Differences in manuals .222mag

Reloading equipment, methods, load data, powder and projectile information.

Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 8:51 am

More of an awareness for others to check loads but I know a lot of people won't even have one of these cartridges, but I loaded some tests in anticipation of my new arrival, I've always just gone with the ADI manual as I have never had anything else. So ADI states max load of 2206H is 28 grains for 55gr soft points I am using, ok no worries, OCW testing so worked out the loads I was going to develop, dropped in first load (started at the max i was going to load) case overfilled, hmmm ok check scales check ADI again, yep ok re zero scale and try again. Same thing, then it clicked I have a Hornady loading manual in the cupboard, so i grabbed it out and noticed max of H4895 which is the equivalent is only 26 grains. re calculated test loads and loaded no problems. Now I got paranoid and rechecked all my cartridges I load for and the they are all relatively close enough for me to be happy with, nosler have data online for free as well and it concurs with Hornady.

I am now also worried about the brother in laws rifle as ADI stated that 26 grains of 2206H is max for .223 with the 55 grainers and he runs 25.5gr which is 102% case capacity according to the other 2 manuals. no wonder she has a nice crack!

Cheers
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by straightshooter » 02 Jan 2020, 10:47 am

Can you be certain that you haven't confused the data for 222 Rem and 222 Rem Magnum?
That's what it look like to me.
"Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."
"There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking." Sir Joshua Reynolds
straightshooter
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1263
New South Wales

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 11:15 am

straightshooter wrote:Can you be certain that you haven't confused the data for 222 Rem and 222 Rem Magnum?
That's what it look like to me.


.222rem never came into the scenario? So yes I can be certain. I have 2 .222's as well I load for. they don't close to 26 or 28 grains in any manual.
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by SCJ429 » 02 Jan 2020, 2:00 pm

Have you got yourself a long drop tube? Trickle the powder in slowly and do a bit of tapping to get the powder to settle. Can you seat the bullet longer to give you more space to work with?

Start at 25.5 grains and work your way up until you run out of space. Shoot them until you see pressure signs, I am guessing that if you cannot get 28 grains into the case you may never see any signs.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 2:50 pm

28 grains aint getting in there, the max load i loaded is 25.8gr and it's compressed, in fact anything about 25 grains is compressed. I was more so pointing out for people to check their load data, this is the first time I have encountered this problem. more for awareness, it was to point out that ADI states a full 2 grains above 3 loading manuals I have now looked at for the same cartridge. Hornady, Sierra and Nosler.

Cheers
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by deanp100 » 02 Jan 2020, 3:28 pm

Adi manual states 22.6 max for the 223 with 55gr.
deanp100
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 425
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 4:16 pm

deanp100 wrote:Adi manual states 22.6 max for the 223 with 55gr.


For a Barnes yes, for a speer soft point which are much shorter is sais max of 26. the barnes is much longer
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Oldbloke » 02 Jan 2020, 4:28 pm

Yes, 28gr max 55gr is correct. Sorry for idiot qn. Using the right cases? Picked up 222 by mistake?
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 4:31 pm

Oldbloke wrote:Yes, 28gr max 55gr is correct. Sorry for idiot qn. Using the right cases?


All good no idiot questions. Yes correct cases brand spankin Sako brass. I also have a brand new bag of Nosler brass. I do not have a drop tube either to try this. Cheers
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Oldbloke » 02 Jan 2020, 4:49 pm

Hodgden data agrees with ADI. As i would expect.

Screenshot_20200102-174722_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20200102-174722_Chrome.jpg (413.58 KiB) Viewed 5223 times
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 4:58 pm

Hmmm this is very interesting. I didnt look at Hudgens data. I wonder what's going on here
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by SCJ429 » 02 Jan 2020, 5:02 pm

There is something wrong there, I don't have any 222 Mag brass but I do have the 204 Ruger and I load 28 grains of 2206 easily behind a 40 grain bullet. If you cannot get the start load of 2206 into your case there is something amiss. You aren't holding a can of 2225 powder by mistake?

There is nothing wrong with the data, the problem is in your shed somewhere.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 5:10 pm

100% as I don't own that powder. I'm going to investigate this further. I have a new set of RCBS beam scales I'd like to check with this afternoon.
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Oldbloke » 02 Jan 2020, 5:14 pm

As a simple check weigh a 55gr bullet on them. See what it weighs. Should be within about .4 gr or better. Do it twice using different bullet
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Oldbloke » 02 Jan 2020, 5:15 pm

SCJ429 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the data, the problem is in your shed somewhere.


I agree.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
Member. SFFP, Shooters Union.
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hunt safe.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 11192
Victoria

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by AZZA'S HJ47 » 02 Jan 2020, 5:20 pm

Interesting to see where this goes start low and work your way up i have one calibre that loads 6 grains above the stated max. And im still here lol ps a few friends i have run the same load and yes i also started low.
Last edited by AZZA'S HJ47 on 02 Jan 2020, 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sako Varmint 243,Marlin 917, Lithgow La101 .22 , 1917 BSA 303 (ted), Finnish Vkt 1944 M39,T3X Super Varmint 223, Marlin 1895 SBL 45-70 Howa 1500 308, BSA CF2 222, 1911 9mm, Adler 12G, Sako 7mm rem Mag,Ruger m77 mk1 22-250AI, Rem 700 17 Rem, BSA No 5 303
User avatar
AZZA'S HJ47
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 687
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 5:36 pm

So I have a live update. Photographic evidence however my photos are way too large and I need to shrink them. Zeroed RCBS 505 scale. Checked bullets, on the dot. Tub of 2206H sitting in front of me. Brand new Sako stamped .222 rem mag brass. Checked against brand new Nosler stamped .222 rem mag brass. Perfect. 26 grains on the scale. From the pan through a powder funnel into the case. The powder filled to 3mm below the top of the case about halfway up the neck.
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 5:46 pm

Sorry if these are crappy photos
Attachments
IMG20200102173147.jpg
IMG20200102173147.jpg (617.12 KiB) Viewed 5210 times
IMG20200102172852.jpg
IMG20200102172852.jpg (1.14 MiB) Viewed 5210 times
IMG20200102173101.jpg
IMG20200102173101.jpg (1.02 MiB) Viewed 5210 times
IMG20200102172856.jpg
IMG20200102172856.jpg (1.05 MiB) Viewed 5210 times
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 5:59 pm

SCJ429 wrote:There is nothing wrong with the data, the problem is in your shed somewhere.


Anything else I can check in 'my shed' then to solve the issue? I'm not new to reloading. I may not have loaded as many as yourself. But the other 3000 or so rounds I used the ADI manual for were great. Hornady and Nosler both put 26 grains as max. Hornady actually 26.2. Just stating the data provided.
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Apollo » 02 Jan 2020, 6:13 pm

Be very careful using different reloading manual data. They are not gathered using the same circumstances, barrels, barrel length etc.

ADI and Hodgdon will allways be the same since ADI do not do any load testing at all. It's all done by Hodgdon in the USA.

So, ADI/Hodgdon, Nosler and Hornady all use different testing proceedures and would be all different for the same bullet and powder.

The only powder testing ADI do is for a new powder batch from a previous one to ensure it's withing a few percent of the same. Powder batches many batch numbers different can have a substantial variation from an old batch.

I can't see any Nosler data for H4895 currently for the .222R Magnum online. In an old reloading manual I can see IMR 4895 listed but it isn't anywhere near the same powder, different manufacturer.

I don't have access to a .222R Magnum case so I can't test anything even though I have powder scales that are very accurate and can measure the weight of one/two granules of powder.

ADI don't list 28gr of H4895 as a compressed load so something seems to be amiss somewhere.

If it were me I'd send ADI an email. They have in the past been very helpful even though slow in replying.
Apollo
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1327
New South Wales

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Apollo » 02 Jan 2020, 6:16 pm

BTW... It's very easy to build a Powder Drop Tube.
Apollo
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1327
New South Wales

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 6:21 pm

Nosler data is stated as IMR not Hodgen yes apologies. Hornady stated H4895.
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by SCJ429 » 02 Jan 2020, 6:31 pm

I found myself a once fired Remington case in 222 Mag. Filled to the brim took 31 grains of 2206. I could get 28.8 grain in and seat the bullet deep enough to touch most of the neck without significant compression, no drop tube just a little tapping.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 6:38 pm

2206 and 2206H are different animals however. I shall go and try now with one of the new Nosler cases. In case it's a brass problem
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 6:52 pm

Same result with Nosler brass and 26 grains.
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by SCJ429 » 02 Jan 2020, 6:58 pm

Sorry mate, I was lazy and didn't put in the H. But don't shoot me, sometimes I call 2213SC just Short Cut.

But I am trying to help. Do you know how long I looked around my shed to find that case? And then filled it up with powder to give you some information about your problem.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 7:07 pm

SCJ429 wrote:Sorry mate, I was lazy and didn't put in the H. But don't shoot me, sometimes I call 2213SC just Short Cut.

But I am trying to help. Do you know how long I looked around my shed to find that case? And then filled it up with powder to give you some information about your problem.


Yes I owe an apology wasn't trying to be an a$$ I do appreciate the help. I didn't pick it up that you said 2206. 2206H has a larger profile I believe. 2206 has a similar structure to 2207, much smaller granule. My apologies mate :drinks:
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by SCJ429 » 02 Jan 2020, 7:22 pm

All good Mate. To be clear I did use 2206H.

If the manual said 28 grains and I can get that plus some in a 222 Mag case and a 204 case. You get the same results in two different brands of cases. I can only conclude that your scales are measuring 28.8 grains as 26 grains or you have placed the measure on the balance beam two grains past where you intended. Pop around to my place and we can check your scales.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by Am88 » 02 Jan 2020, 7:41 pm

Just verifies scales with 4 different bullets and 3 different brands. 55gr VMAX, 87gr Speer hotcor, 135 Sierra HP and 165sst's. The sst's actually all came back .2 of a grain heavier. 5 of each bullet. I also posted a photo showing 26gr on the scales. Possibly the powder? Do you have something else to compare with a full case, I have 2207, 2209, 2208 and 2206h on hand. The tub of 2206h is the only run I have of it and only one I've ever bought.

Cheers
Am88
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 295
Queensland

Re: Differences in manuals .222mag

Post by SCJ429 » 02 Jan 2020, 7:53 pm

I have every ADI powder from 2207 to 2225. I will fill up my case with 2208 and 2209 and report back.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Reloading ammunition