Subsonic .223 with Titegroup

But honestly, rather than making assertions or statements from "feels" or "thinks", go read a few reloading manuals and educate yourself. You'll be better off for it, and truly enjoy reloading and experimenting.
 
Regarding powder burn rates. It's less to do with barrel length than it is with controlling the pressure from ignition to bullet leaving the barrel (leave aside semi automatics, because they add more nuance).

I don't have time to get into an essay about it but PLEASE don't go comparing a given charge in .22LR with one in .223. The case volumes are far too different. That .22LR also uses a soft lead bullet that is lighter than the typically jacketed .223.

I ran into problems years ago using "The Load", which involved a light charge of Red Dot behind a cast bullet in .308.

One shot felt just like every other, except I had to hammer the bolt open, and found the primer pocket had just about doubled in size - no doubt one of those random high pressure events that you can get with small charges of fast powder in a large case.

What I'm saying is that you need to be careful. In fact if you're a new reloader you shouldn't even be playing with strange recipes
 
Thanks for the advice.

Although I hoped I could find some way around it, I'm going to have to rent a chronograph before I go to the range to shoot a set of reduced loads that starts off with 3.5 grains downward. I should know within a very few shots what amount of Titegroup will propel a Campro 55-grain fmj out of a 9.5" barrel to obtain a speed of between 900 and 1,000 fps.

Thanks again.
 
Iloverevolvers said:
Thanks for the advice.

Although I hoped I could find some way around it, I'm going to have to rent a chronograph before I go to the range to shoot a set of reduced loads that starts off with 3.5 grains downward. I should know within a very few shots what amount of Titegroup will propel a Campro 55-grain fmj out of a 9.5" barrel to obtain a speed of between 900 and 1,000 fps.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...
Sight in your rifle at 40 metres and try to get a drop of 7 inches at 100 metres you will probly be around 1000fps if your scope is 1.5 inches above bore
 
dirtybarry said:
Interesting...might have to try some some .308 now. Also this has got me thinking about trying .22 Hornet level loads since I have a bunch of 4227 powder.
Click to expand...
Hey barry , what is the report on 4227

I have been told to use it as Black Powder replacement . 3 1-2 gr of 4227 instead of 20 gr Blk Pwdr in cartridges
.....skwerl
 
If you are after subsonic 223 with TiteGroup with no chronograph start at 4gr and load up a few dropping .1gr per load and listen for super sonic crack.
When you find the load with no crack drop another 1/10 to be sure and load up a bunch.
After that play with seating depth to improve groups if need be.

If you are into reloading a chrono is certainly a nice have though.
 
todbartell said:
3.1grs Titegroup is 15% load density

6.2grs would be 24k psi / 1823 fps

9.3grs would be 43k psi / 2240 fps

12.4grs would be 67k psi / 2590 fps (58% load density)

15.5grs would be 95k psi / 2900 fps (72% LD)

18.6grs would be 131k psi / 3174 fps (87% LD)

21.7grs would be 178k psi / 3440 fps (101% LD)

I'm always leary of loads that will take multiple charges and still fit in the case. A guy could think he had H335 in the powder hopper and start charging cases with 23grs Titegroup
Click to expand...
todbartell, that's a nice table. I'm particularly interested in the chamber pressures associated with each charge of Titegroup because I'm using Titegroup. Do you remember your source for this information and, if so, can you provide a link to that information? Thanks.

I've pretty much decided on the charge of Titegroup I'm going to use on the low-fps end of the scale. Now I'm turning my attention more to the higher end -- obviously, the more dangerous end, so I'm going to go a bit Off Topic and moderators should simply delete this post if I've gone too far.

In addition to reduced-load, low-fps rounds, I'd also like to produce a much smaller number that are least somewhat similar to the PMC bronze rounds that I have, which are 55 grain and supposedly 3200 fps. Maybe this goal is simply impossible using Titegroup, but maybe I can get close enough.

I found Wikipedia's information on .223 Remington here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington

Pressures​

Remington submitted the specifications for the .223 Remington cartridge in 1964 to SAAMI. The original pressure for the .223 Remington was 52,000 psi with DuPont IMR Powder. A higher pressure of 55,000 psi (379 MPa) resulted from the change from IMR to Olin Ball powder. The official name for .223 Remington in the US Army is cartridge 5.56x45mm ball, M193. If a 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge is loaded into a chamber intended to use .223 Remington, the bullet will be in contact with the rifling and the forcing cone is very tight. This generates a much higher pressure than .223 Remington chambers are designed for.

I notice on the same source that the 5.56 NATO cartridge is designed for a significantly higher chamber pressure, but the only reason I mention that is because my gun is 223 Wylde caliber, which can supposedly shoot both 223 and 5.56 equally safely, which means its chamber (and bolt, etc.) must be designed to accept the higher chamber pressure. (I won't be trying to turn a 223 Remington round into a 5.56 NATO round performance-wise, so don't warn me against trying.)

If the above chart is pretty accurate, it indicates that a 9.3-grain charge of Titegroup in a 223 Remington-caliber case produces a chamber pressure of 43k psi with a resulting bullet speed of 2240 fps (neither the weight of the bullet nor the length of the barrel are mentioned, but that's OK with me because I'd like to focus solely on the chamber pressure at the moment); and that 12.4 grains would produce a chamber pressure of 67k psi with a resulting bullet speed of 2590 fps, which is well above the SAAMI 55K-psi pressure limit for 223 Remington-caliber cartridges.

To those of you who have used or are using Titegroup in 223 Remington, does all of the above boil down to mean that the maximum charge of Titegroup that can safely be used in a 223 Remington cartridge would be roughly 10 grains, or is even 9.3 grains too much Titegroup to be using in a 223 Remington cartridge? Again, I'd prefer to hear from people who are using, or have used, Titegroup in 223 Remington, espcially those who have marched the charge upward in small increments using a chronograph to confirm the corresponding increase in fps and determined for themselves the practical upper limit of the charge of Titegroup for their firearm.

Thanks.
 
My Lee Loader classic kit contains a 1.6 cc scoop and a chart that states that one scoop of CFE223 will deliver close to 24.8 grains of that powder, and that this charge will propel a 55 grain FMJ bullet at around 2965 fps. So that powder would indeed very safely fill the bill of creating commercial-cartridge-level rounds.

To avoid the hassle and testing of higher charges of Titegroup to produce higher-fps rounds, I've seriously considered using CFE223 for rounds in the high fps range. I did a quick perusal of prices for that powder and found around $85 per pound, which equals 7000 grains. 7000 grains divided by 24.8 grains per round equals 282 rounds. And 8500 cents divided by 282 rounds equals 30 cents per round (and this is just powder -- no bullet, no primer, no brass). Yikes.

OTOH, I bought one pound of Titegroup for about the same price -- call it $85. The low fps rounds, powder-wise, are going to be much less expensive than CFE223. For example, 7000 grains divided by, say, 3 grains equals 2,333 rounds and 8500 cents divided by 2,333 rounds equals 3.6 cents worth of powder per round -- not far from one tenth the cost of using CFE223.

Of course the TG fps and fpe is much lower than that of the CFE rounds, but when putting holes in paper, who cares?

Fortunately, I have found someone who will let me borrow a chronograph.

My plan now is to create a few sets of 3-rounds each that will contain 4 to 9.5 grains of TG in half-grain increments. After each group of 3, I will carefully examine the headstamp-end of the case, looking for signs of overpressurization and take particular note of any changes in the operation of the bolt to remove the spent case. Should I notice changes in headstamp appearance or action of the bolt, I'll stop the test and, when I get home, remove the bullets and save the powder from the unfired rounds. Of course I'll record the fps at each step while keeping in mind the cost of each round as the fps increases. If I can achieve 2000 fps or more with 10 cents of TG, I'll be happy. I believe that my 1-lb bottle of TG is going to provide a very good bang for the buck.
 
Iloverevolvers said:
My Lee Loader classic kit contains a 1.6 cc scoop and a chart that states that one scoop of CFE223 will deliver close to 24.8 grains of that powder, and that this charge will propel a 55 grain FMJ bullet at around 2965 fps. So that powder would indeed very safely fill the bill of creating commercial-cartridge-level rounds.

To avoid the hassle and testing of higher charges of Titegroup to produce higher-fps rounds, I've seriously considered using CFE223 for rounds in the high fps range. I did a quick perusal of prices for that powder and found around $85 per pound, which equals 7000 grains. 7000 grains divided by 24.8 grains per round equals 282 rounds. And 8500 cents divided by 282 rounds equals 30 cents per round (and this is just powder -- no bullet, no primer, no brass). Yikes.

OTOH, I bought one pound of Titegroup for about the same price -- call it $85. The low fps rounds, powder-wise, are going to be much less expensive than CFE223. For example, 7000 grains divided by, say, 3 grains equals 2,333 rounds and 8500 cents divided by 2,333 rounds equals 3.6 cents worth of powder per round -- not far from one tenth the cost of using CFE223.

Of course the TG fps and fpe is much lower than that of the CFE rounds, but when putting holes in paper, who cares?

Fortunately, I have found someone who will let me borrow a chronograph.

My plan now is to create a few sets of 3-rounds each that will contain 4 to 9.5 grains of TG in half-grain increments. After each group of 3, I will carefully examine the headstamp-end of the case, looking for signs of overpressurization and take particular note of any changes in the operation of the bolt to remove the spent case. Should I notice changes in headstamp appearance or action of the bolt, I'll stop the test and, when I get home, remove the bullets and save the powder from the unfired rounds. Of course I'll record the fps at each step while keeping in mind the cost of each round as the fps increases. If I can achieve 2000 fps or more with 10 cents of TG, I'll be happy. I believe that my 1-lb bottle of TG is going to provide a very good bang for the buck.
Click to expand...
Cfe 223 is not a good powder for reduced loads. I found it gave me hangfires in starting book loads in larger cartridges. I have used 4227 in reduced supersonic loads it works well not as reliable as vihtavouri n110 but more common. You could get a powder in the same range as cfe 223 that is more useful
 
porpoise said:
Cfe 223 is not a good powder for reduced loads. I found it gave me hangfires in starting book loads in larger cartridges. I have used 4227 in reduced supersonic loads it works well not as reliable as vihtavouri n110 but more common. You could get a powder in the same range as cfe 223 that is more useful
Click to expand...
I did not say I was considering using CFE223 for creating reduced loads. What I wrote was the following:

"My Lee Loader classic kit contains a 1.6 cc scoop and a chart that states that one scoop of CFE223 will deliver close to 24.8 grains of that powder, and that this charge will propel a 55 grain FMJ bullet at around 2965 fps. So that powder would indeed very safely fill the bill of creating commercial-cartridge-level rounds."
 
I went to Edmonton's Phoenix indoor range today. Very nice people run the immaculately clean and well maintained place. There are also very nice changes to the 40-yard range vs what this range was in 2020. I thought the range was going to let me borrow a Labradar chrono (the older orange one), but I had to rent it for $15 per hour, which was acceptable because I only needed it for one hour and should not need a chrono again in the future.

I did the experiment that I previously said I was going to perform, but I'm not going to report all loads because I felt it unnecessary. The chart below shows grains Titegroup (TG) across the top row versus FPS for each charge underneath. After that is a series of photos of the headstamp area of the 7.0 grain through 9.0 grain brass.

I short, I could not detect any negative effects of increasing loads of TG up to and including 9 grains. The spent cases look fine to me and the action of the bolt to remove the cases was always the same. I included the headstamp area of a PMC bronze 3200 fps that I fired first thing today (big, big bang and an amazing ball of fire) in the photo of the three 9-grain cases. I'll be taking particular note of any changes in new-primer installation in the spent 9-grain cases. If they insert a bit too easily, I can drop the load back to, say, 8 grains and still be close to 2000 fps, but I do not expect this to be necessary.

Again, my "rif-tol" is a BCL MRX Bronco Howitzer bolt action 223 Wylde with a 9.5" barrel (about 7.5" of which is rifled). Campro 55 grain FMJ bullets; Campro small rifle primers; once-fired Winchester brass (again, except for one PMC bronze 3200 fps round fired today for headstamp area comaparison with that of 9 grains TG cases).

I used a Lee Loader Classic to reload the ammo.

The Labradar did not detect a few rounds, which means that what was supposed to be three rounds at each charge sometimes turned into two.

From now on I'll be routinely shooting 3.0 to 3.5 grains TG for punching paper, and, when I want a bigger bang, fire 9 grains (which fulfills my happy-goal of 10 cents of powder for 2000+-fps; close enough to commercial). BTW, there was no flash whatsoever when using 9 grains. Of course if the range was darker, I probably would have seen at least some flash.

I hope this information helps someone with something.

Grains TG vs FPS.jpg

7.0 grains of TG
7.0 gn TG.jpg

7.5 grains TG
7.5 gn TG.jpg

8.0 grains TG
8.0 gn TG.jpg

8.5 grains TG
8.5 gn TG.jpg

3 Winchesters with 9.0 grains TG and one PMC bronze 3200 fps commercial round for comparison
9.0 gn TG w PMC Bronze on right.jpg

Edit: I reloaded the 3 9-grain cases and the installation of the primers was as it was for all other empties of various loads -- normal.

After deciding that I would continue to load at least some rounds with 9 grains, I created from a fired 223 case and a short length of copper tubing a custom powder scoop that delivers very close to 9.0 grains of TG. This scoop makes it much easier and faster for me to reload than weighing every charge on my RCBS beam scale. (I have a similar custom scoop, made from a 22LR case, that delivers 3.1 grains TG for the vast majority of rounds.)
9 gn TB scoop.jpg

9 gn TB scoop 4.jpg
9 gn TB scoop 2.jpg
 
Last edited:
skwerl said:
Hey barry , what is the report on 4227

I have been told to use it as Black Powder replacement . 3 1-2 gr of 4227 instead of 20 gr Blk Pwdr in cartridges
.....skwerl
Click to expand...
I tried more 4227 than that for lighter 32-20 loads its way too slow for lighter loads left unburned powder all down my barrel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom