M14 Forum banner

21 - 40 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,393 Posts
i guess i missed the "h" part... how is imr 4895 not a commercial powder? am i missing something? i have a few pounds of it. not trying to be a smart @ss, im just curious
No military powder is the same as commercially available powders, the military uses what is referred to as non-canister grade powders and they test each lot for performance requirements. If the powder meets their performance requirements then they use it, if not then they reject it and go on to the next powder. We have access to commercial powder (canister grade) that is not screened the same as military powder. Commercial powder will stay pretty consistent in regards to their burn characteristics while the military will adjust those characteristics from time to time as the need arises. As a result, military TM data is based on some standard that was developed many years ago and it may not be consistent with the commercial powders that we use today even though they use the same general brand name for the powder.

The bottom line is that when we try to build ammo to military specs we can't guarantee that we will get exactly the same performance, even if we use military surplus powder and components. All published load data should be worked up to under safe, controlled conditions until the load is proven to work properly and you may end up with slightly different load specs while achieving the same kind of performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SRA

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,950 Posts
My favorite load for 168gr is 44 varget in LC brass, works great with 168bthp or AMAX bullets and is a close dupe to 168gr hornady TAP.

41.5 or so grains of H4895 should get you close to that.

IMHO, anything under 40 grains of H4895 or 41.5 varget is too light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,393 Posts
My favorite load for 168gr is 44 varget in LC brass, works great with 168bthp or AMAX bullets and is a close dupe to 168gr hornady TAP.

41.5 or so grains of H4895 should get you close to that.

IMHO, anything under 40 grains of H4895 or 41.5 varget is too light.
I have no choice but to recommend not using 44gr of Varget in an LC case under a 168gr A-Max bullet, in my opinion this load is flat out dangerous. Estimated chamber pressure is up around 65,000 psi which is way over the max recommended by SAAMI. Using the 168gr SMK is also at the top end but usable (just about 60,000 psi).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,950 Posts
If you're using quickload check your settings as I need to input 46 grains to get the same result. I guess for the safety-first crowed I should have added to 'start at 43 and work up' but really...2550 from an 18", 2650 from a 24", that's healthy but not screaming...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
I have no choice but to recommend not using 44gr of Varget in an LC case under a 168gr A-Max bullet, in my opinion this load is flat out dangerous. Estimated chamber pressure is up around 65,000 psi which is way over the max recommended SAAMI maximum. Using the 168gr SMK is also at the top end but usable (just about 60,000 psi).
Good advice - I almost left a post recommending Jason just go back and review your responses on the subject over the past year. I am a Varget fan but 44 gr. in a mil-spec case with a 168 gr. bullet would give me concern - in particular in a M14/M1A action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,814 Posts
I'm sure y'all have been beaten over the head with these questions, if so, I apologize. I'm not a forum-type guy, (I guess I am now) but I've been wearing google out looking for a way to get started on a match 168 gr load for my M1A. I'm looking for a starting point to work my way toward getting as close to M852 as I can. If any of y'all can help with this I'd appreciate it. My M1A is a Springfield "Loaded" model, 22" bbl, no fancy stock or scope or any of that stuff, just the way it was built with ne NM barrel and front sight. It took me 23 yrs to get this thing and I'm finally at a point where I can start on a goal I've had for a long time, which is shooting an M1A to the extent of it's ability, without a Multi-million dollar scope, just my eyeball and open sights. What I have started with is Federal cases trimmed to 2.005"", 168 gr SMK bullets, 39.1 gr of H4895 and CCI # 34 primers. 2.80" COL. I haven't chronographed these yet. I have a bunch of these primers, some Federal LR, a bunch of H4895, BL-C(2), and Varget. The brass I have is about 100 Federal and 200 Hornady TAP match brass. Thank all of you for any ideas you can give me.
You need one of these.
http://www.sierrabullets.com/index.cfm?section=reloading
http://www.midwayusa.com/Product/94...tol-manual-of-reloading-data-reloading-manual
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,393 Posts
If you're using quickload check your settings as I need to input 46 grains to get the same result. I guess for the safety-first crowed I should have added to 'start at 43 and work up' but really...2550 from an 18", 2650 from a 24", that's healthy but not screaming...
What are you talking about? Based on information that I have my numbers are accurate, if you don't agree then you need to provide proof of why you think I'm wrong, just claiming that I need to check my settings means nothing to me, if you want me to check my settings than you need to tell me what standards you want me to compare to. I have no reason to question my results, if you do then you need to tell me why, I'm more than happy to compare notes and if you can prove me wrong then I'm happy to update my info. Until then I'll stand by my numbers and caution you against using that load.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,950 Posts
What are you talking about? Based on information that I have my numbers are accurate, if you don't agree then you need to provide proof of why you think I'm wrong, just claiming that I need to check my settings means nothing to me, if you want me to check my settings than you need to tell me what standards you want me to compare to. I have no reason to question my results, if you do then you need to tell me why, I'm more than happy to compare notes and if you can prove me wrong then I'm happy to update my info. Until then I'll stand by my numbers and caution you against using that load.
Well, running the numbers in quickload with my case capacity (55 for the LC that I have sitting here) I am getting 58k. Would be nice to know what seating depth and case capacity you are assuming for your calculations in quickload. No need to get all hot and bothered about it.

BTW here is a post of yours from a couple years' ago and your numbers are almost identical to what I am getting now:

http://m14forum.com/ammunition/80003-m1a-target-loads-w-168-gr-bt-100-yards.html

Case filled to - 104.4% (compressed load)
Muzzle Velocity - 2649 fps
Chamber Pressure - 57688 psi

Do you think that this is a realistic prediction?
Which is why I'm asking how your numbers have gotten that much higher.

Like I said I've shot that load a lot and it is neither a hot nor a fast load, really a duplicate of most 168gr match loads out there and in fact slower than both black hills and 168 FGMM were out of the same rifle, but a bit faster than the American Eagle "M1A" load which is comparable to LC brass, 168bthp and 42.5 grains of varget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,393 Posts
Well, running the numbers in quickload with my case capacity (55 for the LC that I have sitting here) I am getting 58k. Would be nice to know what seating depth and case capacity you are assuming for your calculations in quickload. No need to get all hot and bothered about it.

BTW here is a post of yours from a couple years' ago and your numbers are almost identical to what I am getting now:

http://m14forum.com/ammunition/80003-m1a-target-loads-w-168-gr-bt-100-yards.html



Which is why I'm asking how your numbers have gotten that much higher.

Like I said I've shot that load a lot and it is neither a hot nor a fast load, really a duplicate of most 168gr match loads out there and in fact slower than both black hills and 168 FGMM were out of the same rifle, but a bit faster than the American Eagle "M1A" load which is comparable to LC brass, 168bthp and 42.5 grains of varget.
If you will notice, today's posted information was based on using;

LC case with 53.4 grains of water capacity
44.0 grains of Varget
168gr Hornady A-Max bullet
COAL 2.80"

recommend not using 44gr of Varget in an LC case under a 168gr A-Max bullet,
In my old post I used a Lapua case which has greater volume
assuming a case capacity of 56gr H2O
Run your numbers using the case capacity that I used and you will see that the pressure will be excessive.

Also, you aren't being very accurate in describing your cartridge settings in QuickLOAD and your lack of specificity is causing differences in our results. Your 58K psi result using 44 grains of Varget in an LC case with 55gr of water capacity can only be achieved if you are using a COAL of about 2.85". It's obvious that you are loading for long ranges and maximum COAL, your loads are not standard loads.

I wasn't getting all hot, you told me to check my numbers and it's obvious that my numbers are correct, this is simply a case of you not being accurate when you compared our results.

My results using 53.4gr of case capacity and 2.80" COAL
Your results using 55gr of case capacity and 2.85" COAL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,393 Posts
And by the way, your case capacity of 55 grains of water capacity vs. my case capacity of 53.4 grains of water capacity proves what I posted earlier

To be safe and reproducible you must have at least the following load information;
The case volume used (regardless of brand, volumes within brands will vary)
Powder brand and charge weight
Bullet brand and weight
Cartridge length overall (I prefer to use length at the ogive)
Crimp or no crimp
And this whole conversation about numbers proves something else that I said in that post
The problems that I see most often are not the loads but the loading technique that the hand loader uses, the variations in how a cartridge can be assembled are many and can cause problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
If you guys don't believe in discussing load recipes then why are you frequenting the ammo forum? If you don't believe in discussing ammunition recipes then how did you guys know where to start when you began making your own ammo? Oh, that's right, you read about recipes from the manufacturer's reloading books. So what you are really saying is, private individuals who post load recipes are not to be trusted (do you think they are liars or just stupid?), but big corporations that post load recipes are to be trusted 100%, really poor reasoning fellas.

I have my own ammunition sub-forum under the professionals forum, I always post ammunition information that is complete and detailed, I also provide estimated pressures (chamber and gas port) along with muzzle velocities. In order to do that I have to have detailed info from the person involved and without it I can only provide commonly known estimates that any other EXPERIENCED hand loader would know.

.
I for one do trust the "Big corporations" WAY more than I would trust any load data posted in this forum, by you or anyone. How many reloading manuals have you published??? Those big companies go to great lenghts to test and re test their published data! How many test rigs do you have in your basement??? lol They all have millions of dollars in test equipment! They also go to a lot of trouble to proof and proof read said data. I know this for a fact because I work in the printing industry. From what I see in this post of your load data it is great! But it is almost vebatim the same info from manuals I have from those big companies, or data I have worked up on my own. Or found on Google...
I don't think your a liar or stupid, by any means. But I do think it's WRONG to give out fully worked up loads on an open fourm! It's way to easy for you or me to hit a wrong number and not notice the typo and some guys gun goes BOOM! Just because he used the posted data and did know any better than to WORK UP HIS OWN LOAD FOR HIS GUN! Get it???
You are obviously a VERY good reloader. So please don't condesend by talking like you know better and you have all the best loads and we should use them just because you have over 5000 posts and you posted it on this forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,393 Posts
You new guys sure are thin skinned, if you can't handle being told that somebody disagrees with you then maybe you need to stay out of the conversation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
First off... I might be relatively new to this forum, but I'm not new to reloading. Been at it for 35 years or so, and I was taught by a couple guys that are way better than I would ever hope to be. I'm sure THEY would agree with me on this, "That you should never give your load data to someone to use on a gun you didn't have". I remember asking for some on a 30.06 and he told me to work it up... just like ALL the books say you should. Second, I think I was in the conversation before you lol, and I'm not thin skinned at all. And, likewise if you can't handle being told I don't agree with you, you shouldn't have gotten into the conversation in the first place. I and others on here think your giving out bad advice in a way. By just handing them data that is unproven in their gun.

It's not the data, I think it's great! It's the way your putting it out there, I think it was in this topic you used the words " You should try this" or something close to that... It's just not safe. What I mean is this, there are to many guys that are new to reloading on here that might take your data and use it without going through the steps you used to get it... I hope you understand. Just trying to promote safety, and getting guys to use the right steps... Okay.
You know what your doing and have some kick a$$ loads to prove it! Help them to learn how to do the same... =)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,393 Posts
You have your interpretation of what I've posted and most others have another, enjoy the forum and try to stay on topic, you really need to stop hijacking this conversation. The OP wasn't debating how information is posted, he was asking for information about a load. And since this is an ammunition forum I'd say that this whole critique of my language is pretty much off topic and needs to come to end and/or be moved to some other forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
OP

I get 2560fps average velocity out of my M1a with only 40.5 g or IMR4895 with LC 07 brass, CCI#34 and COAL of 2.805 with 168g SMK.

althought the Army TM does say 42.0g of IMR 4895 as RAMac mentioned it was published 50 years ago, my opinion is 42g of current IMR4895 is TOO much for a 168g bullet in a M1a.

Again I get to 2560fps across my chronograph with only 40.5g of IMR 4895

start low at say 38 grains work up
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,950 Posts
Also, you aren't being very accurate in describing your cartridge settings in QuickLOAD and your lack of specificity is causing differences in our results. Your 58K psi result using 44 grains of Varget in an LC case with 55gr of water capacity can only be achieved if you are using a COAL of about 2.85". It's obvious that you are loading for long ranges and maximum COAL, your loads are not standard loads.
2.83 for bolts, 2.78 for DPMS SASS, the quickload numbers were for 2.83. Both had good brass life.

Quickload is a good tool but I have found it to be a bit too jumpy with seating depths in particular. The kind of pressure changes it gives are much higher than what you'll see in real life.

Sorry for the derail, hopefully this didn't confuse the OP too much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,950 Posts
my opinion is 42g of current IMR4895 is TOO much for a 168g bullet in a M1a.
2550 is fine for inside 300 with a 168, past that you want about 2650, 41.5-42 4895 should be close and still plenty safe. For a 175smk I would say the minimum is 2550fps to be useful for anything, and I have found 2650 out of my bolt rifles is where it becomes consistent at 1000.

Most factory match loads like the American Eagle 168 (advertised for an M1A) and stuff like Federal Gold Medal Match 168 will be over 2600fps out of a full size M1A rifle. FGMM 168gr for example was 2650 for me, right around where my now-infamous 44varget 168amax load is.

At the end of the day it is all about how it runs and groups in your personal rifle and whether or not it suits your needs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
I use H4895, LC brass and BR2 primers for my 168 load. 41.2 grains gets me a hair over 2500 from my Springfield NM.

As always, work up to that. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #39
Alright, y'all, first,thank you everybody for your advice. It's been a while, so I'll tell you what I did. I loaded some with the recipe I posted, with Hornady Match brass and some with Federal brass. The avg velocity was 2525 fps and the Hornady brass made much smaller groups.

I fainally got ahold of 200 rd of LC 12 brass and the Army technical manual with M852 load data in it. I've made some with the exact same components, the only difference being the brass. I don't have M852 match brass.

I have a question before I shoot it.

The manual lists the total weight for M852 as 385 gr. Mine are weighing 395 gr. The only difference is the brass and I'm using CCI #34 primers. I thought the weight difference might be in the primers so I weighed a regular CCI 200 primer and it's the same weight as the #34. The brass is trimmed to 2.005" and the COL is 2.83". Where's that extra 10 gr coming from or is the weight in the manual wrong?

I weighed some USGI M80 ball and compared that weight to the weight for M80 in the manual and they're 10 gr lighter also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,891 Posts
Alright, y'all, first,thank you everybody for your advice. It's been a while, so I'll tell you what I did. I loaded some with the recipe I posted, with Hornady Match brass and some with Federal brass. The avg velocity was 2525 fps and the Hornady brass made much smaller groups.

I fainally got ahold of 200 rd of LC 12 brass and the Army technical manual with M852 load data in it. I've made some with the exact same components, the only difference being the brass. I don't have M852 match brass.

I have a question before I shoot it.

The manual lists the total weight for M852 as 385 gr. Mine are weighing 395 gr. The only difference is the brass and I'm using CCI #34 primers. I thought the weight difference might be in the primers so I weighed a regular CCI 200 primer and it's the same weight as the #34. The brass is trimmed to 2.005" and the COL is 2.83". Where's that extra 10 gr coming from or is the weight in the manual wrong?

I weighed some USGI M80 ball and compared that weight to the weight for M80 in the manual and they're 10 gr lighter also.
Now I'm going to butt in... GI1

The Army TM's are NOT handloading manuals. The gunpowders they use are NOT the same as the powders we can buy. the Army Ammunition Data Sheets pub is for general reference only, it is NOT safe to use the numbers in that pub for handloading. The Army pubs are full of typo errors, I have seen many myself, especially if you are using a PDF copy that you found online which has even MORE errors because the software used to change scanned images into text produces errors.

DO NOT use numbers from an Army TM for handloading.

I have posted this before, and I'm sure I will be posting it again... GI3
 
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
Top