Re: Reloading for 243 Win

[Adelaide]

Morning All,

Busy reloading for a 243 Win using 95g Nosler Ballistic Tip .What is the best powder to use. I have been told that 2213SC gives good results. Also should I use Std or Magnum Primers.Advice would be greatly appreciated.

[bladeracer]

Morning All,

Busy reloading for a 243 Win using 95g Nosler Ballistic Tip .What is the best powder to use. I have been told that 2213SC gives good results. Also should I use Std or Magnum Primers.Advice would be greatly appreciated.

AR2213SC will work fine, but I prefer AR2206H or AR2208. I use magnum primers in all my LRM cartridges, just saves confusion.

[in2anity]

Remember, barrel length is a factor. For example a carbine length barrel demands a faster powder. I think std primers to begin with is fine, but it doesn't matter that much, take your pick - magnum primers can potentially yield better ignition and bring down your standard deviation (if that's a concern), which will demand chronoing your loads.

[Bugman]

My true and tested load is 41grn AR2209 pushing a Hornady 87grn V-Max projectile.

[Adelaide]

Thanks a ton for the info, will put it to use and let you know the results

[bladeracer]

From ADI website.

[Col]

download/file.php?id=15685

As a side question.
For the 95gn Nosler Partition using 2209. What difference in bullet drop at say 200m does 2917fps (39gn) versus 3087fps (42gn) equate to? Is there much difference in drop for the extra 3 gn of powder?
I do realise that some rifles will group better at different loads, and I know my T3 likes the min load for 80gn SPBT (Sierra) with 2208 of 36.0gn..

The question is a bit academic, but was just wondering.
Thanks in advance (not trying to side track this thread).

Col

[bladeracer]

https://enoughgun.com/forum/download/file.php?id=15685

As a side question.
For the 95gn Nosler Partition using 2209. What difference in bullet drop at say 200m does 2917fps (39gn) versus 3087fps (42gn) equate to? Is there much difference in drop for the extra 3 gn of powder?
I do realise that some rifles will group better at different loads, and I know my T3 likes the min load for 80gn SPBT (Sierra) with 2208 of 36.0gn..

The question is a bit academic, but was just wondering.
Thanks in advance (not trying to side track this thread).

Col

170fps is not a huge difference.
A 200m zero puts the 2917fps bullet about 60mm high at 100m and 250mm low at 300m.
A 200m zero puts the 3087fps bullet about 50mm high at 100m and 215mm low at 300m.

[SCJ429]

The 243 has plenty of case capacity and you can push the case pretty hard. To save the throat and your lands I would go with the slowest powder you can get away with. As a bonus you get a bit of extra speed.

[SCJ429]

I used 2213 to push a 107 grain pill to a node at 3050 fps. I tried pushing to the next node with 2217 but gave up at a little over 3160 fps.

I am using a faster twist rate and longer barrel than you are likely to be using.

[Col]

:Thanks Bladeracer, didn't think it would make a lot of difference, especially in a hunting situation. My longest shot/kill was 318m on a roo, so I don't think it will worry me too much.

[GQshayne]

I have used AR2209 since the 80's. In a bolt action Tikka, as well as a short barrelled BLR. Works well in both.

[on_one_wheel]

I've played with 2208 and 2209 in my .243 and prefer the 2209.

The 2209 better fills the cases and I had slightly improved results over the 2208.

[straightshooter]

As a general rule slow powders benefit from magnum primers especially if the powder is not compressed irrespective of case volume.
This is due to the increasing amounts of deterrent coating on the powder kernels that is there as one of the techniques to help lower the rate of combustion and the comparatively greater interstitial gaps that exist with coarse slow burning powders that allow the primer flash to be comparatively somewhat dissipated.

[TassieTiger]

Ok, so this might be a very stupid question but I’ll ask regardless.
Using a mag primer vs a slow powder, won’t that negate a portion of slower burning case volume, as the larger primer flash engulfs and burns a % of the powder much faster than designed? Wouldn’t the remaining % of powder towards the front of the case, then ignite slower as a result - Resulting in an inconsistent burn rate ??

[Stix]

The way you describe it Tasdie, i just see it as the powder burn is slightly accelerated, so not really an incosistant burn.

The powder at the front doesnt burn any slower...its just that more of the powder at the primer end is ignited initially, that id assume gives you a slightly higher pressure.

But i dont use them so dont listen to me...

[TassieTiger]

I hear what your saying Stix - but regardless of burn rate, there is an inconsistency there.
In fact - now I’m thinking more about it, it’s kind of a ? As to why aren’t primers matched to powders...

[Stix]

Given the vast difference in possible load density, i dont see that subtle variables in primer ignition rate would make any difference...
Because a slower powder charge, can burn faster than a fast powder charge, depending on the case & losd density...
(... ...i know what i mean... ...)
Just my guess...

Back to the powder burn with magnum vs normal primer...where is the inconsistancy...?

As an analogy, i just see that the mag primr is starting the burn, at say, the 5% already burned mark of the non magnum...
So its a quicker burn with slight increase in pressure...but the burn rate doesnt change...

Thats how i see it.. .dunno if you get me...

[TassieTiger]

As I said, It maybe a stupid question lol.
This is an analogy broken down to slow ass - so my head can comprehend - speeds.

If you have a can of petrol and lay out a line of fuel 5m long, you then use a lighter to light that line, it will burn consistently along the line (eg powder).
But if you ignite that same line of fuel with a petrol bomb or a flash bang, that line will Effectively be shortened to maybe 4m because the initial “ignition” (magnum primer) will overtake what would be the nominal burn rate of the fuel...?

I just read that back to myself and I might have to check myself into a mental institution...

[bladeracer]

I hear what your saying Stix - but regardless of burn rate, there is an inconsistency there.
In fact - now I’m thinking more about it, it’s kind of a ? As to why aren’t primers matched to powders...

Whether you use a Magnum primer is probably less of an inconsistency than the huge variation in case capacities you use that powder in, the even larger variation in bullet weights you are using that powder behind, different bore sizes, barrel lengths, and so on. The primer is probably one of the more consistent aspects, regardless of whether it's magnum or not.

I use AR2206H in case capacities from .223 to 8x57mm, from 5gn to 55gn+, from filled to overflowing the case in .204, to barely covering the bottom of an 8x57mm case, pushing bullets from 24gn down a 5mm tube to 265gn down an 11mm tube, at speeds from 1000fps to 4400fps. The primer has minimal effect in the plethora of other variables acting on the powder.

I only buy magnum LR primers just for consistency, if I used magnum in some chamberings and non-mag in others, I guarantee I would end up mixing them up eventually, best to stick with the same primer for all my LR chamberings.

[TassieTiger]

I’ve seen some inconsistencies in my chrono lately that I can’t really explain (Think it’s neck tension...) - but...you get to thinking of all manner of possibles lol and this was just one tangent, My feeble mind wandered off too...
I’d be interested to see exact same case, load, projectile - large primer vs magnum and see if there’s a consistent pressure difference and/or chrono difference...probably not.

[Stix]

As I said, It maybe a stupid question lol.
This is an analogy broken down to slow ass - so my head can comprehend - speeds.

If you have a can of petrol and lay out a line of fuel 5m long, you then use a lighter to light that line, it will burn consistently along the line (eg powder).
But if you ignite that same line of fuel with a petrol bomb or a flash bang, that line will Effectively be shortened to maybe 4m because the initial “ignition” (magnum primer) will overtake what would be the nominal burn rate of the fuel...?

I just read that back to myself and I might have to check myself into a mental institution...

Ok...so lets take your fuel burning analogy a step further & give it a third dimension, so that its true to gunpowder...
The fuel doesnt burn, the vapour does yes...
So the vapour has been ignited along one metre of the line of fuel, as opposed to just at the very end...
So that 4m mark of your fuel line--that fuel will have burned anyway, its just that the first metre has all started to burn at the same time, therefor everything will have burned quicker due to more being ingnited intially, but the vapour doesnt burn any faster, because its not vapour yet...it will still vapourise & burn at the same rate.

Powder is granules, so each of those granules are ignited by the one next to it...
Lets imagine you have a case full of granules...each granule is surrounded by & touching 8 other granules but only burns 4 of them at once, & each one takes one second to burn & ignite the ones next to it ...

So if you start with igniting only one granule, at the end of 2 seconds, 5 granules have burned...get me so far...?...yes...?
Then after 3 seconds, 20 granules have been burned...(the 5 granules have each burned 4 of the granules they are touching--5x4=20)...

But...
If you start by igniting 2 granules at the same time, after those same 2 seconds, 10 granules have been burned. & after 3 seconds 40 granules...
(& this analogy is not exactly correct, but im trying to simplify my thoughts)

This acceleration rate of burning will only happen for a short time obviously, because you reach the point where (in cross section) each granule on a given level across the entire cross section is ignited & only ingnites the ones forward of it...so at this point youve reached the maximum burn rate for that case,

In other words...imagine a case FULL of powder--100% load density...
Try & picture how powder burns if you start by igniting 3 of those granules, as opposed to 8 of those granules...

Or...if you pour an even depth puddle of powder, say, the size & shape of a dinner plate on the ground & drop a match in the middle of it, it burns outwards...
But If you drop a ring of say 10 matches in the centre in say a 2 inch diameter ring centrally to the pile of powder, it still burns the same rate, but the over-all burn time is quicker---you've generated the same amount of expansion gasses in a slightly shorter time...which in an enclosed environment will create a greater pressure...

Or...over the entire time the powder is burning, it burns at a more even rat because you reach the maximun burn rate in shorter time, due to igniting more granules to begin with...

Thats how i imagine it anyway...
But stuff it...im going...i just cant explain myself in the proper'est way...

[Blr243]

I have some sizzling new loads for my 243. 58 grain Vmax. It’s specifically for a flat traj on foxes and cats. with a bit of luck I’ll be hunting next week I have a new place to visit ..... I’ll keep the bushmaster handy for the pigs

[bladeracer]

I’ve seen some inconsistencies in my chrono lately that I can’t really explain (Think it’s neck tension...) - but...you get to thinking of all manner of possibles lol and this was just one tangent, My feeble mind wandered off too...
I’d be interested to see exact same case, load, projectile - large primer vs magnum and see if there’s a consistent pressure difference and/or chrono difference...probably not.

I put 350rds+ through the chrono yesterday shooting a pile of Federal and Highland .22LR.

Handloads can have subtle differences that you might not expect to affect the results. Even when you do everything exactly the same, machine-like, the brass is still subtley different each time it is fired, the brass is flowing forward with each firing, the case neck is work hardening with each firing, the primer pocket is slightly larger, the flash hole further eroded, and so on. Same with the firearm, the throat erodes with each shot, the rifling is more worn. The Benchrest shooter who loads the same piece of brass at the bench for every shot is trying to minimize those variations that occur between two seemingly identical pieces of brass, but the brass itself evolves every time it is fired.

I'm not interested in quarter-minute groups at all. I'm sure it's satisfying to produce them, but are they repeatable in the field, where every shot is taken from a different position, and every shot is cold bore? One-minute field consistency is generally more than sufficient for virtually any hunting or recreational shooting, even out to extreme ranges - at 1000m a one-minute target is 290mm round, smaller than most people can even see.

[SCJ429]

Slower ball powders have a lot of coating on them to slow their ignition rate because they have a large surface area. While stick powders also use a coating it is easier to ignite and to keep the reaction slow because of the smaller surface to volume area. I can sometimes get a better SD from powders like 2208 when swapping to Magnum primers when shooting heavy for caliber bullets in a 223.

I have also seen lower velocity from a 243 when moving up to Magnum primers, and sometimes but not always a lower SD. I have had some good results using Magnum primers in this caliber but I usually start with CCI BR2 primers. I don't think this primer will have a problem igniting 50 grains of 2209 or some Short Cut.

[TassieTiger]

As I said, It maybe a stupid question lol.
This is an analogy broken down to slow ass - so my head can comprehend - speeds.

If you have a can of petrol and lay out a line of fuel 5m long, you then use a lighter to light that line, it will burn consistently along the line (eg powder).
But if you ignite that same line of fuel with a petrol bomb or a flash bang, that line will Effectively be shortened to maybe 4m because the initial “ignition” (magnum primer) will overtake what would be the nominal burn rate of the fuel...?

I just read that back to myself and I might have to check myself into a mental institution...

Ok...so lets take your fuel burning analogy a step further & give it a third dimension, so that its true to gunpowder...
The fuel doesnt burn, the vapour does yes...
So the vapour has been ignited along one metre of the line of fuel, as opposed to just at the very end...
So that 4m mark of your fuel line--that fuel will have burned anyway, its just that the first metre has all started to burn at the same time, therefor everything will have burned quicker due to more being ingnited intially, but the vapour doesnt burn any faster, because its not vapour yet...it will still vapourise & burn at the same rate.

Powder is granules, so each of those granules are ignited by the one next to it...
Lets imagine you have a case full of granules...each granule is surrounded by & touching 8 other granules but only burns 4 of them at once, & each one takes one second to burn & ignite the ones next to it ...

So if you start with igniting only one granule, at the end of 2 seconds, 5 granules have burned...get me so far...?...yes...?
Then after 3 seconds, 20 granules have been burned...(the 5 granules have each burned 4 of the granules they are touching--5x4=20)...

But...
If you start by igniting 2 granules at the same time, after those same 2 seconds, 10 granules have been burned. & after 3 seconds 40 granules...
(& this analogy is not exactly correct, but im trying to simplify my thoughts)

This acceleration rate of burning will only happen for a short time obviously, because you reach the point where (in cross section) each granule on a given level across the entire cross section is ignited & only ingnites the ones forward of it...so at this point youve reached the maximum burn rate for that case,

In other words...imagine a case FULL of powder--100% load density...
Try & picture how powder burns if you start by igniting 3 of those granules, as opposed to 8 of those granules...

Or...if you pour an even depth puddle of powder, say, the size & shape of a dinner plate on the ground & drop a match in the middle of it, it burns outwards...
But If you drop a ring of say 10 matches in the centre in say a 2 inch diameter ring centrally to the pile of powder, it still burns the same rate, but the over-all burn time is quicker---you've generated the same amount of expansion gasses in a slightly shorter time...which in an enclosed environment will create a greater pressure...

Or...over the entire time the powder is burning, it burns at a more even rat because you reach the maximun burn rate in shorter time, due to igniting more granules to begin with...

Thats how i imagine it anyway...
But stuff it...im going...i just cant explain myself in the proper'est way...

All good. Understood. Told you it was a stupid question. Lol.

[brewskiboy]

My true and tested load is 41grn AR2209 pushing a Hornady 87grn V-Max projectile.

This exact load is also my current best combination.