55 grain V-Max in 223 Remington?

cdn1canhunt said:
To the op the beauty of reloading is that you get to try lots of variables to find what works best for your rig.
Varget and benchmark. Have been the best for my 55gr .223 range rounds. Top marks go to benchmark
Click to expand...

Agreed - it is the "beauty" of reloading - is also the "curse" of it. Hornady 9th manual shows 20 different powders with pressure tested results for that one bullet weight. Only so many hours in a day - so many days in a week - so many weeks in a year. Next thing I know, a couple years have gone by and I still have not figured out a "best load" - let alone two or three alternates. Might have been easier when I had one or two cartridges - is more difficult with 20 or more cartridges and 4 or 5 rifles for some of them. Why my OP was looking at what examples of powder people had tried and rejected - was hoping to thin down the choices. For the record, my current loading is with Benchmark powder - the grandson and our son seem to think that is working out just fine - however, I am now down to my last bottle of it, and was hoping to find an alternate...
 
Bad Bob said:
So which powders do you have access to?
Click to expand...

Current on hand that I would consider in "quantity" = 5 pounds or more - IMR 3031, Varget, RL-15, H4350, RL-19, AA 2230, Hunter - lesser amounts of others. And I am fully aware that some posters on this site get powder in 1,000 or 500 pound shipments - so, I do not consider that I have a "lot" of powder on hand.
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
Current on hand that I would consider in "quantity" = 5 pounds or more - IMR 3031, Varget, RL-15, H4350, RL-19, AA 2230, Hunter - lesser amounts of others. And I am fully aware that some posters on this site get powder in 1,000 or 500 pound shipments - so, I do not consider that I have a "lot" of powder on hand.
Click to expand...

RL-15, RL-19 & 4350 too slow. 3031, Varget & AA 2230 proper burn rate, much more suitable, never tried Hunter. Varget would be my choice, but has never shot as good as H 4895 or Benchmark for me. Just my experience. Try 5 of each and go from there.
 
I have tried several powders and bullets in many .223's, and have settled on 28.5 grains of CFE-223 with the 55 VM as the most consistent load across the board. I made up several thousand rounds before Christmas and just tried two new .223 rifles with the load and had the same predictable results. Just under MOA with one rifle and 1/2 MOA with the other, zeroed at 200 yards using VX-3 4.5-14X40mm scopes with the Varmint Hunters reticle.
 
We most likely approach things differently. I most definitely do take my pressure test series up beyond published maximum, in individual rifles, while monitoring the velocities - but I would not start with that load in a new-to-me rifle. As per Hornady 9th manual, they show 27.4 grains as Max for CFE 223 in a 223 Remington for 3,200 fps - in a 26" 1-12" twist barrel - page 152. As mentioned in my OP - I am looking at a 20", 1 in 9" twist barrel
 
Potashminer said:
We most likely approach things differently. I most definitely do take my pressure test series up beyond published maximum, in individual rifles, while monitoring the velocities - but I would not start with that load in a new-to-me rifle. As per Hornady 9th manual, they show 27.4 grains as Max for CFE 223 in a 223 Remington for 3,200 fps - in a 26" 1-12" twist barrel - page 152. As mentioned in my OP - I am looking at a 20", 1 in 9" twist barrel
Click to expand...

I worked up to 29.5 grains CFE-223 in two rifles with no pressure signs, but backed down to 28.5 grains for more consistent accuracy... have since used the load in half a dozen (modern) bolt action rifles with no signs of pressure, so I am not too worried about it. If I were using it in a weaker action, such as a break action, I would restart the process. As always with online loading advice, it is always best to work up to the target... for my own purposes, pet loads have worked well and I have them for several cartridges, where they are the "go to" until proven wrong. I should note that they can be proven wrong on the very first shot... and therein lies the rub.... safety first, this post is only about something that works for me.
 
Last edited:
Is all good if you have your head up in the process. I guess I am a bit concerned about a reader who might not be.

I know that the European CIP proof testing requirements call for a proof round that is 125% of the standard Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) for that cartridge. And the particular firearm must take that 125% overload without permanent deformity - so, no bolt lug set back, no change in headspace. Engineers / Mathematicians have determined, apparently, that one (or two) 125% over pressure rounds "prove" that the rifle is fit for a lifetime at "normal" pressure loads - does NOT prove that it is fit for a lifetime of 125% overloads, although it did survive at least one round at that pressure level. From various posts that I have read, I suspect there are some who do not distinguish between a lifetime of "normal" MAP, versus surviving one or two "proof" level rounds. That "proofing" concept does not imply that 105% of MAP is okay - the numbers say that the "proof" says that 100% of MAP is okay.

Gets a bit "squirrelly" when various cartridges are chambered in the same rifle model. Was the point made by John Barsness when he developed his loads for 9.3x62 - he could not see why they could not be taken to the same MAP as a 30-06 - same brass construction, identical rifles. He had his loads - 286 grain with Big Game powder and 250 grain with Varget powder - tested at the Western Powder pressure lab, which showed that is where he was at - above the standard 9.3x62 limit, but at the 30-06 limit. And then you can read that 270 Win has even higher MAP than does the 30-06, so the cycle seems to continue ...
 
Last edited:
Potashminer said:
Is all good if you have your head up in the process. I guess I am a bit concerned about a reader who might not be.

I know that the European CIP proof testing requirements call for a proof round that is 125% of the standard Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) for that cartridge. And the particular firearm must take that 125% overload without permanent deformity - so, no bolt lug set back, no change in headspace. Engineers / Mathematicians have determined, apparently, that one (or two) 125% over pressure rounds "prove" that the rifle is fit for a lifetime at "normal" pressure loads - does NOT prove that it is fit for a lifetime of 125% overloads, although it did survive at least one round at that pressure level. From various posts that I have read, I suspect there are some who do not distinguish between a lifetime of "normal" MAP, versus surviving one or two "proof" level rounds.
Click to expand...

With pet loads, I start there and watch for pressure signs, flattened primers, heavy bolt lift etc... and if present, back off and work up. However, with my current bevy of pet loads, I have yet to encounter undo pressure.
 
I always reload between starting load and middle load so if there are five charge weights for a particular powder / bullet the 1st and 3rd will be my range. I often (mostly) find a good accurate load in this range
 
hoytcanon said:
With pet loads, I start there and watch for pressure signs, flattened primers, heavy bolt lift etc... and if present, back off and work up. However, with my current bevy of pet loads, I have yet to encounter undo pressure.
Click to expand...

From the sounds of it, your process has been working for you.

I do not have access to pressure testing facilities, so I mostly rely on the writings by John Barsness, who does have such access. He found in his own various rifles that traditional "pressure signs" like case head expansion, bolt lift, primer condition - sometimes worked, but sometimes do not - he found some of his loads that he used for years were significantly above MAP for that cartridge. About the only sign that he found that a home hand loader can 100% rely on, is muzzle velocity - given barrel length differences - so far as he is concerned, the only way to get more velocity than pressure tested loads, is to generate more pressure than they did, in their testing. As per him, many older and earlier hand loading manuals were based totally on "pressure estimating" techniques - some of which have been shown to be fallible - and have been superseded by results of piezo or CUP pressure tests.

One version of his article is found here: Scroll down to the section on "So Called Pressure Signs"

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/reloading-myths-for-rifle-cartridges/371443
 
Last edited:
Safety should always be front of mind. To be safe you should always load new powders/rifles using starting loads suggested in a reputable manual ( not internet suggested) then work up in .3-.5 grain increments. Always watching for pressure signs. ( fattened primers, heavy bolt lift etc)
I most often find good accuracy at starting loads but often (not always) find multiple accuracy nodes through a manuals posted min/max loads. A reloader should have to have a methodical, safe way for each powder/gun to find each accuracy node. Don’t jeopardize safety for accuracy. If I can’t get to or find satisfactory accuracy without pressure issues with a chosen power or components I try different powders or components to attempt to get to a reload/ rifle combination I’m happy with. It’s does take time but I figure that is what my retirement will be for.
 
There's a lot to be said for taking the first node searching upward from the starting powder charge, especially if you're shooting paper at moderate distances and wanting to be kind to your rifle, shoulder, and ears.

The traditional last node found before the rounds get too hot is for folk who want to deliver maximum energy to their target, or are going to the greatest distance, or who want to replace a barrel sooner.
 
I use varget. H4895. And blc2 in my 1 in 9 twist. One of the reloaders i think rl10 i xant remember for my slow twist rifle. The 1 in 9 has shot everything ive tried well except 69gr tipped match kings. Ive been loading them with trailboss as to make a heavy 22 mag load still havent found any accuracy
53gr and 55gr vmax shot great in pretty much all loads. 55gr skg hp out shot the vmax so thats what i use.
I believe the 53gr vmax had the better bc over the 55gr vmax. Both kill coyotes well
 
With the prices of everything these days. Finding good accuracy near start load is a good thing. It also preserves the life of your components and keep things in the safe zone…..And I have yet to hear a hit coyote ask me if it was hit with 25grains or 26.5 grains of Varget.
 
brybenn said:
I use varget. H4895. And blc2 in my 1 in 9 twist. One of the reloaders i think rl10 i xant remember for my slow twist rifle. The 1 in 9 has shot everything ive tried well except 69gr tipped match kings. Ive been loading them with trailboss as to make a heavy 22 mag load still havent found any accuracy
53gr and 55gr vmax shot great in pretty much all loads. 55gr skg hp out shot the vmax so thats what i use.
I believe the 53gr vmax had the better bc over the 55gr vmax. Both kill coyotes well
Click to expand...

Same here 1in 9 savage no likey 69gr varmint grenades. Yet to find a good powder or load for them.
 
old303 said:
There's a lot to be said for taking the first node searching upward from the starting powder charge, especially if you're shooting paper at moderate distances and wanting to be kind to your rifle, shoulder, and ears.

The traditional last node found before the rounds get too hot is for folk who want to deliver maximum energy to their target, or are going to the greatest distance, or who want to replace a barrel sooner.
Click to expand...

The difference between shooting paper or game... in a nutshell.
 
Yes! - 25 shots at paper target in 30 minutes, versus 25 shots at game in a decade of hunting. But 55 grain V-Max in 223 Rem in a gopher patch will be a lot more like an intense day of target shooting, then "hunting deer".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom