-15A2 HBar used in the Sierra gas gun uses a chamber designed to accept the 80gn SMK at its optimal position in the case thereby arriving at a 2.550" COAL, it is anything but SAAMI and comparing the two is an apples v pears job.


There is some very interesting and useful material here on SAAMI v the rest and the difference it makes:

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/5-...mmunition are,in certain critical areas than .

in particular if you scroll down to the section on chambers and look at different chamber forms' dimensions as provided by some US reamer makers.

Unfortunately, Sierra makes none of this clear in its notes to its loads, in fact makes no mention of it at all. The generic bolt v gas distinction is a nonsense too in that 'gas-guns' can be (and are) built with a wide range of chambers kicking off with standard SAAMI for those who want to shoot short 50-55gn pattern bullets only at paper or varmints up to those seeking to participate in High-Power XTC matches shooting 69/77gn bullets at magazine length plus 80gn class models single loaded for the slowfire 600 yards stage. Sierra's 'Gas Gun Data' is as far as I can see loads for one particular AR-15 model, not gas-guns generically.

I would expect the specialist AR15 forums and tactical equivalents such as SnipersHide to have beaten this topic to death and have 'pinned' threads on the varieties of chamber forms, but have never bothered to research these sources since my interest in the cartridge is in custom long-range bolt-action rifles.
 
You are probably right. Because I do not have a lot of experience. But I call 2.5 grains difference in a 223 with the same bullet and same powder, same length COAL. a huge difference. Thanks @Laurie and @Doom for explaining it so my pea brain could grasp it.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,011
Messages
2,187,708
Members
78,620
Latest member
Halfdeadhunter
Back
Top