5.56 Load Data - Page 2


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion > AR-15 Discussion > 5.56 Load Data

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-05-2012, 04:34 PM   #11
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,280
Liked 6622 Times on 3690 Posts
Likes Given: 6293

Default

Use the .223 data. The thicker walls of the military cases will increase pressures slightly and bring the rounds up to Milspec.



locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2012, 08:23 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern,WI
Posts: 1,140
Liked 217 Times on 137 Posts
Likes Given: 450

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
Use the .223 data. The thicker walls of the military cases will increase pressures slightly and bring the rounds up to Milspec.
I just cant see that the case difference matters that much, if it did then when loading a hotter load, such as Ramshots data uses for NATO spec rifles, and also using military brass on top of the hotter load you would be going easily over pressure. I'm not saying the case difference doesn't change anything but I agree with those who say it is a small difference.


__________________
blucoondawg is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2012, 12:09 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona,Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,642
Liked 157 Times on 108 Posts
Likes Given: 119

Default

The differences are large enough to be measured, but small enough not to cause a problem. I have never seen or heard of an overload condition based on nothing more than case differences between 5.56 MM and .223 brass.

__________________
billt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 01:49 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern,WI
Posts: 1,140
Liked 217 Times on 137 Posts
Likes Given: 450

Default

I just got an email back from Sierra, I asked what the pressures were they were using for the 223 AR and 223 Bolt action, they confirmed that the max loads are based on 53000-54000lbs, the max allowable for 223 commercial rounds, and the max loads they are recommending in the AR section are reduced below the 223 max, so apparently Sierra doesn't feel the AR platform is capable of firing the 62000 psi NATO rounds, kind of disappointing a company like Sierra being a big name in ammunition and reloading doesn't use the proper information in their load data.

__________________
blucoondawg is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 02:08 AM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona,Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,642
Liked 157 Times on 108 Posts
Likes Given: 119

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blucoondawg View Post
I just got an email back from Sierra, I asked what the pressures were they were using for the 223 AR and 223 Bolt action, they confirmed that the max loads are based on 53000-54000lbs, the max allowable for 223 commercial rounds, and the max loads they are recommending in the AR section are reduced below the 223 max, so apparently Sierra doesn't feel the AR platform is capable of firing the 62000 psi NATO rounds, kind of disappointing a company like Sierra being a big name in ammunition and reloading doesn't use the proper information in their load data.
I think you will find that to be the case in most modern loading manuals. Legality is the reason why. In most all of the loading data I compare from my modern manuals, I've found it to be loaded to a lower pressure than in data taken from my older manuals published in the early 70's. Lawyers didn't circle like Vultures back then.
__________________
billt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 05:38 AM   #16
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,280
Liked 6622 Times on 3690 Posts
Likes Given: 6293

Default

Using identical components, the difference between commercial (federal) cases that I loaded, and the same load using LC military cases was around 50-60 FPS on my chronograph. (Oehler model 30) All fired in a Colt Military chamber.

Certainly not enough to blow up a gun, but enough to lose a match.

locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 11:52 AM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northern,WI
Posts: 1,140
Liked 217 Times on 137 Posts
Likes Given: 450

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
I think you will find that to be the case in most modern loading manuals. Legality is the reason why. In most all of the loading data I compare from my modern manuals, I've found it to be loaded to a lower pressure than in data taken from my older manuals published in the early 70's. Lawyers didn't circle like Vultures back then.
Ya I know, damn lawyers, I haven't checked Hornadys book yet. So far Ramshot is the only one I have seen with the data but thats only for their brand of powder. I don't see how listing the hotter loads would make them liable for anything as long as they disclose the high pressure and have a disclaimer in there on every page stating "to be used in NATO rated rifles only"
__________________
blucoondawg is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 02:08 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona,Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,642
Liked 157 Times on 108 Posts
Likes Given: 119

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
Using identical components, the difference between commercial (federal) cases that I loaded, and the same load using LC military cases was around 50-60 FPS on my chronograph. (Oehler model 30) All fired in a Colt Military chamber.
The readings I managed to get out of my 527 LUX, was not enough difference between cases with identical loads to put the blame on the brass. I even had .223 Federal cases run 30 to 40 FPS higher than that companies M-193 5.56 MM brass. Considering we're talking about a 3,100 FPS cartridge, that isn't enough shot to shot deviation to worry about. At least not enough to where if I miss, I'm going to be blaming my ammunition.
__________________
billt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 03:48 PM   #19
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,280
Liked 6622 Times on 3690 Posts
Likes Given: 6293

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
The readings I managed to get out of my 527 LUX, was not enough difference between cases with identical loads to put the blame on the brass. I even had .223 Federal cases run 30 to 40 FPS higher than that companies M-193 5.56 MM brass. Considering we're talking about a 3,100 FPS cartridge, that isn't enough shot to shot deviation to worry about. At least not enough to where if I miss, I'm going to be blaming my ammunition.




Well, ya gotta blame something, Bill. Surely, I can't blame myself!
__________________

War is the continuation of politics by other means.
Carl von Clausewitz
V
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill

locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 04:02 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona,Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,642
Liked 157 Times on 108 Posts
Likes Given: 119

Default

Handloading is like fishing, you got to have the proper excuse.



__________________
billt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
load data for 30-06 bigdaddy573 Ammunition & Reloading 61 03-18-2012 01:54 AM
Do you load jhp under jacketed data? springfield Ammunition & Reloading 7 10-23-2011 05:22 PM
Need load data for 308 win ANAKINANAYA Ammunition & Reloading 4 05-22-2011 02:01 AM
load data laynejc Ammunition & Reloading 3 03-22-2010 09:23 PM
9mm HAP load data ah141nj Ammunition & Reloading 0 12-16-2008 02:50 AM