60% 2206H load ballistics

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

60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by Tubs » 24 Nov 2021, 6:40 pm

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!
Tubs
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 24 Nov 2021, 7:28 pm

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!


Not sure what you mean by "normal", but a 60% load will have significantly less velocity, thus significantly more drop.
I have done loads well below 60% in .223 and 7mm-08, but until I fix my computer I cant access my logbooks.
I think my loads gave velocities close to what ADI list. So their "max" of 38.5gn behind the Speer 160gn SPBT makes 2530fps. A 60% load is 23gn, so velocity is likely to be around 1600fps or thereabouts at a guess. That is going to drop very significantly.
At 2530fps the trajectory is roughly 80mm high at 100m, 200m zero, 310mm low at 300m.
At 1600fps those numbers are more like 240mm high at 100m and 800mm low at 300m.
At 2000fps they're 140mm and 500mm.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by Tubs » 24 Nov 2021, 8:02 pm

Hey L:),

These are my fun loads. Wondering if they will be sufficient for some soft shooting when dialling in my scopes.

308 - 130 grain Speer BTHP's, 30 grains 2206H
7mm 08 - 139 grain Hornady SP's, 25.5 grains 2206H
7mm -08 - 87 grain Sako SP's, 35 grains 2206H

Cheers
Tubs
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by straightshooter » 25 Nov 2021, 6:52 am

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.
"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: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 25 Nov 2021, 8:29 am

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.


Load data very rarely list minimums, and when they do they take great pains to state not to reduce the load further. SEE is a potential issue with very slow powders, with very small charges, in large cases.

AR2206H is ADI's second fastest rifle powder, slightly slower than AR2205. Just as AR2205 is a great pistol powder, it is also a very handy powder for reduced loads. AR2206H is even better though.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by in2anity » 25 Nov 2021, 8:39 am

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.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 25 Nov 2021, 9:09 am

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.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by Tubs » 25 Nov 2021, 9:18 am

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.


Im off to the range tommorow, I can sight in at 50 or 100 to tide me over, so yes happy to wait. Thanks for the help.

ADI gives a maximum load of 42.5 grain of 2206H with a 139 grain bullet. .6 X 42.5 = 25.5
Tubs
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by in2anity » 25 Nov 2021, 9:41 am

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 the other day, and all x5 grouped into 2" :clap: - 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.
Last edited by in2anity on 25 Nov 2021, 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by in2anity » 25 Nov 2021, 9:45 am

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.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 25 Nov 2021, 10:03 am

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" :clap: - 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.


I played with using different .22LR loads for silhouette, to try to avoid hold-overs, but I found it became more administrative than enjoyable, now I just zero at 50m with subsonic (Eley Standard and S&B Standard currently), and hold over for the turkey and ram. Trajectory is 30mm high at 40m, 100mm low at 77m, 200mm low at 100m. On the chicken I aim at the leg, the turkey I aim at head level, but above the body mass (the turkey is tough!), the ram I hold about 50mm above the top of the head.

Competition is already more "administration" than I want in a hobby, so making loads specific to each situation would be less of a problem I think, but still less enjoyable than simply shooting for fun :-)
Last edited by bladeracer on 25 Nov 2021, 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by Bugman » 25 Nov 2021, 10:07 am

What did you think of the Eley Standard?
User avatar
Bugman
Warrant Officer C2
Warrant Officer C2
 
Posts: 1071
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 25 Nov 2021, 10:14 am

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.


All load data requires extrapolation, nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand that the increase/decrease in pressure/velocity is not linear.

If you want to stick precisely to ADI's recommendation (I don't consider most of ADI's data to be empirical anyway), then 60% of their listed "maximum" is your starting point, though they don't recommend going below that. Their listed maximum may not relate to the maximum in your firearm though so it's all just guesswork at best.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by Tubs » 25 Nov 2021, 10:21 am

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:)
Tubs
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 25 Nov 2021, 10:28 am

Bugman wrote:What did you think of the Eley Standard?


My Norinco JW25A seems to like it.
Otherwise, I don't find it great. It's more expensive than other ammo that tends to shoot better. I burned five 500rd boxes in the past three weeks. I see about three to five squib-loads in every 100rds, and about two rounds out of the 500rds go supersonic (I had one that was very loud even for high-supersonic .22LR), so consistency is not awful, and about on-par with Federal F510.

It's dirtier than the F510 as well.
If you can find some, it's worth trying, but at $1000/5000rds there's better stuff available (like F510 or CCI Std Velocity when they're available).

I have had virtually zero dud rounds with any .22LR ammo in recent time, probably not in the last 20,000rds at least. Five-year-old Remington Cyclone had issues, including bullets stopping in the bore, but they have very loose bullets so the powder is exposed to the environment.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 25 Nov 2021, 10:37 am

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.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by Tubs » 25 Nov 2021, 1:07 pm

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.


Legend, thanks.
Tubs
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 306
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by Oldbloke » 25 Nov 2021, 3:12 pm

If you simply do what ADI says you will be fine. Move outside that, the risk increases.

Reduced loads 60% max 2206H.JPG
Reduced loads 60% max 2206H.JPG (72.59 KiB) Viewed 4843 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: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by Oldbloke » 25 Nov 2021, 3:23 pm

And other ADI powders.

ADI 75% Minimum load.JPG
ADI 75% Minimum load.JPG (38.18 KiB) Viewed 4825 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: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by straightshooter » 26 Nov 2021, 6:55 am

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.
"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: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by in2anity » 26 Nov 2021, 7:36 am

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. If 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.
Last edited by in2anity on 26 Nov 2021, 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 26 Nov 2021, 10:13 am

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.


True, but it's still a very fast rifle powder.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 26 Nov 2021, 10:15 am

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.


Use AR2206H for reduced loads.
I'm sure you could make AR2207 work, but AR2206H is the better choice.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by in2anity » 26 Nov 2021, 12:09 pm

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 settled on AR2206H in my 303.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 26 Nov 2021, 12:35 pm

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.


Whether a propellant is more efficient is down to a lot more than just barrel length. What matters most is the combustion chamber volume, which increases dramatically to include the full volume of the bore until the bullet leaves the muzzle. But the bullet diameter and weight also determines the rate of that increase in volume. In a large bore, with a light bullet, the combustion chamber volume increases faster than the gases can fill it, thus reducing pressure, and a lot of unburned powder spitting out behind the bullet - slowing down the rate of acceleration of the bullet (heavier bullet, larger bearing surface, more crimp) increases the burn efficiency. A small bore with a heavy bullet tends to improve combustion efficiency because it takes longer to get the bullet moving, and when it does start moving the chamber volume increases very slowly, giving more time for combustion.

How are you measuring how much powder is being consumed between AR2207 and AR2206H? There are ways to mitigate incomplete combustion, like using fillers, tighter crimps, etc.

Double-charge errors are possible any time you're using light loads. It's even possible with much larger loads if your technique doesn't allow you to notice the excess powder falling on the bench when you charge the case for a second time. Charge all your brass together, then visually inspect the lot with good light, any charges that are "different" will be obvious, then seat your bullets.

There is no increased SEE risk with AR2207, unless perhaps you're getting up into really large volume cartridges, like 300WinMag or bigger, with very reduced loads.

SEE is only a potential issue where you have a very large combustion chamber, and a very small volume of very slow-burning powder.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by in2anity » 26 Nov 2021, 12:48 pm

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 :drinks: and I don't like crimping :drinks:
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 26 Nov 2021, 12:52 pm

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 :drinks: and I don't like crimping :drinks:


I don't like crimping either :-)
But if it makes for better ammunition it's another tool I can use.

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.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by in2anity » 26 Nov 2021, 12:59 pm

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.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by bladeracer » 26 Nov 2021, 1:09 pm

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.


I would certainly give a try if you think it might improve your ammo.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12653
Victoria

Re: 60% 2206H load ballistics

Post by in2anity » 26 Nov 2021, 1:30 pm

bladeracer wrote:I would certainly give a try if you think it might improve your ammo.

You reckon it would be safe? Check this thread out I created over at the F-brigade: https://www.ozfclass.com/phpbb/viewtopi ... =5&t=13542 plenty of nay-sayers.
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Reloading ammunition