Will Berger bring out a .224 90gn hybrid?

[DocBII]

Max,

You cannot get enough powder in a straight .223 case to get enough velocity to reach 1k. Hard enough with a .223 and a 26" barrel.

Sorry the .243 stuff strung the thread out.

HTH,
DocBII

 

[Bryan Litz Ballistics]

My opinion,

If you're shooting 80-90 grain bullets in a .223 Rem and want a heavier bullet, you should go to a bigger caliber. I realize the unique role of the .223 Rem in FTR and service rifle applications, but shooters need to realize the inherent limitations of such a small cartridge and caliber. Yes, the .223 can shoot 1000 yards. But physics dictate that larger calibers and cartridges will do it with better ballistic performance.

Let's suppose for a moment that someone finds a way to create a 95 grain .224 bullet with a G7 BC of .330. That means they've found a way to make a bullet with a form factor 10% lower than the lowest drag bullets we have now. If that same design were applied to larger calibers, then the .223 would still be just as far behind as it is now with current bullet choices. Point being, with apples-to-apples comparisons, smaller calibers are simply unable to perform as well as larger calibers. It comes down to the physics of scale.

Having said all that, I'll do my very best to design a .223 bullet that's optimized for long range. Just don't be disappointed when it doesn't shoot inside a .243 or .308 Win when fired from a cartridge with nearly 1/2 the capacity.

Cheers,
-Bryan

 

[Heavy barrel]

So what's wrong with the 90vld? This bullet has worked very well for me at 1000 yards.

 

[Laurie]

Let's suppose for a moment that someone finds a way to create a 95 grain .224 bullet with a G7 BC of .330. That means they've found a way to make a bullet with a form factor 10% lower than the lowest drag bullets we have now. If that same design were applied to larger calibers, then the .223 would still be just as far behind as it is now with current bullet choices. Point being, with apples-to-apples comparisons, smaller calibers are simply unable to perform as well as larger calibers. It comes down to the physics of scale.

Putting the design parameters and their limitations to one side, this is a conclusion I reluctantly came to some three or four years ago. .30 calibre match bullets have seen their efficiency improve, but even so it's required the very long 215 and 230gn Hybrids to match the fantastic 0.911 form factor of the existing 90gn 0.224 VLD. The scope for ballistic improvement had to be more limited for 223 than for 308 where some very good bullets had form factor values at 1 or not a lot below at the time I shot the 223 seriously. With Lapua 'Palma' 308 Win brass appearing and 308 benefitting a lot in MV terms from new propellants, it was pretty obvious that 223 had either plateaued ballistically or was close to doing so whilst 308 would improve.

So, as Bryan says the 223's case capacity limitations ultimately mean it'll play second fiddle at the longest distances to 308 in FTR and TR. It's akin to .284 Win shooters being in contention in and actually winning 1,000 yard F-Open matches but losing out in difficult wind conditions if the ballistic pace is set by the SAUM and WSM shooting same BC bullets at 150-200 fps higher velocities.

There is of course mid-range which narrows ballistic discrepancies, but even here one is still reliant on the wind not being too nasty. We had our first GB F league round the weekend before last, our once a year 'short-range round' with two days of 600 yard matches totalling 75 score shots. Top FTR aggregate scores usually match or barely lag behind Open in this event despite the target having smaller rings than the ICFRA F-Class norm in MOA terms. While blessed with unusually good March weather this year we still saw three different wind conditions over two days, all tricky, and the top FTR score would only have made 12th overall place in 'Open', the FTR runner-up would have been 17th.

 

[Laurie]

Having had the opportunity to run the 90s now for a bit, I'm guessing that with a 32" barrel throated out to about .200" freebore or so, it would be relatively easy to push the 90s in the neighborhood of 3000 fps

.

Running with ~.240 freebore and 31-inches, I found 2,915 fps the limit with the 90gn VLD and 50-75 fps less with the LRBT. That was with Re15. VarGet saw pressure problems 50 fps down and Viht N550 might have produced a bit more velocity, but I could never get the groups small enough with it, or consistently small ES values.

Remember too, this was in the British Isles where 30-deg C air temperatures in the shade are classed as 'heatwave'. Even so, I had to keep the ammo in a cooler bag on the occasional warmer day as Re15 is not nearly as temperature insensitive as its makers claim.

We now have Reload Swiss RS52 here, a high-energy powder with a burning speed close to that of Re15, but with Nitrochemie's patented EI deterrents technology that flattens / extends the early peak curve in the pressure trace - think a faster burning version of Alliant Re17 which is RS52's slower burning sibling in the Nitrochemie Reload Swiss range (RS60 in Europe). I think that'll get MVs up, but not to 3,000, and it's no use anyway if the groups aren't under 0.4-MOA and ES values at 20 or below. There are those on this forum who claim Re17 is badly heat affected. If so, I would expect RS52 to behave similarly, so back to the Re15 problem.

FWIW, I have a friend, GB FTR league champion more than once who's also a 223 fan (but won't ever, never ever, consider it for league shooting) who runs things a wee bit (like LOT) hotter than I ever would. He doesn't like 90s but has had some fantastic long-range scores with the 80.5 Berger at 3,100 fps or so. I was with him load testing one day and he got the lighter bullet to 3,200 fps from 30 inches of barrel. 1-MOA groups and a one shot dump the case sort of load mind you, but run that through an ME calculator and that way over the top load works out at 1,830.85 ft/lb. Convert that to fps with a 90gn bullet and you get 3,026 fps, barely above your target speed.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Right now, the practical trade-off is between shooting the 90 VLD with the higher ballistic coefficient or the 90 SMK with less fiddling with OAL to find an accurate load. A 90 gn hybrid might provide the higher ballistic coefficient with less sensitivity to OAL.

Yes, the .223 Rem will never beat the .308 Win in wind drift at 1000 yards, and it may not be that common in 1000 yard matches at the national level. However, at the local club level, I see about even numbers of .223s and .308s at 600 and 1000 yard matches. Longer barreled, faster twist .223s are becoming more common and an improved 90 grain bullet would likely be very popular.

 

[boltman223]

I agree with the above. I also think an 80 something with a g7 somewhere around .250 would be great! I know I would be happier than a pig in... Mud.

I think everyone wants a bullet to run with 308's at 1000 but, a .250 g7 at 2900 would be awsome at 600. It might be too much of a hindrance at 1000 to win at the national level but, i think we would be surprised what could be done with it. It would be a lot better than my 80 SMK's at 1000 anyways.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

I think everyone wants a bullet to run with 308's at 1000 but, a .250 g7 at 2900 would be awsome at 600. It might be too much of a hindrance at 1000 to win at the national level but, i think we would be surprised what could be done with it. It would be a lot better than my 80 SMK's at 1000 anyways.

I agree. No need to run with the .308 at 1k.

A .250 g7 at 2900 fps would be very competitive at 600 and would likely also see a lot of use in local matches at 1000.

 

[jsthntn247]

The bullets already offered are fine for 600. I'm actually good with the ballistics of the 90 vld except for the fact that I have a .002 seating depth window. The 90 can compete with the 185 juggernaut at all ranges, but not the heavier .30's

 

[Bamban]

The bullets already offered are fine for 600. I'm actually good with the ballistics of the 90 vld except for the fact that I have a .002 seating depth window. The 90 can compete with the 185 juggernaut at all ranges, but not the heavier .30's

How do you control such a small window? I get that much variance in measuring alone, is that 0.002 window with a clean or fouled up barrel?

I am not questioning your input I am trying to learn maybe my measuring process is flawed.

 

[jsthntn247]

The bullets already offered are fine for 600. I'm actually good with the ballistics of the 90 vld except for the fact that I have a .002 seating depth window. The 90 can compete with the 185 juggernaut at all ranges, but not the heavier .30's

How do you control such a small window? I get that much variance in measuring alone, is that 0.002 window with a clean or fouled up barrel?



I am not questioning your input I am trying to learn maybe my measuring process is flawed.

It's tough and time consuming and frankly bout drives me nuts. Hence the reason for really reallly really wanting a 90 hybrid.

 

[dcali]

In my view the need for a better .224" bullet is pretty well unique to High Power service rifle. Bryan's right that there are usually better choices for long range. In F TR, you can use a .308.

But in service rifle, you're shooting an M16 or an M14. The advantage that the M16 has in XC is significant. So a bullet optimized for the m16 (20" barrel) out of a .223 seated longer than mag length would be welcome. Perhaps the existing 80's already fill that need. I don't really know - a lot depends on the internal ballistics and just how fast you can push what weight out of a 20" barrel. But maybe there is a better weight/BC combo for that application.

 

[boltman223]

The bullets already offered are fine for 600. I'm actually good with the ballistics of the 90 vld except for the fact that I have a .002 seating depth window. The 90 can compete with the 185 juggernaut at all ranges, but not the heavier .30's

I think you are replying to my previous post. Yeah, the BC of the 90 vld is great! It just would be nice if it was easier to load. it sounds like a little bit of a sacrifice is going to have to be made for that to happen. I certainly hope not though!

you have to agree something with a higher bc than an 80 smk or 80 vld would be better! And an 80 does have a disadvantage at 600 especially when the winds get blowing and switchy, its quite a noticeable disadvantage! You can take that to the bank.

I'm just after something with a higher BC than an 80vld or smk and easier to load, along with a lot if others I would guess. something with a G7 of .250+/- a few would be enough to make me happy.

 

[RDavies]

The bullets already offered are fine for 600. I'm actually good with the ballistics of the 90 vld except for the fact that I have a .002 seating depth window. The 90 can compete with the 185 juggernaut at all ranges, but not the heavier .30's

How do you control such a small window? I get that much variance in measuring alone, is that 0.002 window with a clean or fouled up barrel?



I am not questioning your input I am trying to learn maybe my measuring process is flawed.

It's tough and time consuming and frankly bout drives me nuts. Hence the reason for really reallly really wanting a 90 hybrid.

I'm looking for an excuse to build a 223 F/TR gun. I think if a new bullet comes out which makes it just that little bit better, I will be tempted into building one to tinker with.

 

[sparker]

Precisely my reason for asking about this weeks earlier. I think it is perfectly possible to make an 80-82 grain bullet with a BC to match or exceed the Sierra 2156 Palma bullet. At that point, shooting a .308 for fullbore is simply burning extra powder and generating about twice the amount of recoil as compared to shooting the .223.

Scott Parker
Bakersfield CA