Loading to 5.56 NATO spec

J

JNA

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
248   0   0
Hey Guys,

I was wondering if you guys knew what the reloading powder, bullets and primers are recommended for loading as close as possible to NATO spec. I have some 556 once fired brass and am hoping to get as close to the spec as possible. I went through some of the previous threads and know that I cannot get completely NATO spec as the 62 grain bullets available to us do not have the penetrator.
 
Forget about it, specks were made for manufacturers to be able to have reference point to which they need to make ammo that will function in all types of firearms, that's all. You need to make ammo that will function and be accurate in your rifles, for that you just get the best components you can and tailor it to the rifles you have so they will shoot better than they can with speck ammo that you so desire.
 
CFE223 will probably be the closest powder. Use CCI 41 mil-spec primers (although you won't be able to crimp them in place). LC brass. 62gr fmj bullet unless you can locate green tips. Work your load up to get the specified velocity in the appropriate barrel length (~3025fps in a 20" barrel, ~2900fps in a 14.5" barrel - don't quote me on those numbers though).

When you notice pressure signs, back off.
 
The load data in my Hornady manual , shows the 5.56 can be loaded hotter than .223 , using CFE 223 . I have a bunch of IVI brass and some type of military brass , if you want it. You can get the hard primers from sfrc
 
Thanks for the tips guys. I have some IVI brass and some hard primers, but looks like CFE 223 is the recommendation. I need to find the exact velocity range to get it so that it will match as close to the bdc as possible. Or might need to suck it up and buy some Barnaul or other milspec ammo.
 
WC735 was able to produce M193 duplication loads. The data given from Higginson said that 24.9 grains of WC735 would do it, but I am assuming they were using military brass. With factory brass, I have loaded 55 grain fmj's over 25.1 grains of WC735 and CCI 450 mag primers. The chronographed velocities were right around where they needed to be and I did not get pressure signs. I have also loaded 69 grain match bullets with a stiff dose of this stuff and got very impressive results.
 
JNA said:
Hey Guys,

I was wondering if you guys knew what the reloading powder, bullets and primers are recommended for loading as close as possible to NATO spec. I have some 556 once fired brass and am hoping to get as close to the spec as possible. I went through some of the previous threads and know that I cannot get completely NATO spec as the 62 grain bullets available to us do not have the penetrator.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you really have to be at NATO spec, or are you just playing around with the concept? You're up on the differences between .223 and 5.56 and how that relates to your rifle? If you haven't, you can use up a day reading all the discussions on the differences on various forums - probably somewhere here as well.

Ramshot/Accurate's loading manual has a section for 5.56 loads that includes pressure data. It will allow you to also see the differences in their loads min/max for .223 versus 5.56.
http://blog.westernpowders.com/WP_LoadSpec_1-23-14.pdf

I've loaded and shot lots of the SS109 teardown bullets and surplus C77 (in the US)... it is pretty mediocre for accuracy, even out of a precision bolt gun. Off the top of my head I think NATO spec is no better than 2 MOA. I got it really cheap down there, so I was okay with it, but I wouldn't go looking for it outside of a great deal.

So, aside from a specific need, I'd find a bullet and a load that your rifle really likes, and it probably won't be a 5.56 NATO spec load. Which probably isn't a bad thing in other ways... militaries aren't too worried about the wear on weapons because that's what gun plumbers and procurements are all about. I'd rather download my ARs a little and put a lot less wear on the mechanism and the barrels. Some of the NM shooters in the US use loads that are just crazy (in my perhaps simple opinion).

I've had really good luck with the Hornady 68 grainer, shoots almost as good as the Sierras and a lot less expensive. There's lots of choices out there to play with.
 
Rick said:
Are you sure you really have to be at NATO spec, or are you just playing around with the concept? You're up on the differences between .223 and 5.56 and how that relates to your rifle? If you haven't, you can use up a day reading all the discussions on the differences on various forums - probably somewhere here as well.

Ramshot/Accurate's loading manual has a section for 5.56 loads that includes pressure data. It will allow you to also see the differences in their loads min/max for .223 versus 5.56.
http://blog.westernpowders.com/WP_LoadSpec_1-23-14.pdf

I've loaded and shot lots of the SS109 teardown bullets and surplus C77 (in the US)... it is pretty mediocre for accuracy, even out of a precision bolt gun. Off the top of my head I think NATO spec is no better than 2 MOA. I got it really cheap down there, so I was okay with it, but I wouldn't go looking for it outside of a great deal.

So, aside from a specific need, I'd find a bullet and a load that your rifle really likes, and it probably won't be a 5.56 NATO spec load. Which probably isn't a bad thing in other ways... militaries aren't too worried about the wear on weapons because that's what gun plumbers and procurements are all about. I'd rather download my ARs a little and put a lot less wear on the mechanism and the barrels. Some of the NM shooters in the US use loads that are just crazy (in my perhaps simple opinion).

I've had really good luck with the Hornady 68 grainer, shoots almost as good as the Sierras and a lot less expensive. There's lots of choices out there to play with.
Click to expand...

For the most part I would like to keep the load set up so that it matches the BDC on the Elcan Spectre DR. Otherwise I am open to pretty much any load or 62 grain bullet (any recommendations?)
 
Oooohhhh... Mr Moneybags! Nice scopes.

No, no recommendations on bullets. Lots of people deal with the same issue, both with A2 type rears and other sights. Depending on what your rifle's grouping ability is, you might even find that whatever load you settle on has the rifle's grouping more of a factor than the difference in flight profiles. Look at how a lot of our C7A2 rifles group with ball ammo at the longer distances and you'll see what I mean...

I guess if you're headed that way you can go comparing BC's, and then work on load development with your chosen bullets that come the closest. Hornady, Sierra, and Nosler all have a goodly assortment of bullets whose weight starts with a "6"...

The SS109 bullet's BC is .320 using the G1 model and .158 using the G7 VLD model (more accurate model over longer ranges). Perhaps that helps.

Just for what the heck... why not work on finding just how good your rifle groups to begin with?

I use a test load for ARs that apparently originated from Wally Hart, the bench rest/barrel guy - I don't know that to be fact, but that is what I've been told when the load was passed on to me.

You start with either of these Sierra bullets
https://www.sierrabullets.com/store/product.cfm/sn/1410/224-dia-52-gr-HPBT-MatchKing
https://www.sierrabullets.com/store/product.cfm/sn/1400/224-dia-53-gr-HP-MatchKing

23.5 grains of H322 or 22 grains of H4198/IMR4198 and a CCI450 or Federal 205. Seat to 2.26 OAL. Fire 10 shot groups at 200 meters.

Only about 2965 fps in a 20" bbl, but it will tell you a lot about what your AR is capable of before you start looking for your load to emulate NATO ammunition.

Hope that helps.
 
Rick said:
Oooohhhh... Mr Moneybags! Nice scopes.

No, no recommendations on bullets. Lots of people deal with the same issue, both with A2 type rears and other sights. Depending on what your rifle's grouping ability is, you might even find that whatever load you settle on has the rifle's grouping more of a factor than the difference in flight profiles. Look at how a lot of our C7A2 rifles group with ball ammo at the longer distances and you'll see what I mean...

I guess if you're headed that way you can go comparing BC's, and then work on load development with your chosen bullets that come the closest. Hornady, Sierra, and Nosler all have a goodly assortment of bullets whose weight starts with a "6"...

The SS109 bullet's BC is .320 using the G1 model and .158 using the G7 VLD model (more accurate model over longer ranges). Perhaps that helps.

Just for what the heck... why not work on finding just how good your rifle groups to begin with?

I use a test load for ARs that apparently originated from Wally Hart, the bench rest/barrel guy - I don't know that to be fact, but that is what I've been told when the load was passed on to me.

You start with either of these Sierra bullets
https://www.sierrabullets.com/store/product.cfm/sn/1410/224-dia-52-gr-HPBT-MatchKing
https://www.sierrabullets.com/store/product.cfm/sn/1400/224-dia-53-gr-HP-MatchKing

23.5 grains of H322 or 22 grains of H4198/IMR4198 and a CCI450 or Federal 205. Seat to 2.26 OAL. Fire 10 shot groups at 200 meters.

Only about 2965 fps in a 20" bbl, but it will tell you a lot about what your AR is capable of before you start looking for your load to emulate NATO ammunition.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the info I guess I will have to set up a good test with some sierras once the trigger bow comes in and see whats the best accuracy i can get out of the Tavor.
 
JNA said:
Where does one find this TAC powder? My google skills did not show anything
Click to expand...
I think your browser must be broke.

When I search "TAC powder", the first three sites in the returns are
  • Load Data << Ramshot
  • Ramshot Powders
  • Ramshot TAC Smokeless Powder - MidwayUSA
TAC is one of the Ramshot series of powders; your Google search should show you pages and pages of links leading to reloading data, use in the .223/5.56, etc.

BTW, just for poops and giggles while doing some reloading last night, I ran the ball bullet against the Hornady 68 grain bullet I told you about. There's lots of variables involved with ballistic coefficient models, actual performance in a specific rifle, etc. But generally speaking, there is about 6" difference in total drop between the two rifles at 600 meters - that's assuming you're using a 20" bbl in your rifle. And without loading the Hornady up to maximum 5.56 NATO velocities. I'm just guessing here, but that is almost certainly a lot less than you and your rifle are able to group at 600 meters - I don't think you will be capable of shooting minute of angle at that distance from a bench rest.

That doesn't mean that's your bullet. What it suggests to me is what probably thousands of other AR shooters have also concluded - the differences in bullet path up until very long ranges isn't enough to focus on matching the ballistic profile instead of focusing instead of finding a bullet/load combination in your rifle that shoots the best groups when tested at distance i.e. 300 meters and out. The loads I use in my ARs don't match the graduations on my A3 aperture sights... I don't lose sleep about it.

Trust me on this: you aren't the first guy to start out down this path, not even close. I had my turn about three decades ago, except it was with a Long Branch Lee Enfield, trying to emulate the ball round that the service sight was manufactured for. Wasted a lot of time on that one, although I've never really minded time on the range. Would have enjoyed it more if I had spent the time practicing instead of shooting groups, however.

For what it's worth.
 
saskcop said:
From my queries, TAC is kinda unobtainium at the present time. Yes/no?
Click to expand...
Maybe more than most; I just have the remnants of the pound I bought for trials and I don't use it in anything at the moment.

Generally speaking, I think what you can find has as much to do with where you live and what kind of connections your gun store has. Seeing more and more powders showing up at Cabela's and others down in Kalispell these days however. Maybe that means the same will be happening in Canada soon.
 
Rick said:
I think your browser must be broke.

When I search "TAC powder", the first three sites in the returns are
  • Load Data << Ramshot
  • Ramshot Powders
  • Ramshot TAC Smokeless Powder - MidwayUSA
TAC is one of the Ramshot series of powders; your Google search should show you pages and pages of links leading to reloading data, use in the .223/5.56, etc.

BTW, just for poops and giggles while doing some reloading last night, I ran the ball bullet against the Hornady 68 grain bullet I told you about. There's lots of variables involved with ballistic coefficient models, actual performance in a specific rifle, etc. But generally speaking, there is about 6" difference in total drop between the two rifles at 600 meters - that's assuming you're using a 20" bbl in your rifle. And without loading the Hornady up to maximum 5.56 NATO velocities. I'm just guessing here, but that is almost certainly a lot less than you and your rifle are able to group at 600 meters - I don't think you will be capable of shooting minute of angle at that distance from a bench rest.

That doesn't mean that's your bullet. What it suggests to me is what probably thousands of other AR shooters have also concluded - the differences in bullet path up until very long ranges isn't enough to focus on matching the ballistic profile instead of focusing instead of finding a bullet/load combination in your rifle that shoots the best groups when tested at distance i.e. 300 meters and out. The loads I use in my ARs don't match the graduations on my A3 aperture sights... I don't lose sleep about it.

Trust me on this: you aren't the first guy to start out down this path, not even close. I had my turn about three decades ago, except it was with a Long Branch Lee Enfield, trying to emulate the ball round that the service sight was manufactured for. Wasted a lot of time on that one, although I've never really minded time on the range. Would have enjoyed it more if I had spent the time practicing instead of shooting groups, however.

For what it's worth.
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant finding it here. I see it in the states, but not in canadian stores. Also based on your longbranch comment i guess I cant sey that one either to the sights :(
 
JNA said:
Sorry I meant finding it here. I see it in the states, but not in canadian stores. Also based on your longbranch comment i guess I cant sey that one either to the sights :(
Click to expand...
Same as the 5.56... you can get close enough that the biggest difference will be from you and your rifle. The original rear sight has thumbscrew adjustments, so you just have to remember how much to set it above or below the distance mark. Or, find a Parker Hale PH 4 sight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom