90gr Berger VLD and the 223 - 500m Group 1 1/16"X 1/8" see post 357

For F Class the idea was to be able to stay in the F/TR F/F category without making the leap to the F/open class. With what is being tested the 223 and 90's could be a top performer in the F/Tr and have all the benefits Mystic stated earlier the problem making the leap to the Open class is that they would be mid pack at best and those folks running 6.5 or 7's would have it all over the little 223.

There is some real promise for the 223 in F/TR or F/F class.

Matt
This has some real promises it could be an excellent combination of 223 for mid range 300-600 and then the 308 for 700-1,000 and still being able to shot in F/Tr. We could also participate in ISSF 300 events without getting beatup. An 18lbs gun shooting a 223 would be real gentle. If it is as good as reported it could easily replace the 308 at 1,000. How much money would be saved using approx half the powder needed to shot 308 let along the cost reduction in bullets and replacement barrels?

Hell now that i am thinking about it what if it simply equaled or bettered the 308 by 10% it could still be a smart move specially the mid distances.
 
Trevor60 said:
Hell now that i am thinking about it what if it simply equaled or bettered the 308 by 10% it could still be a smart move specially the mid distances.
Click to expand...

If a .223/90 equals a .308/155 (or betters it by 10%), the heck with mid distances - it ought to take over at *all* distances....!

On paper, the 90 grain .223 bullet is proportionately heavier than a 155 grain .308 bullet (it's equivalent to about a 170 grain .308 bullet). So provided all the "yes buts" are taken care of, a top-of-the-line .223/90 ought to be able to outperform a top-of-the-line 155 by about 10%.

Some of the "yes buts":
- does the .223/90 give equal or better groups at 300y and 1000y?
- is it "fussy" or "forgiving" to get match-winning performance from it?
 
I side with what Dan is suggesting. This bullet/cartidge combo is fussy. I would strongly encourage anyone who is "on a budget" to do some serious canvassing of those who have tried this load. It requires a very tight twist barrel and your choice of optimal bullets is very limited.

The reality is, there is often a great deal of difference between what a ballistics program predicts and what really happens. There are numerous variables that influence real-world performance (with ALL cartridges). As I stated previously, I have spoken with many competent loaders/shooters that have given up trying to make 90's work in a plain 223 Rem. I would advocate using a proven combination and simply practice being a better condition reader.
 
To further amplify what Ian said - the .223/90 combo is NOT PROVEN. It is something that looks very promising on paper. There are a number of a reports that say that the 90s just don't seem to shoot at long range. There are a few reports (I only know of one) that say that they do. This means that it is an interesting and exciting thing for an experienced experimenter to try. Maybe one day, it will be a known and proven thing, in which case it'll be a great thing to recommend to all shooters. But that day is nowhere near.

The .308/155 (or 168 or 175) is a PROVEN, KNOWN combo. Getting it to shoot well is trivially boring. It's an *uninteresting* technical exercise. And that's why it has so much to recommend to the 99% of people who just simply want something that *WORKS*, at 100 yards, at 300 yards, at 600 yards, and at 1000 yards.

The .223/80 is known to work at 1000 yards, but it is much less established than the .308/155. It *can* be done, of course, but it is much more of a specialist proposition to do it right (for 1000 yard shooting) than a .308/155.

If you want to SHOOT, go with .308/155.

If you want to SHOOT, with low recoil and low cost, and you are an *experienced*, careful reloader, go with .223/80.

If you want to EXPERIMENT and DEVELOP something for it's own sake and/or for the good of shooting, choose .223/90.
 
well said Dan.
To put it another way, make your first one a .308. Then start on a .223 and if you can make the 90 VLD work, you could well be ahead. If you can't quite make it work like you hoped, you still have a .308 that can be made to perform.
 
rnbra-shooter said:
To further amplify what Ian said - the .223/90 combo is NOT PROVEN. It is something that looks very promising on paper. There are a number of a reports that say that the 90s just don't seem to shoot at long range. There are a few reports (I only know of one) that say that they do. This means that it is an interesting and exciting thing for an experienced experimenter to try. Maybe one day, it will be a known and proven thing, in which case it'll be a great thing to recommend to all shooters. But that day is nowhere near.

The .308/155 (or 168 or 175) is a PROVEN, KNOWN combo. Getting it to shoot well is trivially boring. It's an *uninteresting* technical exercise. And that's why it has so much to recommend to the 99% of people who just simply want something that *WORKS*, at 100 yards, at 300 yards, at 600 yards, and at 1000 yards.

The .223/80 is known to work at 1000 yards, but it is much less established than the .308/155. It *can* be done, of course, but it is much more of a specialist proposition to do it right (for 1000 yard shooting) than a .308/155.

If you want to SHOOT, go with .308/155.

If you want to SHOOT, with low recoil and low cost, and you are an *experienced*, careful reloader, go with .223/80.

If you want to EXPERIMENT and DEVELOP something for it's own sake and/or for the good of shooting, choose .223/90.
Click to expand...

I don't know who you are, or what your shooting background is, and I don't understand your post. Are you purposely trying to discourage new shooters?

I 've only been reloading a relatively short time (5yrs) for my .308/175 1:11 and (1yr) for my .223/80 1:7. I have not yet competed, but have shot the .308 out to 800yds, and the .223 out to 900yds. I can keep all my hits within a 10" circle at 800yds (we were using paper plates stapled to the target). With the .223 at 900yds all shots were 4's or 5's with the occasional V Bull. i was quite happy for my firtst time shooting a .223 beyond 200yds.

I came to this particular thread to learn more about the VLD 90's. Apparently I'm wasting my time. I believe your post is detrimental to the DCRA and any provincial RA's that are struggling for new membership. What gives?
 
rnbra-shooter said:
To further amplify what Ian said - the .223/90 combo is NOT PROVEN. It is something that looks very promising on paper. There are a number of a reports that say that the 90s just don't seem to shoot at long range. There are a few reports (I only know of one) that say that they do. This means that it is an interesting and exciting thing for an experienced experimenter to try. Maybe one day, it will be a known and proven thing, in which case it'll be a great thing to recommend to all shooters. But that day is nowhere near.So, if your say

The .308/155 (or 168 or 175) is a PROVEN, KNOWN combo. Getting it to shoot well is trivially boring. It's an *uninteresting* technical exercise. And that's why it has so much to recommend to the 99% of people who just simply want something that *WORKS*, at 100 yards, at 300 yards, at 600 yards, and at 1000 yards.

The .223/80 is known to work at 1000 yards, but it is much less established than the .308/155. It *can* be done, of course, but it is much more of a specialist proposition to do it right (for 1000 yard shooting) than a .308/155.

If you want to SHOOT, go with .308/155.

If you want to SHOOT, with low recoil and low cost, and you are an *experienced*, careful reloader, go with .223/80.

If you want to EXPERIMENT and DEVELOP something for it's own sake and/or for the good of shooting, choose .223/90.
Click to expand...

How in the blue f*ck are you going to prove it, successful or not, if your encouraging people not to try it??
Trying new things if half the reason most people start reloading.
 
pmt said:
I don't know who you are, or what your shooting background is, and I don't understand your post. Are you purposely trying to discourage new shooters?
Click to expand...

Daniel Chisholm, NB. Have shot fullbore TR and F-Class for about 15 years. I particularly enjoy the technical side of shooting (reloading, ballistics etc), and am steadily working on the rest of my shooting too.

No, I am not trying to discourage new shooters (!). If my advice seemed "negative", then I apologize for that. What I was trying to do was to help head off potential disappointment and discouragement.

I 've only been reloading a relatively short time (5yrs) for my .308/175 1:11 and (1yr) for my .223/80 1:7. I have not yet competed, but have shot the .308 out to 800yds, and the .223 out to 900yds. I can keep all my hits within a 10" circle at 800yds (we were using paper plates stapled to the target). With the .223 at 900yds all shots were 4's or 5's with the occasional V Bull. i was quite happy for my first time shooting a .223 beyond 200yds.
Click to expand...

Getting a rifle working well enough at 1000 yards so that the score achieved is the result of the shooter's performance and not the rifle's, is usually a much fussier thing than at 800 yards. (For the sake of argument, let me define that as the rifle shooting fifteen out of fifteen shots into no more than 1.5 MOA, i.e. a group that is no taller than 15"). It's not rocket science, it can be done and has been done, but it does require another level of care and load development than for 600 yard and 800 yard shooting. For example, thrown powder charges (perhaps a 0.8 grain variation in charge weight) are perfectly fine for 600 yard shooting, as in "you can win a national match with it", and will likely be able to shoot a minute and a quarter at 800 yards (i.e. all shots into 10"). But for most powder/bullet/chamber combos, the velocity variation you get with thrown powder charges ends up giving a bit too much vertical spread at 1000 yards (the slower bullets land lower, the faster bullets higher). One particular load that I used for F-Class competition that would shoot half a minute elevation at 600 yards, would shoot about 3 minutes of elevation at 1000 yards (due mostly to the variations in m.v.).

When you take your .308/175 out to 1000 yards, I would guess that there's a good chance that it will work well for you as it is. And if it doesn't, say it gives you 2.0 MOA vertical, you can rightly expect that some 100 yard chrono work and charge testing (figure out how to get your extreme spread under 35fps) will let you achieve 1.25 MOA at 1000 yards.

The first time you take your 1:7 .223/80 out to 1000 yards, I would guess that it is less likely than your .308 to shoot as well as you might expect it to. But that too is OK, people can and have gotten .223/80s to work well at 1000 yards, and of course you can too. *BUT*, and this is my whole point, it is MORE DIFFICULT and fussier to get a .223/80 working well at 1000 yards than it is to get a .308/155 or .308/175 to work well at 1000 yards. Your case prep, load development, powder weighing etc is more exacting for a .223 than it is for a .308. If you need to get your .308 charge weight to within a 0.2 grain window, you probably need to get your .223 charge weight to within a 0.1 grain window.

There are many great things about a .223/80 (cheaper, more fun to shoot, easier to learn to shoot with, easier to learn to master shooting with). But I think we should be honest with newcomers, especially newcomers that don't have interest and experience in precision reloading, that getting a .223/80 to shoot well at 1000 yards is actually a bit of a "specialist" proposition. (but not so for shooting 800 yards and less - both .308 and .223 are easy to get shooting well enough at those distances)

I came to this particular thread to learn more about the VLD 90's. Apparently I'm wasting my time. I believe your post is detrimental to the DCRA and any provincial RA's that are struggling for new membership. What gives?
Click to expand...

No, you are not wasting your time, you are in the right place (you have several years experience reloading, you own a .223 *and* a .308, and you have already been doing some longer range shooting). If you try out some 90s in your .223 and they don't work, you have at least two fallback options (use your .308/175 or your .223/80) when you want to go out and "just shoot".

I know of only one person(and I know of him as a good thorough experimenter) who has reported good results at 1000 yards with 90 grain .223 bullets. Prior to his reports, everybody else I've heard about who has tried them has had bad results at 1000 yards with them. And I also seem to recall the Berger marketing guy honestly admit on the US "long-range.com" forum that the Berger 90 VLDs did not appear to be working well for anybody, which is something I quite respect him for saying publicly. But because the possibility of having .223/90 work at 1000 yards is *so* appealing, I am holding out hope that they may yet be made to work (either Berger 90 VLDs, or Sierra 90s, or JLK 90s, or perhaps Berger needs to design a new bullet).

My hope is that someday, loading a .223/90 will be a viable proposition for 1000 yard shooting, as easy (or almost as easy) as getting a .223/80 to shoot at 1000 yards today - which is to say, something that a conscientious precision reloader can reasonably take on. It will do our shooting game, particularly long range shooting, a great deal of good.

rig_pig69 said:
How in the blue f*ck are you going to prove it, successful or not, if your encouraging people not to try it??
Trying new things if half the reason most people start reloading.
Click to expand...

I am not discouraging reloaders/experimenters for trying to get a .223/90 to shoot well at 1000 yards - I want that nut cracked, and the only way to do it is for people to try things out and figure out what it takes.

But I most definitely *DO* want to discourage everybody, but most especially a new shooter, from building a 1:6.5" twist .223 throated for one of the 90s, with the expectation that they'll "work up a load" and then go out and outshoot .308/155s at 1000 yards at 2/3rds the cost and the recoil. As of today, THAT SCENARIO DOES NOT EXIST. The .223/90 is not yet ready for non-specialists to take out and "just load and shoot for". The .223/90 is ready for an R&D program - and everybody who tries it out should know what they are and what they are not getting themselves into.

Until we figure out how to make a .223/90 to work (or even _if_ it can be made to work!), a SHOOTER who would really rather be doing some 1000 yard plinking or competitive shooting rather than an open-ended R&D program, should not have a .223/90 as his one and only rifle that does not yet shoot well at 1000 yards and quite honestly nobody knows if it ever will be capable of shooting well at 1000.
 
"PMT" and "Rig Pig"

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=378369

Daniel is a marksman of exceptional ability. If you want his curriculum vitae, you can start with this link. He also has a background in engineering and has devoted a great deal of his time dispensing advice to MANY new shooters along the way. Daniel is more than qualified and more than expereinced enough to speak with authority on shooting subjects.

I'm frankly disgusted by the tone and manner in which you two have decided to anonymously attack his comments and his integrity. If you have a valid question, exercise some common courtesy.

Ian Hames
Chase BC Canada
 
Obtunded said:
"PMT" and "Rig Pig"

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=378369

Daniel is a marksman of exceptional ability. If you want his curriculum vitae, you can start with this link. He also has a background in engineering and has devoted a great deal of his time dispensing advice to MANY new shooters along the way. Daniel is more than qualified and more than expereinced enough to speak with authority on shooting subjects.

I'm frankly disgusted by the tone and manner in which you two have decided to anonymously attack his comments and his integrity. If you have a valid question, exercise some common courtesy.

Ian Hames
Chase BC Canada
Click to expand...

I don’t think Rig_pig and PMT meant anything rude. rnbra-shooter Is not as common of a voice as yourself and Mysticplayer are on CGN and some of us do not know his background and now we do. I was wondering the same thing myself. I think they were wondering why his message was not more along the lines of “The 90 VLD’s are a difficult bullet to load for. People may not get them to work. The more people we have experiment the greater the odds are we will discover what works. If you want to try, give it a shot but don’t waste all your time because your efforts might be futile.”

I will say I am going to try out the 90 VLD’s. I am not as an experienced reloader as I would like to be but am willing to try. From rnbra’s advice I will not get dissatisfied if they do not work for me. I like shooting and tinkering so it won’t be a loss to me if they don’t work. If they do however, I will be sure to post my progress just like everybody else. I am also looking forward to future posts to get a good place to start.
 
cdnredneck_t3 said:
I don’t think Rig_pig and PMT meant anything rude. rnbra-shooter Is not as common of a voice as yourself and Mysticplayer are on CGN and some of us do not know his background and now we do. I was wondering the same thing
Click to expand...

Ian, thanks very much for your backing. But as cdnredneck_t3 says I didn't think Rig_pig and PMT were being rude. I can see how easily my post could have sounded discouraging or dismissive of .223/90s, and how easy it would be to be a bit aggressive in responding.

myself. I think they were wondering why his message was not more along the lines of “The 90 VLD’s are a difficult bullet to load for. People may not get them to work. The more people we have experiment the greater the odds are we will discover what works. If you want to try, give it a shot but don’t waste all your time because your efforts might be futile.”
Click to expand...

Now if I had written that, it might have been much clearer from the start..!

I will say I am going to try out the 90 VLD’s. I am not as an experienced reloader as I would like to be but am willing to try. From rnbra’s advice I will not get dissatisfied if they do not work for me. I like shooting and tinkering so it won’t be a loss to me if they don’t work. If they do however, I will be sure to post my progress just like everybody else. I am also looking forward to future posts to get a good place to start.
Click to expand...

Great! It's worth giving it a try in anything quicker than a 1:8" twist (8" probably won't stabilize at sea level standard conditions, but 7.7" ought to (barely) do it (Sg=1.10 according to Miller formula)).
 
Daniel, thank you for your in-depth response. It does clear up the messages I was getting from your post in question.

Ian, I don't believe that I anonymously attacked his comments or integrity. I started my post by stating that I did not know the person or his shooting background, and that his post confused me.

My
Are you purposely trying to discourage new shooters?
Click to expand...
was more satirical/rhetorical than invalid. The point was that Daniels post confused me. His response cleared that confusion.

I will continue to read this, and other threads in Precision Rifles, and post a little less (for a while) :cheers:
 
Thanks for making peace guys.

Yes, this is definitely an R&D thread. But then all 'tried and true' first had to be tried. Without testing and experimenting, NONE of the present wildcats used in so many competitions would be here.

Individual Wildcatters have developed/redeveloped some of shooting's favorite and most successful cartridges. Many were based on cartridges that were commercial flops.

So I look forward to trying new things even if they don't work out as planned. Been wildcatting for years and don't intend to stop now.

Alright, back to gathering data. I received some info from a shooter that has had superb results out of his Savage 223 1 in 7 twist factory barrel. With the loads used, he is likely going 2600 to 2700fps.

This then defines an achievable base for twist and velocity. Seems you don't need to go faster then 7 twist.

We know that a US shooter is having success with the 7.7 twist barrel and a 223 on steroids. I will be trying my Shilen 8 twist. As previously said, likely marginal at low 223 velocities but might just be perfect for those fire breathing boomers.

Speaking of which, a shooter that is about to receive a McGowen in 22-243 middlestead is interested in sending a few of these bullets down range. 8 twist so we get to see if my theory above works.

With this much case capacity and powders like h1000, Re25, Retumbo, it is very possible to push beyond 3200fps and even touch 3400fps. Assuming of course that the bullet doesn't blow up first :)

At these velocities, the LR ballistics are pretty amazing and this will shoot very flat.

Barrel life will be in the thousand'ish but it'll be fun while it lasts.

I am thinking about a 22/250 with either an 8 or 7 twist. I think that would be fun and also be a pretty flat rifle for unknown tactical type events. 3100fps should be achievable in a 24 or 26" barrel.

Look forward to more info.

Jerry
 
Sorry fellas..... never meant to ruffle any feathers.

Anyway, more to the point of the story....

If one was going to use a 24 or 26" barrel on either a 22-243 or 22-250AI do you think you could get away with say with a slower twist?
 
Re: twists, I see that Clint used 1:6.5", which worked, but I also note that he had that weird 1000yard result (much too big groups - ~3 MOA).

If somebody has an 8" twist and wants to try, go ahead, but the calcs suggest it probably won't work with 2800fps (.223 vels), and even with 3100+fps it's too close to the ragged edge to call with any confidence.

I see that (mysticplayer) Jerry reports a shooter having success with 1:7" at 2600-2700fps velocities (it'd be nice to know which 90 grain bullet was used - JLK, Sierra, Berger 90 BT, Berger 90 VLD ?). Jerry, any reports yet of what sort of 1000 yard groups that shooter was able to achieve?

If Jerry Tierney's reports of sub-X-ring 1000 yard groups holds up, it'd be interesting to know what twist he used.

FYI here's something I wrote in a private message yesterday:

I seem to recall one of the Americans reporting that he tried a 1:7.7" (or maybe 1:7.5") and it worked. This was "surprising" to most, because most were assuming that 7" would not be enough. (There is a tendency, particularly among Americans, to be particularly conservative about twists, and use a quicker twist than is minimally needed).

There is an empirical formula by Miller, which I applied (actually I used JBM's version of it - http://www.jbmballistics.com/~jbm/cgi-bin/jbmstab-5.0.cgi ). The parameters I used there were 0.224" caliber, 90 grains, 1.263" bullet length (for Berger 90 VLD; I got this number from Litz's book), muzzle velocity 2800fps (you'd obviously get to use more), temp 59F, press 29.92" Hg. Using a twist of 7.7", the stability factor is 1.10 (stable, but marginal).

Using a twist of 8", the stability factor is 1.02, which is just too darn close to 1.0 to say whether it would or would not be stable (less than 1.0 means unstable, more than 1.0 means stable; but if there are any errors or uncertainties in the Miller formula, which there certainly are since it's only a convenient empirical formula).

I don't have a good feel for what velocities you might be able to get with a .22-.243/90; higher velocities help stability a *small* bit, but perhaps not enough. At 3100fps, the stability factor is 1.054, which is still right on the ragged edge.

Where are you located, and what is the lowest altitude that you will ever shoot your rifle, and what is the lowest temperature? Higher altitudes and higher temperature make the air lower denstity, which makes it easier to stablize bullets. If you're in Calgary, which I seem to recall is 1500' above sea level (so about 28.4" Hg), and you'll never be shooting in temperatures below 70F (e.g. a summertime target or varmint rifle), the Sg=1.13, which is probably good enough to say that it'll be stable.
Click to expand...
 
rig_pig69 said:
Sorry fellas..... never meant to ruffle any feathers.

Anyway, more to the point of the story....

If one was going to use a 24 or 26" barrel on either a 22-243 or 22-250AI do you think you could get away with say with a slower twist?
Click to expand...

There is only one way to find out :sniper:

Will know in early Oct when my bullet shipment arrives and I have a few of these VLDs to send down range.

My 223 with an 8 twist will the 'worse case scenerio' with respect to twist vs stability. If the bullet makes to 100 and 200yds, it should make it all the way out to 1000yds assuming there are no other aerodynamic issues that pop up as the bullet slows down.

Spin stability will increase as velocity decreases. I don't think I will go subsonic by 1000yds even with a pokey start but the bullet may become unstable at transonic velocities????????

My SWAG would put the bullet around 2600fps out of my shorter barrel and light loads. This will definitely push the spin stability as defined by the Miller program.

If it does work, then an 8 twist can be used very effectively with high speed chamberings.

Bullet blowing up is based on two components - too much spin, too much core heat (barrel friction). The Berger VLD's are built using Berger's thick jackets to try and eliminate/reduce bullet blow up.

However, there is only so much a bullet can take. Using a twist on the 'slow' side reduces the rotational problem. Keeping the barrel to a moderate length (28" ideal, 30" max) reduces the bore friction which heats and ultimately melts the core.

rnbra-shooter,

Here is a quote from the PM on the Savage 1/7 223

"The 90 VLD discussion seems to be a lively one.

Last week, with my factory Savage 12 LRPV .223 with a 1/7 twist I shot .187 MOA at 300 Yards over 21.5 grains of H4895 and .118 MOA at 300 Yards over 22.0 grains of RL-15. I'm going to try and recreate these feats Wednesday night!"

I don't think he has shot further as this is likely all very new to him too. However, the accuracy is superb and the big bugaboo - vertical dispersion - seems to be held in check, at least while still going fast.

Big question, repeatability and of course, LR stability.

One thing I would expect to start seeing in US High Power/Service Rifle shooting is more shooters using these bullets in their AR's during the slow fire stages where they can single feed.

A 7 twist is pretty standard in many AR's so using this bullet would pose no issues. At the powder levels above, there would be no stress on the moving bits either.

We could start to see scores rocket up in this form of shooting.

Jerry
 
I'm with you Darin. I'm starting to think about building one, but not to replace the .308 yet. Right now I've got two match ready .308's that shoot very well. The good news is I also have a 1-8" .223 all set up that could have a new 1-7-ish" tube screwed on w/ a minimum of fuss. And I just finished telling a friend that I didn't think I was going to build anything this winter...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom