ArchAngelCD
Moderator, SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
There ya go, you might find what you're looking for or at least you have a starting point. Good luck...
Varget Alternative for .223 target rifle
- Thread starter DeplorabusUnum
- Start date
There ya go, you might find what you're looking for or at least you have a starting point. Good luck...
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,917
- Reaction score
- 10,991
Twist rate calculators are fine and often reliable, but recommendations are not always definitive. If you have the time and the components, do some serious load development and experimentation, especially if you have a gun that really shoots well. Nothing wrong with deriving the best possible accuracy for your setup.
I've lost all interest in ARs, but when I was I was working with them in .223 some years ago using three 1 in 7" twist Colt ARs, the most accurate combination I found was with the regular 69 Sierra MatchKing (not the plastic tipped one) or the Sierra 65 GameKing; both with the same dose of H4895 powder.
The same loads did even better in a 1 in 9" twist CZ bolt-action. I'd have faith in Berger bullets, too, but have done little work with them in .223. I always hoped I could get the Hornady 68 or 75 Match bullets to shoot as they were considerably cheaper than the Sierras. They Hornadys are good bullets, but would never do quite as well as the Sierras, at least in my guns.
cmj8591
Member
This group was shot with 69g, Nosler TMK and 24.6 grains of Varget. The group size is measured edge to edge. It was originally loaded for an AR15 target gun. I've gotten a couple of groups slightly smaller using a Berger 70g VLD with the same load. I've tried a lot of other powders, including BL-c(2) and CFE223 but nothing shoots as well as Varget. The CFE223 was a complete no go in my rifle and I had a hard time keeping the groups sub MOA. At least in my case, with that rifle, it is worth the extra effort to get the Varget. My model 12 LRPV is completely stock out of the box.
gwpercle
Member
I have not tried CFE 223 and it might be a contendor ...
But I can tell you when I couldn't get Varget ... which by the way I gave up chasing after ... even my friend a gun shop owner can't get ..
Have had good results with :
Reloader 10-X
IMR 3031
IMR 4895
Good luck finding powder ... I never did find Varget locally and refuse to pay all the shipping and hazmat fees .
To date IMR 4895 remains my most favorite powder .
Gary
But I can tell you when I couldn't get Varget ... which by the way I gave up chasing after ... even my friend a gun shop owner can't get ..
Have had good results with :
Reloader 10-X
IMR 3031
IMR 4895
Good luck finding powder ... I never did find Varget locally and refuse to pay all the shipping and hazmat fees .
To date IMR 4895 remains my most favorite powder .
Gary
Last edited:
Miracle Man
US Veteran
Many moons ago I was trying for an accurate load for my 20' target AR-15. Granted it wasn't a real wide test but my best results were with a 60 gr. Hornady flat base and H322.
BillBro
Member
If temp stability is even remotely important stay far far away from cfe223, VVN140 is what you seek, the answer to all of your dreams. In 223/5.56 and the heavies, 75 (Hornady) and 77 grain bullets, especially the SMK and Berger OTM's, VV N140 is an absolutely amazing powder which is par for the course with VV powders in general.
Naturally I am speaking about my rifles, my barrels etc. Its hard if not impossible to recommend a powder/bullet combo that works for every barrel but Ive shot all 3 of the aforementioned bullets in 4 different barrels and had really good results. Its worth a try.
Naturally I am speaking about my rifles, my barrels etc. Its hard if not impossible to recommend a powder/bullet combo that works for every barrel but Ive shot all 3 of the aforementioned bullets in 4 different barrels and had really good results. Its worth a try.
Another fan of 748 with magnum primers (am using Rem 7 1/2) and mid weight bullets. Don't have to weigh every charge, usually available and less expensive and not as temp sensitive as larger volume cartridges using it. At least in my experience, 748 with mag primers and upper end loads are more accurate.
Way back when I started loading small caliber bullets from 52 to 55grs
I had good results with w748, BL-C2 and 4895 for factory dup. loads.
Just be careful on hot summer days with a full load of BL-C2, since it can
increase in pressure, if the case gets hot. ( no roof range, 98* )
Good luck.
I had good results with w748, BL-C2 and 4895 for factory dup. loads.
Just be careful on hot summer days with a full load of BL-C2, since it can
increase in pressure, if the case gets hot. ( no roof range, 98* )
Good luck.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,917
- Reaction score
- 10,991
This group was shot with 69g, Nosler TMK and 24.6 grains of Varget. The group size is measured edge to edge. It was originally loaded for an AR15 target gun. I've gotten a couple of groups slightly smaller using a Berger 70g VLD with the same load. I've tried a lot of other powders, including BL-c(2) and CFE223 but nothing shoots as well as Varget. The CFE223 was a complete no go in my rifle and I had a hard time keeping the groups sub MOA. At least in my case, with that rifle, it is worth the extra effort to get the Varget. My model 12 LRPV is completely stock out of the box.
Small groups are fine, but it's far more meaningful to show the two five-shot groups before the pictured one and the two five-shot groups that followed. Five, five-shot groups gives some real perspective about the rifle and load.
I did an informal study about groups and group sizes several years ago just to satisfy my curiosity using eight rifles. Results were crude and basic and not done by an expert, but I learned a few things. Eight three-shot groups and six four-shot groups also provide useful information.
Measuring group sizes with a ruler graduated in tenths or twentieths of an inch is far more useful (not to mention repeatable) than using a caliper, the exception being a record benchrest group with several people measuring the group officially.
Study and measure the bullet holes in the paper. Many like to deduct bullet diameter, .308 for instance, from the outside-to-outside measurement. See how many of your bullet holes actually are .308". Most, maybe all will be considerably smaller regardless of the type paper. Our methods may be flawed, but close enough, I suppose. Another good reason to measure with a ruler.
I would look for some TAC. Meters well and I have had good results with light and heavy bullets and great velocity. I prefer it to varget these days.
Varget was my Go To powder for 22-250 and .223. Yes, I did trickle the last couple tenths of a grain with Varget. I have loaded the CFE, and I was impressed. It does keep the barrel cleaner, and you can get sub MOA groups with several bullet weights. I don't thin you will be disappointed.
cmj8591
Member
This was one of ten, five shot groups fired over the course of a week with the same load. It was the smallest but the largest was only about .025" bigger. all of them were between .441 and about .461. I don't remember exactly and my load books are not with me. I could get all technophile about keeping the information on a spread sheet, and some day I might do that but right now I'm not that anal about it and am sticking with my analog method. The rifle has about 1000 rounds through it and except for some throw away test loads, like the CFE223 that I mentioned, I don't think it has produced a group over 3/4 MOA. Like I said, this is a dead stock rifle that has no after market mods at all. I have pretty much settled into 5 shot groups and I usually shoot 4 at a session. Once in a while I throw a 10 shot in there just to see if they will start to string. I will use several 3 shot groups when I'm trying to build a load with a totally unknown powder just to get me on track.
Last edited:
DWalt
Member
As I have stated here several times previously “Accuracy” (really it’s Precision) of a load cannot be assessed simply by firing a few five-shot groups and calling it good, as that is statistically flawed and highly unreliable. If you are truly interested in making a rigorous comparative assessment of the grouping capability of your rifle while firing different loads, the minimum reliable test is to fire no fewer than five 10-shot groups of each load and use the arithmetic average of the five group extreme spreads (ES) as your measure. If you think five-shot groups are preferable, it will require firing and averaging the ESs of at least 20 five-shot groups to get approximately the same level of statistical reliability. That requires 100 shots instead of 50. Theoretically, the ES of a single 22-shot group would also be statistically reliable, but there are sound reasons that it should not be considered, as the presence of a single flyer could have an outsized effect on the ES.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 8,917
- Reaction score
- 10,991
That's a lot of good information and it looks like you have an accurate rifle, straight-out-of-the-box. I think many don't know what their rifle is capable of accuracy-wise from an unmolested perspective because they immediately modify their guns before serious shooting.
Spread sheets? I've yet to see a need. A notebook and pen still work well for me, but for those using spread sheets, such a recording method may work just fine for their purposes.
It's always refreshing to see that some shooters/ handloaders still take accuracy seriously.
OP
DeplorabusUnum
Member
I actually have some TAC (already use it for AR loads). I'm anxious to see how it does with this bolt action rifle.
Every rifle shots a powder and bullet weight/style, a little different, than others.
In my Ruger 77 bull barrel, with several brands and styles of 55 gr jacket bullets,
Varget powder was in 4th place in the tiny group section and third in the fps spot, for a factory loading, in my 22-250.
Good luck on finding a good load.
In my Ruger 77 bull barrel, with several brands and styles of 55 gr jacket bullets,
Varget powder was in 4th place in the tiny group section and third in the fps spot, for a factory loading, in my 22-250.
Good luck on finding a good load.
There are also other considerations in developing a very accurate consistent load. Powder weight (fps), case volume, primer, bullet jump (distance from bullet ogive to start of rifling), brass trim length, and concentricity to name a few. They all require testing and extensive note taking.
I spent quite a bit of time and effort developing my 6.5CM round which in the end yields a one hole .25 MOA accuracy (RPR rifle). Some of the things I learned along the way was faster was not always better, and bullet jump did indeed have an affect. Measure your chamber and set a start jump distance, try different powder weights/chrono. All after you decide on what components you want to use. It's a little bit of a rabbit hole but a hell of a lot of fun getting there if you want sub .5 or better. I have pages of notes and testing and it really helps in getting to the end goal. Good luck and keep us advised of your progress!
I spent quite a bit of time and effort developing my 6.5CM round which in the end yields a one hole .25 MOA accuracy (RPR rifle). Some of the things I learned along the way was faster was not always better, and bullet jump did indeed have an affect. Measure your chamber and set a start jump distance, try different powder weights/chrono. All after you decide on what components you want to use. It's a little bit of a rabbit hole but a hell of a lot of fun getting there if you want sub .5 or better. I have pages of notes and testing and it really helps in getting to the end goal. Good luck and keep us advised of your progress!
Attachments
Light bullets (40-52) 22 gr 4198 more or less shoots great. I also have RL 10 and RL 11 for 55-60 gr. Heaviest I have loaded has been 69-70s. . After that the velocities are lower than necessary to interest me
Last edited:
Shooter's World "Precision" also known as S062, has a very similar vivacity profile and can be used with nearly identical results compared to Varget.
What i do not know is if it is actually easier to get hands on than Varget. Prices of the single based Lovex Powders in Germany doubled recently.
Shooter's World Precision Powder: A Replacement For Varget? -The Firearm Blog
What i do not know is if it is actually easier to get hands on than Varget. Prices of the single based Lovex Powders in Germany doubled recently.
Shooter's World Precision Powder: A Replacement For Varget? -The Firearm Blog
OP
DeplorabusUnum
Member
This is what I went through with my 6.5 Creedmoor. With my gun I found the most consistently accurate bullet was the Berger 140 gr. Hybrid Target. Then I found that the most accurate powder charge with that bullet had a velocity of 2525 ft/s on my chrono. I also found that there was a flat spot in the curve when plotting velocity in relation to powder charge.
Once I found that, I loaded up a bunch of rounds with a charge right in the middle of that flat spot for velocity, changing only jump distance from the lands to find the sweet spot there. In my gun, I found that increasing jump increased velocity. Again, the most accurate jump had a velocity of 2525 ft/s. I assume it has to do with harmonic wave of the barrel matching velocity of the bullet. Increasing velocity from there had a negative effect on accuracy, whether by larger jump or larger powder charge.
All of this of course was after turning and reaming necks, .002 shoulder bump when sizing, uniform reaming of flash holes, and setting neck tension the same (as close as possible) for all the brass. It took weeks, and several trips to the range, but it did cut MOA by over 50% from 1 down to .45. A lot of work and prep, extra effort at the range setting up chrono and taking notes, but IMO this is what makes it fun, and is worth it.
Similar threads
