Varget for short barreled .223?

[precision.riflecraft]

I'm a novice handloader and powders are among the harder things to wrap my head around. Because I shoot in a wide range of conditions, I like Hodgdon Extreme powders for their temperature insensitivity.

I understand that Varget works well for heavier bullets in .223 loads, but how about shorter barrels? I have a 16" 5.56 boltgun with a 1:8 twist, and I'm planning to work up a load with 73 or 75 gr ELD-Ms.

Thanks guys!

 

[RegionRat]

The burn efficiency of powders like Varget even in a 20” barrel still leaves some unburned powder. So, if you like Varget for heavies in typical >20 inch barrels, you would probably still like it in 16” barrels.

You may find something that works better at one temperature or another with a different powder, but it is hard to argue with the temp stability of Varget when you shoot year round.

 

[NZ_Fclass]

IMR8208 or Benchmark would be better is a short barrel. If you are concerned with temperature, 8208 is used by the Australian military for 223.

 

[cem]

There is no cross-over point where powders change rank ordering for performance as barrels get shorter. That is what works better in longer barrels will still perform in shorter barrels. All the powder that's going to burn does so within the first few inches. The notion that shorter barrels need faster powders is a logical notion but also a myth. That said Varget would not be the first powder I tried for the loads listed though maybe not the last either.

 

[drop_point]

16" is not a short barrel per se. Varget will be fine in a 16". Other powders besides Varget perform better in my experience.

 

[sandwarrior]

AR or Bolt gun? Non-issue with bolt gun and heavies, or for that matter AR and heavies. But, for 'not so heavies' in an AR the gas coming back will want to start opening the bolt a little early. This will be noted by 'swipe' on the case head.

That said, I use Varget on 75's and 77's in a 16" AR barrel. No swipe really noted, but I do have spent cases that don't rechamber fully or don't extract if they do go in.

It's not really a big issue, you just have to ensure that you are fully resizing your cases. Nothing worse than going to the range and some (a bunch) of your reloaded cartridges don't go in. A slight camover should be all you need.

Caveat with the above: If you are using carbide dies, as many do with high volume and range brass, set the die to minimal if not any camover. You can crack the inner surface of these dies. They are great for wear, but the hardness can make them brittle.

All the above said, if you are using a bolt gun and it's for extreme accuracy, a bushing type die will work best for accuracy. You run into problems using one for an AR.

8208 and 4895 are excellent AR powders for 16" barrels.

 

[Ned Ludd]

It's not like Varget won't work, it will. But there are perhaps some slightly better choices for that setup, mainly that Varget is a little slower than would be optimal. If you have [access to] some, I'd start with H4895. You might even find a slightly faster powder such as H322 might work well. However, if Varget is the powder you have in hand, have at it, it will do the job.

 

[grovey]

I've never owned a chrono, but according to the posted .223 data on Hodgdon's website Varget doesn't give up much if any velocity to any of the faster burning powders in the extreme line in that bullet wt range. It appears that the faster burn rate powders do allow you to get away from running compressed loads at the upper end of pressure though. That's a plus "atleast in my eyes", but I'd like to hear the reasoning from the above posters as to why there are better choices. Besides availability of course. I've never gotten the accuracy with H4895 that I have with Varget in any of the .223's I've tried it in.

 

[Topstrap]

A buddy and I both use Varget with 80s and 88gr bullets in our 15 7/8" 223 pistol barrels at local 1000 yard matches. We're using 7 twist barrels on our pistols, I'm getting 2700fps with the 80s and can't remember what the 88s did. Maybe Randy will chime in with his 88gr velocities. They really shoot good even to 1000 yards, just have to add a few extra clicks over our rifles to get there.

Topstrap

 

[D-4297]

You might also consider VV N-530 . Has a very good reputation in .223's with lighter bullets and in the burn range of 4895 , and slightly quicker than Varget .

 

[Bottom Fodder]

I’m running H322 in a 16” 1/7 with 80gr. If you have it try it ‍

 

[tsyarnall]

The nice thing about the .223 is that many powders will work well with that cartridge and a given bullet weight.

 

[Falfan2017]

It’ll never work I’ll take the varget off your hands and dispose of it properly.

 

[sandwarrior]

I've never owned a chrono, but according to the posted .223 data on Hodgdon's website Varget doesn't give up much if any velocity to any of the faster burning powders in the extreme line in that bullet wt range. It appears that the faster burn rate powders does allow you to get away from running compressed loads at the upper end of pressure though. That's a plus "atleast in my eyes", but I'd like to hear the reasoning from the above posters as to why there are better choices. Besides availability of course. I've never gotten the accuracy with H4895 that I have with Varget in any of the .223's I've tried it in.

Because, the slower the powder, the longer it burns down the barrel. That means more pressure at the port. Which in turn means too much gas getting back to the BCG and causing it to open early.

Better powders are ones that burn slightly faster than Varget, reducing the issue. If not all but eliminating it.

Added: H4895 is an extremely accurate powder. Tom Mousel shot his best group with it at Deep Creek, outside of Missoula. Probably the most versatile powder out there. It may just take some fiddling to get it to shoot better in your rifle. I have always had good accuracy with it.

 

[grovey]

Because, the slower the powder, the longer it burns down the barrel. That means more pressure at the port. Which in turn means too much gas getting back to the BCG and causing it to open early.

Better powders are ones that burn slightly faster than Varget, reducing the issue. If not all but eliminating it.

Added: H4895 is an extremely accurate powder. Tom Mousel shot his best group with it at Deep Creek, outside of Missoula. Probably the most versatile powder out there. It may just take some fiddling to get it to shoot better in your rifle. I have always had good accuracy with it.

I'm not sure any of that applies in this situation.

 

[K22]

I've used Varget in a couple of 223 Rem Model 7's with 18- and 20-inch barrels in varying temperature conditions with both 50 and 55 grain bullets, i.e., summer varmint hunting and winter predator hunting. It shot very good for me.

I switched to H4895 about 2 years ago only because I couldn't get any Varget and was able to get H4895 in an 8 lbs. keg. It shot very good too - no difference that I could detect regarding performance once I developed a load for this powder.

I do believe that "stick" powders are a better choice than ball powders if you plan to shoot in significantly different temperatures, at least that's been my experience.

 

[Ned Ludd]

From the OP...I have a 16" 5.56 boltgun...

Grovey - as to why H4895 over Varget: I have used both for many years in .223 Rem F-TR loads with 88-95 gr bullets. In my hands, Varget has never come close to the precision I can get with H4895. Others may have had a different experience, but I have observed the same trend over a number of years. Second, with a slightly lighter bullet (i.e. 77 gr), powders in the burn rate range of H4895 to slightly faster should be well-suited to the task. It's important to point out that I am in no way bashing Varget. In my .308 loads, I don't use anything but Varget. Nonetheless, Varget would absolutely work in the OPs specific situation, so we're really slitting hairs when we talk about "slightly" faster powders than Varget being optimal.

Also in my hands, H4895 typically tunes in at around 25 fps or so faster with heavy bullets than a comparable Varget load in .223 Rem. Likewise, IMR4895 tunes in at around 20-25 fps faster than H4895 in comparable loads. Does 25 fps really make a difference? I would argue that for most shooters, a 25 fps difference would be way down in the noise. Unless you're really pushing the upper end of the envelope, ~25 fps just isn't enough difference in velocity to make a strong argument either way. However, the velocity difference may be larger with the OP's 16" barrel. Regardless, unless the OP is planning on trying to hit the highest node possible at safe operating pressure, the minor difference in velocity won't mean much.

Finally, kernels of H4895 are noticeably finer than kernels of Varget. Obtaining optimally low ES/SD values is sufficiently difficult in the .223 Rem case, largely due to its small capacity, that some may find the slightly smaller kernels of H4895 a little easier to precisely meter than Varget. Again, none of these issues/differences between Varget and H4895 should be a deal-breaker. Either one will work just fine. But if I was in the OPs position and had both powders on hand, I would reach for the H4895 first. If all I had was Varget, I would use it without a second thought.

 

[grovey]

Grovey - as to why H4895 over Varget: I have used both for many years in .223 Rem F-TR loads with 88-95 gr bullets. In my hands, Varget has never come close to the precision I can get with H4895. Others may have had a different experience, but I have observed the same trend over a number of years. Second, with a slightly lighter bullet (i.e. 77 gr), powders in the burn rate range of H4895 to slightly faster should be well-suited to the task. It's important to point out that I am in no way bashing Varget. In my .308 loads, I don't use anything but Varget. Nonetheless, Varget would absolutely work in the OPs specific situation, so we're really slitting hairs when we talk about "slightly" faster powders than Varget being optimal.

Also in my hands, H4895 typically tunes in at around 25 fps or so faster with heavy bullets than a comparable Varget load in .223 Rem. Likewise, IMR4895 tunes in at around 20-25 fps faster than H4895 in comparable loads. Does 25 fps really make a difference? I would argue that for most shooters, a 25 fps difference would be way down in the noise. Unless you're really pushing the upper end of the envelope, ~25 fps just isn't enough difference in velocity to make a strong argument either way. However, the velocity difference may be larger with the OP's 16" barrel. Regardless, unless the OP is planning on trying to hit the highest node possible at safe operating pressure, the minor difference in velocity won't mean much.

Finally, kernels of H4895 are noticeably finer than kernels of Varget. Obtaining optimally low ES/SD values is sufficiently difficult in the .223 Rem case, largely due to its small capacity, that some may find the slightly smaller kernels of H4895 a little easier to precisely meter than Varget. Again, none of these issues/differences between Varget and H4895 should be a deal-breaker. Either one will work just fine. But if I was in the OPs position and had both powders on hand, I would reach for the H4895 first. If all I had was Varget, I would use it without a second thought.

Well said! Always solid .223 info from you Ned. Splitting hairs we are. It could be a little like your favorite color or pattern of fishing lure. The one that works best for you gives you more confidence in it.