Tubs wrote:Hi All,
I have a couple of sights/rifles to sight in so Ive made a batch of 60% 2206H loads for 223/308/7mm08.
What ballistics can I expect for a 60% load using the same projectile? Are we talking normal bullet drop out to 200/less/more?
Thanks!
straightshooter wrote:Reloading guides list a minimum and maximum load for good reason.
Exceeding maximum loads can be dangerous as we are all aware.
Depending on the powder, partially filled cases can expose you to erratic ignition and in a worse case hangfires and in the worst case detonation as has been experienced in under filled magnum calibers.
If you want reduced loads and depending on the velocities you are chasing it would probably be better to use an easy to ignite pistol powder.
in2anity wrote:Tubs - I run reduced loads through my Mauser 7.62 (308) carbine for Service Rifle. It's fine to run 60%, but I normally aim for ~70% or more to er on the side of caution. Just remember, different brass has different volume, so a 60% calculation for brass X may not hold true for brass Y. With the 308, it's possible to run AR2207 under your 130gr speer - look at the data for the 125gr and just back off a bit. I ran 33gr 07 under the Speer 125gr, and the recoil was sublime. However according to mainstream data, a heavier than 130gr pill moves into slower powder territory, namely AR2206H. My current 100m load is 33gr AR2206H under the cheap Speer 168gr HPBT and it's very accurate - a lot more accurate than I am from offhand and sitting position.
When it comes to your 7mm-08, indeed 06H also seems like the best "all-rounder" choice - I'm sure a 70% fill would work fine, although 25.5gr under the 139 seems too anemic - are you sure that's 60%?
I can crunch the data for you through Quickload in a couple of days once i get back to my laptop, if you can hold out.
in2anity wrote:Tubs - I run reduced loads through my Mauser 7.62 (308) carbine for Service Rifle. It's fine to run 60%, but I normally aim for ~70% or more to er on the side of caution. Just remember, different brass has different volume, so a 60% calculation for brass X may not hold true for brass Y. With the 308, it's possible to run AR2207 under your 130gr speer - look at the data for the 125gr and just back off a bit. I ran 33gr 07 under the Speer 125gr, and the recoil was sublime. However according to mainstream data, a heavier than 130gr pill moves into slower powder territory, namely AR2206H. My current 100m load is 33gr AR2206H under the cheap Speer 168gr HPBT and it's very accurate - a lot more accurate than I am from offhand and sitting position. I'm saving my 125grs for my blackout hunting carbine.
When it comes to your 7mm-08, indeed 06H also seems like the best "all-rounder" choice - I'm sure a 70% fill will work just fine, although 25.5gr under the 139 seems too anemic - are you sure this is 60%?
I can crunch the data for you through Quickload in a couple of days once i get back to my laptop, if you can hold out.
bladeracer wrote:I've run 180gn 8x57mm down below 20gn of AR2206H without issues, but it's more efficient to switch to Trailboss (when it was available) when you're getting down to near-subsonic levels.
Tubs wrote:ADI gives a maximum load of 42.5 grain of 2206H with a 139 grain bullet. .6 X 42.5 = 25.5
in2anity wrote:bladeracer wrote:I've run 180gn 8x57mm down below 20gn of AR2206H without issues, but it's more efficient to switch to Trailboss (when it was available) when you're getting down to near-subsonic levels.
I hastily tried 14gr TB under the Berry's 150gr plated RNFP at 100m prone from the sling, and all x5 grouped into 2" - this would be perfectly fine for 100m standing, but i think it would struggle at 200m on a fishy day, not to mention 300m. Hence why I go with a load that's a little hotter and can reach. Better to master the one load, than have to manage different loads for different distances, for comp shooting.
in2anity wrote:Tubs wrote:ADI gives a maximum load of 42.5 grain of 2206H with a 139 grain bullet. .6 X 42.5 = 25.5
That's an extrapolation. You're also assuming 42.5gr fully fills the case, and what case did ADI use exactly? Probs better to fill your case to level the bullet is sated to, then dump it out and measure, then take at the very least .6. Probs better to go with .7 to be safer.
If you don't want to bother with that, I'd start at 30gr at least to be safe - it's still going to be SFA recoil.
bladeracer wrote:in2anity wrote:Tubs - I run reduced loads through my Mauser 7.62 (308) carbine for Service Rifle. It's fine to run 60%, but I normally aim for ~70% or more to er on the side of caution. Just remember, different brass has different volume, so a 60% calculation for brass X may not hold true for brass Y. With the 308, it's possible to run AR2207 under your 130gr speer - look at the data for the 125gr and just back off a bit. I ran 33gr 07 under the Speer 125gr, and the recoil was sublime. However according to mainstream data, a heavier than 130gr pill moves into slower powder territory, namely AR2206H. My current 100m load is 33gr AR2206H under the cheap Speer 168gr HPBT and it's very accurate - a lot more accurate than I am from offhand and sitting position.
When it comes to your 7mm-08, indeed 06H also seems like the best "all-rounder" choice - I'm sure a 70% fill would work fine, although 25.5gr under the 139 seems too anemic - are you sure that's 60%?
I can crunch the data for you through Quickload in a couple of days once i get back to my laptop, if you can hold out.
I've run 180gn 8x57mm down below 20gn of AR2206H without issues, but it's more efficient to switch to Trailboss (when it was available) when you're getting down to near-subsonic levels.
Bugman wrote:What did you think of the Eley Standard?
Tubs wrote:bladeracer wrote:in2anity wrote:Tubs - I run reduced loads through my Mauser 7.62 (308) carbine for Service Rifle. It's fine to run 60%, but I normally aim for ~70% or more to er on the side of caution. Just remember, different brass has different volume, so a 60% calculation for brass X may not hold true for brass Y. With the 308, it's possible to run AR2207 under your 130gr speer - look at the data for the 125gr and just back off a bit. I ran 33gr 07 under the Speer 125gr, and the recoil was sublime. However according to mainstream data, a heavier than 130gr pill moves into slower powder territory, namely AR2206H. My current 100m load is 33gr AR2206H under the cheap Speer 168gr HPBT and it's very accurate - a lot more accurate than I am from offhand and sitting position.
When it comes to your 7mm-08, indeed 06H also seems like the best "all-rounder" choice - I'm sure a 70% fill would work fine, although 25.5gr under the 139 seems too anemic - are you sure that's 60%?
I can crunch the data for you through Quickload in a couple of days once i get back to my laptop, if you can hold out.
I've run 180gn 8x57mm down below 20gn of AR2206H without issues, but it's more efficient to switch to Trailboss (when it was available) when you're getting down to near-subsonic levels.
Blade do u think 25 grains of 2206H is going to blow up my 7mm-08? Id prefer to not have to reload 40 cartridges:)
bladeracer wrote:Tubs wrote:bladeracer wrote:in2anity wrote:Tubs - I run reduced loads through my Mauser 7.62 (308) carbine for Service Rifle. It's fine to run 60%, but I normally aim for ~70% or more to er on the side of caution. Just remember, different brass has different volume, so a 60% calculation for brass X may not hold true for brass Y. With the 308, it's possible to run AR2207 under your 130gr speer - look at the data for the 125gr and just back off a bit. I ran 33gr 07 under the Speer 125gr, and the recoil was sublime. However according to mainstream data, a heavier than 130gr pill moves into slower powder territory, namely AR2206H. My current 100m load is 33gr AR2206H under the cheap Speer 168gr HPBT and it's very accurate - a lot more accurate than I am from offhand and sitting position.
When it comes to your 7mm-08, indeed 06H also seems like the best "all-rounder" choice - I'm sure a 70% fill would work fine, although 25.5gr under the 139 seems too anemic - are you sure that's 60%?
I can crunch the data for you through Quickload in a couple of days once i get back to my laptop, if you can hold out.
I've run 180gn 8x57mm down below 20gn of AR2206H without issues, but it's more efficient to switch to Trailboss (when it was available) when you're getting down to near-subsonic levels.
Blade do u think 25 grains of 2206H is going to blow up my 7mm-08? Id prefer to not have to reload 40 cartridges:)
Nope
I think it'll be just fine. I can't even think of any sort of loading mistake that might cause a problem, even if you stuck a .308" bullet in the 7mm-08 brass, and managed to close the bolt on it I reckon it'd still squeeze down the bore with no issues.
25.5gn is within the 60% recommended by ADI anyway, so can be considered as valid as any of their other published data.
bladeracer wrote:AR2206H is ADI's second fastest rifle powder, slightly slower than AR2205..
straightshooter wrote:bladeracer wrote:AR2206H is ADI's second fastest rifle powder, slightly slower than AR2205..
Only if you ignore 2207, BM1, 2219, BM2 and 8208
There is quite a big burning rate gap between 2206H and 2205 and not as the single digit difference in the numbering scheme might imply.
straightshooter wrote:bladeracer wrote:AR2206H is ADI's second fastest rifle powder, slightly slower than AR2205..
Only if you ignore 2207, BM1, 2219, BM2 and 8208
There is quite a big burning rate gap between 2206H and 2205 and not as the single digit difference in the numbering scheme might imply.
in2anity wrote:straightshooter wrote:bladeracer wrote:AR2206H is ADI's second fastest rifle powder, slightly slower than AR2205..
Only if you ignore 2207, BM1, 2219, BM2 and 8208
There is quite a big burning rate gap between 2206H and 2205 and not as the single digit difference in the numbering scheme might imply.
Yes very true SS. AR2205 is a fair bit faster than AR2206H. Look at the equivalency chart http://www.adiworldclass.com.au/powder-equivalents/ - it is listed from fastest to slower. AR2207 is popular in LAS circles for reduced, lead loads.
I was only recently considering the prospect of running a reduced charge of AR2207 under a heavier 30cal FMJ, a 168gr to be honest. It it were a lead pill, it's a proven outcome, partly because the lead is "slipperier" compared with copper, thus pressure spike is not as dangerous. Nonetheless, there is virtually zero evidence of people using AR2207 as a reduced load powder for FMJs - I'm scared so the idea has just been shelved.
bladeracer wrote:Use AR2206H for reduced loads.
I'm sure you could make AR2207 work, but AR2206H is the better choice.
in2anity wrote:bladeracer wrote:Use AR2206H for reduced loads.
I'm sure you could make AR2207 work, but AR2206H is the better choice.
Not in a carbine length it's not - only 90% propellant burnt with AR2206H. AR2207 is technically ideal for a 16", albeit the risk of second-det, or perhaps a double charge user error... Plus my perceived recoil decreases with increasing powder speed - it's deliberately why i use AR2206H in my 303.
bladeracer wrote:Whether a propellant is more efficient is down to a lot more than just barrel length...
...
SEE is only a potential issue where you have a very large combustion chamber, and a very small volume of very slow-burning powder.
bladeracer wrote:How are you measuring how much powder is being consumed between AR2207 and AR2206H?
in2anity wrote:bladeracer wrote:Whether a propellant is more efficient is down to a lot more than just barrel length...
...
SEE is only a potential issue where you have a very large combustion chamber, and a very small volume of very slow-burning powder.
Yes Blade indeed.bladeracer wrote:How are you measuring how much powder is being consumed between AR2207 and AR2206H?
Quickload and I don't like crimping
bladeracer wrote:Quick load is pure mathematics theory though.
Does it include crimp and neck tension in its calculations?
I assume it must include bearing surface area to have any value at all.
in2anity wrote:bladeracer wrote:Quick load is pure mathematics theory though.
Does it include crimp and neck tension in its calculations?
I assume it must include bearing surface area to have any value at all.
Dunno about neck tension, but it's otherwise very in depth. Anyway, it's somewhat of a moot argument, as I am indeed using AR2206H as i mentioned before, and it's working for me. I just conclude AR2207 may be slightly more appropriate (not that it would at all change my SR scores) for my application.
bladeracer wrote:I would certainly give a try if you think it might improve your ammo.