My quest for the "perfect" cast .223 load for my AR-15 [Archive]

BHuij

02-07-2018, 09:55 AM

Final update and summary, as of 3/10/19: While there are still plenty of things I think could improve my results (better bullet design, using an alloy with higher tin/antimony content than pure COWW, experimenting with more powders, and using a nicer barrel), I have concluded my .223 through AR-15 tests for the foreseeable future. I achieved just north of 3 MOA with heat-treated 28-30 BHN COWW bullets, from the Lee C225-55-RF mold. This was at around 2600 FPS, using 19.6 grains of H335. The bullets are powder coated using Smoke's Clear PC, and copper Gator Checks brand gas checks. They are sized to .225" after powder coating. For plinking on steel out to 100 yards, these bullets are great. If you want to win competitions, you're going to have to put in more work.

For anyone wanting to shoot cast .223 through an AR-15 rifle, I can suggest ~19.0 grains of H335, using very high BHN 55gr bullets, as an excellent starting point. I have zero cycling issues with this load in my standard 16" barrel and carbine-length gas system. With my less-than-stellar barrel, I'm getting about 3 MOA.

For those who want to do better than 3 MOA, I can suggest the following measures to improve on my results: try mixing in some Linotype alloy with your COWW alloy. If it was me, I'd start by experimenting with a 1:3 ratio of Linotype to COWW, and playing with heat treating to find the optimal BHN for accuracy. Others who are having more success here than I have recommend a BHN in the 18-22 range with this alloy, and IMR 4895 powder to make near-full velocity loads that shoot with excellent accuracy (2700+ FPS).

One last word of caution; it's a really good idea to establish the accuracy potential of your rifle by working up a jacketed load first. I could have saved literally months of testing had I done this first. It turns out my muzzle break was either faulty or incorrectly installed, and was limiting my barrel's accuracy to around 3 MOA regardless of projectile type. After removing the muzzle break, accuracy improved.

Thanks again to everyone who helped me out as I spent the last year or so really learning a ton about how to make cast bullets work in difficult situations. If you have stumbled upon this thread and are trying to do cast .223 in an AR-15, I assure you it's possible, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Feel free to send me a PM.

-Andrew

Original Post:
Hey everyone--

I've spent lots of time reading here and gotten lots of great info. Now that I've joined the ranks of the AR-15 crowd, I'm tackling my most ambitious casting goal yet: an inexpensive cast .223 load that cycles my "M4 clone" reliably, and is accurate out to at least 100 yards, preferably 200.

I'm doing a short video series to carefully document my "somewhat-scientific" approach to chasing down this unicorn load. The documentation is more for myself than anyone else, but if it helps a brother out who is as overwhelmed with information as I was when researching for this, all the better.

This first video is mostly just an introduction and the culmination of my research into the different factors that go into a successful cast load in an AR-15. About 10 minutes of talking and reading off of a paper so I could remember everything I wanted to cover... haha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EriLIM-_e-A

But this weekend or next, barring a life-changing event (my wife is due to give birth to our first child any day now :D), I'll be testing out my first set of loads to see where they get me. I will be carefully recording my tests, and documenting my findings for the next video.

All testing will be done on my rifle with the following specs, so anyone looking to develop a load for their own rifle will have mine as a starting point:

Anderson Lower
Bear Creek Arsenal Upper
16" chrome-moly barrel with 1:9 twist
Carbine-length gas system
Standard carbine buffer and buffer spring
Standard 8620 steel BCG

BHuij

02-07-2018, 09:58 AM

Test #1 - Results and Comments in Blue

Video of results:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tgMzft8gY4&feature=youtu.be

Goals:

Find out if IMR-4227 will cycle reliably or if I need to find a new powder. Nope, need a new powder.
Get a rough idea of POI differences between cast loads in the ~2000FPS range and regular factory j-word rounds Seems just a tad lower, but it's not as dramatic of a difference as I was expecting.
See if any of these charges is grouping obviously better or worse than the others The 12.9 grain load (estimated velocity of 2035 FPS) grouped significantly better than any other load, so I'll see if I can refine that "ideal" velocity in future tests with different powders.

Test Groups (10 rounds each):

12.0 grains of IMR-4227. Estimated pressure is 19733 CUP, and estimated velocity is 1906 FPS. Not accurate, short stroked.
12.3 grains of IMR-4227. Estimated pressure is 20253 CUP, and estimated velocity is 1949 FPS. Not accurate, short stroked.
12.6 grains of IMR-4227. Estimated pressure is 20773 CUP, and estimated velocity is 1992 FPS. Not accurate, short stroked.
12.9 grains of IMR-4227. Estimated pressure is 21293 CUP, and estimated velocity is 2035 FPS. Reasonably accurate, short stroked.
13.2 grains of IMR-4227. Estimated pressure is 21813 CUP, and estimated velocity is 2078 FPS. Not accurate, short stroked.

Striving for consistency on as many variables as I can control:

Projectiles: Boolits are 100% wheel weight alloy, water quenched, using the Lee .225 55 gr flat nose mold.
Gas check: Aluminum gas checks are installed after casting using a Lee .225" push-through sizing die. My push-through sizing die appears to have a tiny amount of clearance between the ram and the inner walls of the sizing portion of the die. Gas checks are not turning into nice flat bases, but getting thin "fins" of aluminum protruding around the circumference of the base downwards. Any tips for dealing with this would be welcome; it has never happened for my .358" or .314" sizing dies (which I use for 9mm and 7.62x54R respectively).
Coating: Checked boolits are powder coated using Elvis's "heat to 140 first" shake 'n bake method, then baked at 400F for 20 minutes. Powder coat is Smoke's Clear. Coated boolits are then sized again back down to .225". This powder coat is magic, and puts the HF Red to shame. My bullets look like lead instead of lipstick now and I love it. Mad props to Smoke.
Hardness: After PCing and sizing, boolits are allowed a minimum of 1 week to age harden before loading. Although I don't have a hardness test, I estimate the process of water quenching WW alloy, then semi-annealing during the PC process, then allowing to age-harden again is leaving me with a hardness somewhere in the range of 15-16 BHN. I was too impatient to wait for them to harden a full week. But no leading, and by the time I get around to shooting any more, those bullets should be well over a week past their PC date.
Brass: All I have is range pickup, mixed head stamps. All brass is decapped, lubed with Lanolin + 99% isopropyl alcohol, full-length sized using the Lee .223 pacesetter dies, and then wet tumbled with Dawn and Lemishine for two hours before being allowed to thoroughly air dry. I'm going to need to find a solution for reaming or swaging primer pockets. Had trouble getting primers to seat consistently or without excessive force, I assume because a bunch of my range pickup is military brass.
Primers: All primers are CCI 400 small rifle primers (non-magnum).
Loading Procedure: Necks are expanded prior to seating boolits using the Lee Universal Neck Expander die. Boolits are seated per reloading manual to a COAL of 2.060". After seating, a light factory crimp is applied to remove belled case mouths and allow the cartridges to chamber, but not enough to swage projectiles down smaller than .225". I'm torn between trying a longer COAL for the sake of accuracy, and leaving it as is for the sake of having somewhat trustworthy estimates on velocity and pressure. I think for now I'll leave them short, and once I have a load that cycles reliably I'll start trying for longer.
Shooting Procedure: For the sake of consistency, the same 20-round pmag is used for all testing. As my sights are currently zeroed for factory j-word ammo, I'm going to shoot at 25 yards. I am shooting off a bench using a Harris-style bipod. The bipod is rested on a sandbag rather than the hard bench top, and I am leaning into the bipod to load it for each shot. The short range should allow me to get on paper for this test even if POI is dramatically different with these lighter loads, which it probably will be. I realize shooting at 25 yards doesn't give me the best data for measuring accuracy, but gross trends in 10-round groups should be observable, and this test is really more interested in seeing if I'm cycling the action consistently with this powder, and if I'm getting any leading (I shouldn't be). Once I get a reliably cycling load, I'll re-zero my sights and really dial in the load for accuracy at a longer range.

Looking forward to testing these rounds and reporting back.

etherwalker

02-07-2018, 06:08 PM

I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

MT Gianni

02-07-2018, 07:57 PM

I would advise you to google the "Houston Warehouse Experiment" and pay close attention to brass prep. Also get some copper checks to compare groups with.

PaulG67

02-07-2018, 08:25 PM

First off, early congratulations on the upcoming life changing event, and unless you have cloned yourself you will find that you will be far too busy for the next month or more to be making any videos. But you will enjoy it, remember every minute of it because they grow up way too fast and post some pics because as you know without pics it never happened...... LOL

Now about the loading, I was working with an NOE mold, if I remember it was 70 grain GC design. I did not do enough work with it to make it worth writing about so I am much interested in seeing what you come up with. Good luck with both endeavors.

Moonie

02-07-2018, 10:00 PM

H4895 was designed to produce large gas volume to cycle gas operated rifles. I've had good luck getting a 5.56 AR upper to cycle using 16gr of H4895 and 55-62gr boolits. The upper was not mine so I was unable to do much in the way of accuracy testing with it however others have reported decent accuracy using this powder for reduced loads. Some reported needing to use as much as 18gr for proper cycling.

Thumbcocker

02-08-2018, 09:53 AM

18.5 of 4895 was needed for full functioning on ours.

dverna

02-08-2018, 11:33 AM

I would advise you to google the "Houston Warehouse Experiment" and pay close attention to brass prep. Also get some copper checks to compare groups with.

I had never heard of this study and it was an extremely interesting read.

sundog

02-08-2018, 12:49 PM

I would advise you to google the "Houston Warehouse Experiment" and pay close attention to brass prep. Also get some copper checks to compare groups with.

^^^ Yeppers! ^^^

dimaprok

02-08-2018, 06:29 PM

Hey everyone--

I've spent lots of time reading here and gotten lots of great info. Now that I've joined the ranks of the AR-15 crowd, I'm tackling my most ambitious casting goal yet: an inexpensive cast .223 load that cycles my "M4 clone" reliably, and is accurate out to at least 100 yards, preferably 200.

I'm doing a short video series to carefully document my "somewhat-scientific" approach to chasing down this unicorn load. The documentation is more for myself than anyone else, but if it helps a brother out who is as overwhelmed with information as I was when researching for this, all the better.

This first video is mostly just an introduction and the culmination of my research into the different factors that go into a successful cast load in an AR-15. About 10 minutes of talking and reading off of a paper so I could remember everything I wanted to cover... haha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EriLIM-_e-A

But this weekend or next, barring a life-changing event (my wife is due to give birth to our first child any day now :D), I'll be testing out my first set of loads to see where they get me. I will be carefully recording my tests, and documenting my findings for the next video.

All testing will be done on my rifle with the following specs, so anyone looking to develop a load for their own rifle will have mine as a starting point:

Anderson Lower
Bear Creek Arsenal Upper
16" chrome-moly barrel with 1:9 twist
Carbine-length gas system
Standard carbine buffer and buffer spring
Standard 8620 steel BCGYou can get them a lot harder than 15-16 BHN after PC. I bake mine at 450 for 20 minutes but thats with bigger 308 bullets. Try starting with 425F you'll be surprised how hard they can get

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

BHuij

02-08-2018, 06:58 PM

You can get them a lot harder than 15-16 BHN after PC. I bake mine at 450 for 20 minutes but thats with bigger 308 bullets. Try starting with 425F you'll be surprised how hard they can get

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Are you implying that baking hotter during the PC process (without quenching after) actually makes for a harder final boolit? That goes against my theoretical knowledge of how annealing works, so if I'm not misunderstanding here, I'd love for you to expound on this.

BHuij

02-08-2018, 06:58 PM

I would advise you to google the "Houston Warehouse Experiment" and pay close attention to brass prep. Also get some copper checks to compare groups with.

Read it this morning and it was incredibly fascinating. Thanks for the pointer.

MT Gianni

02-08-2018, 08:55 PM

To me one of the most astonishing things, aside from the brass prep and skewed results with mixed brass, is the variation of several grains of powder in the same batch and still shooting in the tenths. I really miss Felix when it comes to questions like this.

dimaprok

02-08-2018, 09:31 PM

Are you implying that baking hotter during the PC process (without quenching after) actually makes for a harder final boolit? That goes against my theoretical knowledge of how annealing works, so if I'm not misunderstanding here, I'd love for you to expound on this.Definately water quench after PC bake without delay.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

BHuij

02-11-2018, 01:48 AM

Well, my wife was most resoundingly NOT in labor today, and the gun range is very close by. So I went for it.

I have amended the “Test #1” post to include results as well as a video going in depth. That is post #2 in this thread.

Not so much luck today, it’s looking like I’ll need to try another powder. So far I have seen recommended:

CFE223 - Specifically designed for this cartridge (though I assume with j-word bullets in mind)
H4895 - Specifically designed for large gas volume for use in semiauto gas guns like ARs and AKs
H335 - Apparently a very accurate powder for .223 projectiles, at least according to two separate people I talked to on Reddit.
Ramshot Tac - My cousin uses this with great success (again, not with cast).

If anyone has other suggestions or can vouch for one of those powders (particularly if you can vouch for one using cast boolits in .223), I’d love to hear. They all seem to fall right around the same zip code for burn rates, and all of them are significantly slower than 4227.

So barring any really compelling reasons to choose one over the other, I’m inclined to just see what’s cheapest at Sportsman’s Warehouse :D

Oh, and on that off chance that anyone is in Utah and wants to trade me a small amount of one of those powders in exchange for Bullseye, AA#2, or 4227, that would be great. I’d love to avoid a scenario where I spent $30 on a pound of powder that doesn’t work for me. I guess worst case scenario I could always work up a new load for my Mosin with the slower powder and see if I can beat the accuracy I’m getting from 4227 in 7.62x54R.

autopilotmp

02-11-2018, 09:45 PM

Currently using 19.5 h4895 for the same boolit from a 16" carbine. Reasonable accuracy at 100 yards. Hasn't been mentioned yet but for best accuracy in these tiny pills you gotta weight sort them ideally within tenth of a grain. Found that my rifle will function at 18grains if I use a filler (dacron). Also was not happy with the aluminum checks and switched to copper for better results. I have h335 & varget on hand as well but haven't done much with it yet.

Still a work in progress for me as well, was considering trying adding copper into my lead, using a heavier/longer boolit, and making a sacrifice to the boolit Gods. Either way it's too cold for going to the outdoor range so this has been on hold for a couple months. Am interested in what you come up with.

BHuij

02-12-2018, 01:19 PM

From what I'm reading, H4895 is best for function, H335 is best for accuracy, and CFE 223 is the cleanest running. Since I haven't yet gotten mine to cycle, I think H4895 is my next one to try. Maximum port pressure with minimum velocity seems to be the recipe here for these light 55gr cast. If I just absolutely can't get reliable cycling without pushing beyond 2000 FPS, I will consider a lighter buffer spring or a heavier boolit. Thanks for the info! Especially the tip about the Dacron filler allowing for lighter loads, that's good to know.

dverna

02-12-2018, 03:02 PM

If you have not already done so, check your accuracy with jacketed bullets. It gives you a baseline of what you and the gun are capable of.

The AR is not an easy platform to work with. If you want blasting ammunition, that is an easier goal than accurate ammunition. You will not achieve accuracy unless you visually inspect and weigh every bullet before lubing/coating and GCing it. If you cannot seat the GC squarely, you are wasting time and resources.

I bought the NATO (I believe about 70 gr) mold to undertake a similar project for my AR’s and decided to abandon it. BTW, A heavier bullet should help. My initial thoughts were to use 4895 and if that did not work, Varget. I think 4895 is a good choice. My alloy was going to be Linotype to get the hardness and if that worked, I would try 92-2-6 next. Both water quenched. My lube was going to be 2500+ from Lars. Lastly, copper GC’s.

My objectives were to be self-sufficient in case I needed to be, and save some money. I do not reload or cast for “fun” like many here do. Facing the prospect of doing all that work casting, bullets sorting, lubing, sizing, load development etc and likely not matching the accuracy or performance of a cheap Jacketed bullet made me question why bother.

One of the vendors here had Hornady 55 gr SP on sale for $7/100 in bulkpacks of 6000. It was an easy decision for me. If the supply of inexpensive jacketed bullets ever becomes an issue, I still have the mold and can address it then. So I follow these kind of threads with interest.

I wish you luck....And yes it can be done. But it will not be easy.

autopilotmp

02-12-2018, 03:30 PM

19.5 grains of h4895 was @2100fps from my 16" barrel that was lubed with carnuba blue, copper gc, wd coww, no filler. Would like to try the cfe223 bay see if I can pick some up for the heavier boolits.

BHuij

02-14-2018, 06:48 PM

Thanks everyone for the info. I've done plenty of reading (here and elsewhere) over the past few days. My wife and I welcomed our first child, a little boy, into the world on Sunday afternoon, and we came home from the hospital only yesterday. Mom and baby both doing great. While we were staying in the hospital, there wasn't a whole lot to do in between feeding the baby and changing diapers, so I spent a good amount of time researching and putting together my next round of tests.

Now that we're home and I'm taking the majority of this week off from work, I'm hoping to be able to put a video together soon describing the next test and what I've decided on. We're kind of in the same boat here as we were in the hospital, time wise. Baby alternates between eating, sleeping, and pooping, mom is napping whenever possible, and I have time to kill, but want to stick around the apartment for obvious reasons. So although I've decided on what I'll be trying out next, and will probably be able to put the test rounds all together by the end of the week, we're going to have to play it by ear to figure out when I'll next be able to spend a few hours at the range. It may be a few weeks.

Anyway, stay tuned.

BHuij

02-15-2018, 02:39 AM

Test #2 - Results in Blue

Pre-test informational video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBQVoO51hIA

Results video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl66nGXBnlw

Goals:

Since IMR 4227 consistently short stroked, find out if H335 will cycle reliably or if I need to test a third powder. Yep, it worked! Woohoo!
Further refine the optimal velocity for this boolit, it should fall somewhere between 1992 and 2078 FPS. Did what I could for velocity estimates without proper load data, but the math seems to be confirming the window of best accuracy as slightly over 2000 FPS. Further testing required.
Test my max COAL to see if it improves accuracy and/or cycling. Well I definitely didn't notice any detrimental effects from increasing COAL, so I'll stick with this 2.075" for now.
Test a Dacron filler to see if it allows me to shoot a lighter load without compromising reliable cycling. Weirdly, Dacron made things worse for me. If any of you know why that might be, let me know.
Observe all fouling to see how clean this powder runs, also watch for any signs of leading (none were present with IMR 4227). No evident of lead buildup except some "spray" around the inside of the flash suppressor, and powder fouling came out on the first dry patch, so this appears to be a pretty clean powder for me.

Test Groups (10 rounds each):

13.0 grains of IMR 4227 + Dacron filler. Estimated pressure is 21467 CUP, and estimated velocity is 2049 FPS.
17.5 grains of H335. No load data available, but best estimate is 1866 FPS.
18.0 grains of H335. No load data available, but best estimate is 1942 FPS.
18.5 grains of H335. No load data available, but best estimate is 2018 FPS.
19.0 grains of H335. No load data available, but best estimate is 2093 FPS.
19.5 grains of H335. No load data available, but best estimate is 2169 FPS.
17.5 grains of H335 + Dacron filler. No load data available, unclear how Dacron filler affects velocity.
18.0 grains of H335 + Dacron filler. No load data available, unclear how Dacron filler affects velocity.
18.5 grains of H335 + Dacron filler. No load data available, unclear how Dacron filler affects velocity.
19.0 grains of H335 + Dacron filler. No load data available, unclear how Dacron filler affects velocity.
19.5 grains of H335 + Dacron filler. No load data available, unclear how Dacron filler affects velocity.

Other Relevant Variables: Red text represents changes since last test.

Projectiles: Boolits are 100% wheel weight alloy, water quenched, using the Lee .225 55 gr flat nose mold. If I absolutely can’t get 55gr boolits to both function and shoot accurately, I will either look into a heavier boolit (I’ve heard great things about the NOE 70gr) or consider changing my buffer spring out for a lighter one.
Gas check: Aluminum gas checks are installed after casting using a Lee .225" push-through sizing die.
Coating: Checked boolits are powder coated—baked at 400F for 20 minutes. Powder coat is Smoke's Clear. Coated boolits are then sized again back down to .225".
Hardness: After PCing and sizing, boolits are allowed a minimum of 1 week to age harden before loading. Although I don't have a hardness test, I estimate the process of water quenching WW alloy, then semi-annealing during the PC process, then allowing to age-harden again is leaving me with a hardness somewhere in the range of 15-16 BHN.
Brass: All I have is range pickup, mixed head stamps. All brass is decapped, lubed with Lanolin + 99% isopropyl alcohol, full-length sized using the Lee .223 pacesetter dies, and then wet tumbled with Dawn and Lemishine for two hours before being allowed to thoroughly air dry.
Primers: All primers are CCI 400 small rifle primers (non-magnum).
Loading Procedure: Necks are expanded prior to seating boolits using the Lee Universal Neck Expander die. Boolits are now seated to a near-max COAL of 2.075". After seating, a light factory crimp is applied to remove belled case mouths and allow the cartridges to chamber, but not enough to swage projectiles down smaller than .225".
Shooting Procedure: For the sake of consistency, the same 20-round pmag is used for all testing. I am shooting off a bench using a Harris-style bipod. The bipod is rested on a sandbag rather than the hard bench top, and I am leaning into the bipod to load it for each shot. All targets for this test will be at 50 yards, as POI during Test #1 was not all that different than factory ammo. The longer range in Test #2 should allow me to more easily see how well different loads are grouping. Besides that, now that I’m confident I can get on paper at 50 yards, I can easily re-zero during this test, as my zero with jacketed ammo was set to 50/200 yards.

So now I just need to get back out and test this next powder. As usual, will post results when I have them.

kbstenberg

02-15-2018, 08:57 AM

Just my 2 cents. I would leave LOAL alone till an accurate load is developed. Them adjust if needed.

MT Gianni

02-15-2018, 11:46 AM

At minimum I would sort all my range brass by headstamp and weight. I believe that will give you a better grouping. Keep those loads together even if you use sandwich bags, and reuse them for the next visit.

Harter66

02-15-2018, 12:13 PM

I'm tardy here .......
Congratulations , your life will never be the same .

The ARs I shoot are a 1-8 twist .
The NOE 225-55 @ 62gr over H322 in HS sorted brass have shot as well as jacketed factory , except that it happens at 2050 instead of 3000 fps . Twist is the cast killer in this case , the 222 I shoot with a 12 twist will nearly match factory 50gr jackets with the same cast but will run 2600 fps vs the 50 gr at 3150 fps .

I don't know if any of this helps or just muddies the water more .

RogerDat

02-15-2018, 12:15 PM

Turn the bullet over when sizing and applying a gas check. Push bullet through base first will seat the check better, avoids the ridge/fin around the bottom edge. Works very well with bullets having a bit of a flat nose. Not too bad with round nose either unless the bullet is an especially tight fit in the sizing die that requires a lot of force.

I use 24.5 grains Varget with a 70 grain cast but in a Mini-14 which cycles differently than an AR style. Twist rate of barrel matters for what bullet weight will provide good accuracy. This Mini-14 is a 1:7 twist, faster than most .223 which tend to be slower, I think 1:9 is common but there are some others. So 55 grain bullet is pretty poor for a 1:7 but 70 grain might not be stabilized as well in a fast twist barrel. Especially as it is being fired at a lower cast bullet velocity.

Here is a good article on how bullet weight and velocity in .223 impact accuracy.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/ammo/pair-barrel-twist-rates-ammo/

I suspect that you will find you need a pretty full or hot load to cycle, the sweet spot where action cycles and round is not too hot for accuracy is narrower in .223 auto loader than in larger calibers or bolt guns. Varget works well in my situation, I will add that 4895 is my fall back. Or BL-C(2) which also seems to work well. I should mention that 24.5 grains of Varget is almost a full case, much more and I would be compressing the powder.

I crimp a bit to hold bullet tight against recoil and I think it provides a better burn since pressure builds up a touch higher before bullet moves.

BHuij

02-16-2018, 02:07 PM

Turn the bullet over when sizing and applying a gas check. Push bullet through base first will seat the check better, avoids the ridge/fin around the bottom edge. Works very well with bullets having a bit of a flat nose.

Gave this a shot, and it felt kinda weird but seems to have worked really well. Going forward, I'll be using the following process:

Size once, base down, without GC after casting.
Size again, nose down, with GC to crimp in place.
Powder coat.
Size one final time, base down.

This seems to give really flat bases and very well-crimped GCs. Thanks for the pointer!

Mxrick55555

02-16-2018, 02:36 PM

My go to powder for 223 is TAC but never tried it with cast boolits only FMJ. For what it’s worth.

BHuij

02-17-2018, 10:56 PM

Hey all, results are in for Test #2. Good news, it's cycling, and I believe cycling reliably even below my target velocity. I updated the post for Test #2 with results and a video going into more detail.

Thanks for all your help so far! Looking forward to getting things dialed in even further.

BHuij

02-18-2018, 03:02 PM

Test #3 - Results in blue

Preliminary video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtnB_tTKZ8w

Results video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji8GFJcDcQA

Goals:

Find the center of the accuracy node for this boolit as best as I can. With current hardness (estimated around 9 BHN), I think I have maxed out accuracy at 18.6 grains of H335.
Test out new techniques for case prep, and tighten down quality control on boolits. While it's hard to say whether this dramatically affected accuracy, I can say that I had zero failures to feed, jams, or other cycling issues, and saw no appreciable differences in my differing headstamps, which means I probably won't be sorting my brass going forwards.
See if I can reach my goal of 2 MOA accuracy! I'm not there yet, but I think I know where to go next - harder bullets.

Test Groups (10 rounds each):

18.5 grains of H335. Best estimate for velocity is 2018 FPS.
18.6 grains of H335. Best estimate for velocity is 2033 FPS.
18.7 grains of H335. Best estimate for velocity is 2048 FPS.
18.8 grains of H335. Best estimate for velocity is 2063 FPS.

Other Relevant Variables: Red text represents changes since last test.

Projectiles: Boolits are 100% wheel weight alloy, water quenched, using the Lee .225 55 gr flat nose mold. Boolits are now culled to remove any projectiles with visible voids, bad bases, incomplete fill-out, wrinkles, or other defects. I considered weight-sorting, but unless I can’t obtain accuracy with the measures I have already taken for this test, I’d like to avoid doing so; I don’t have a digital scale, and using the Lee beam scale that came with my reloading press kit would be extremely time consuming.
Sizing: All boolits are sized three times using a Lee .225” push-through sizing die. First sized bare out of the mold as they are dropping a little large. Then sized base-first to seat the gas check. Finally, one last sizing after GC has been installed and powder coating is completed to ensure maximum consistency in boolit diameter before loading.
Gas check: Aluminum gas checks are installed after casting using a Lee .225" push-through sizing die. Using the nose-first method to crimp onto the base is resulting in much more flat and consistent bases.
Coating: Checked boolits are powder coated—baked at 400F for 20 minutes. Powder coat is Smoke's Clear. Instead of powder coating by dumping a bunch of boolits in a wire mesh tray, I will be standing these boolits on their bases and making sure they don't touch each other during baking. I will be switching to a traditional lube, as powder coating makes it really difficult to retain target alloy strength when water quenching.
Hardness: After PCing and sizing, boolits are allowed a minimum of 2 weeks to age harden before loading. Although I don't have a hardness test, I estimate the process of water quenching WW alloy, then semi-annealing during the PC process, then allowing to age-harden again is leaving me with a hardness somewhere in the range of 15-16 BHN. I have discovered a potential method for testing hardness without having to buy anything, so in the coming weeks I may be able to confidently give you BHN numbers for my boolits. Due to a badly designed process for casting, I think I have been shooting bullets around 9 BHN this whole time. Going to make some adjustments here to shoot harder bullets.
Brass: Brass is resized and decapped after lubricating with lanolin. Then it is wet tumbled for two hours in hot water, dish soap, and Lemishine, and air-dried thoroughly. Primer pockets are swaged using the RCBS 9481 Primer Pocket swaging die. Cases are trimmed to 1.750” using the Lee cutter and lock stud w/ case gauge and shell holder. This operation performed with a corded drill. Trimmed cases are also lightly deburred and chamfered using the drill. Finally, cases are sorted by headstamp. All test groups of 10 rounds use matching head stamps, although headstamps between groups are not necessarily matching. I'm not seeing an appreciable enough difference between headstamps to worry about sorting for this specific practice load, going forwards.
Primers: All primers are CCI 400 small rifle primers (non-magnum).
Loading Procedure: Necks are expanded prior to seating boolits using the Lee Universal Neck Expander die. Boolits are seated to a near-max COAL of 2.075". After seating, a light factory crimp is applied to remove belled case mouths and allow the cartridges to chamber, but not enough to swage projectiles down smaller than .225".
Shooting Procedure: For the sake of consistency, the same 20-round pmag is used for all testing. I am shooting off a bench using a Harris-style bipod. The bipod is rested on a sandbag rather than the hard bench top, and I am leaning into the bipod to load it for each shot. I am pulling back test shooting distance to 25 yards again. Because I’m using a peep sight instead of an optic, this allows me to more easily obtain consistent hold on my point of aim, as my front sight post doesn’t cover up as much of the target. Zero still set to 50 yards, so I expect POI to be low.

Hopefully all the additional measures I have taken to ensure higher quality reloads will pay off in the form of a significant increase in accuracy.

3leggedturtle

02-18-2018, 03:54 PM

We're the H335 loads reliable? I've been using 22grs with 50 and 55gr bullets in a mini-14 and were 100% reliable. My next project is cast boolits for this. I'll be following thus with interest. Todd/3leg

BHuij

02-18-2018, 06:35 PM

I answered this question in the video from Test #2, but to save you the time of watching if you can't right now, every load from 17.5 grains of H335 up through 19.5 grains had reliable cycling in my AR-15.

vzerone

02-19-2018, 02:41 PM

Do not size your bullets directly out of the mold after they cool. They are still weak. Wait about a day. If you aren't letting them age for two weeks you're wasting your time. You have a 5.56 NATO chamber on that AR (believe me) and you need to shoot the fattest bullet it will chamber and it's not .225. I've found NO difference between Hornady and my aluminum gas checks and any rifles I shoot. I agree with try to stay with the same headstamp brass, but all the whiz bang match bench shooting tricks with your brass is not going to show enough difference to make it worth while in a non match rifle. Same brand (and preferrably lot), trim to correct length if needed, remove primer crimp if using military cases. That's about all I do unless I'm shooting a full match AR. Don't believe what you hear about fast twist not being accurate. They are just harder to load for and you have to have as balanced and no defect bullet as possible.

BHuij

02-19-2018, 04:49 PM

Do not size your bullets directly out of the mold after they cool. They are still weak. Wait about a day.

Seems to me like sizing the boolits before they get too hard is less likely to require excessive force, could you expound on your reasoning here?

If you aren't letting them age for two weeks you're wasting your time.

A little explanation here would be helpful for me too. Are you saying they're too soft to shoot accurately unless they have age hardened after powder coating for at least two weeks? Or something else?

You have a 5.56 NATO chamber on that AR (believe me) and you need to shoot the fattest bullet it will chamber and it's not .225.

My understanding is that .223 Wylde actually has slightly tighter tolerances than 5.56 NATO chambers, but not so tight that you can't shoot 5.56 NATO through them. Do you have a source to back up what you're saying about there being no difference? Considering I'm already getting a good seal to prevent leading, what does going fatter than .225" give me? I'm not opposed to some experimentation (maybe try not sizing after PC for that extra 0.001" or something), but I like to have a "why" before I try out a "what."

I've found NO difference between Hornady and my aluminum gas checks and any rifles I shoot.

Glad to hear someone else is having good success with aluminum checks, as the general consensus seems to be that copper is a bit better. I am planning on sticking with aluminum.

I agree with try to stay with the same headstamp brass, but all the whiz bang match bench shooting tricks with your brass is not going to show enough difference to make it worth while in a non match rifle. Same brand (and preferrably lot), trim to correct length if needed, remove primer crimp if using military cases.

No weird tricks here. Just doing what I would consider the bare minimum of case prep for .223, which is basically trim to length and swage primer pockets when necessary. As I have mentioned, I'm not hoping for ridiculous accuracy with these boolits; just trying to find a load that I can shoot cheap and is reasonably accurate, so it's plinking and practice ammo. If I can get 2 MOA at 100 yards I'll be thrilled. I expect it will be my technique and skill holding me back from hitting that goal, rather than my rifle, once I get my ammo dialed in.

Don't believe what you hear about fast twist not being accurate. They are just harder to load for and you have to have as balanced and no defect bullet as possible.

It's not that a fast twist is inherently less accurate. It's that a slower twist allows me to push a cast boolit faster before I exceed the RPMs at which my boolit will remain stable. The ability to push it faster means I'm more likely to be able to find a load that is both accurate and reliably cycles the action. If others are having good luck pushing 55gr cast boolits accurately through 1:8 or 1:7 barrels, more power to them. I'm just happy I'm making it work with my 1:9.

Thanks for the advice. I'd love some clarification on your points, as it sounds like you have been able to get good accuracy out of cast boolits in your AR-15, and that is exactly what I'm chasing at this point.

vzerone

02-19-2018, 07:02 PM

BHuij

02-19-2018, 08:07 PM

Your bullets have to harden a little before sizing them. They are soft and very weak. The nose sides can swell from pressure put on the tip of the nose by the nose punch. That's mainly in luber/sizers, not so much in push through. I'm not talking waiting days, talking like one day.

Awesome info, thank you for the clarification. Can definitely give my boolits a day or so before push-through sizing.

With alloyed bullets there are structures that the different molecules form. That is antimony, lead, etc. Some of they sort of look like pine trees in these structures. There are names to these I'm not going to bore you with. Okay molecules are moving inside that bullet. It takes about two weeks until they get to their final resting place. Notice I said final, because up to a point the longer you let them set the harder they get. Tests have been done shooting the bullets from one day aging through 2, 3, 4 and so forth up to 14. You will get different groups going through the days until they fully harden and don't affect the groups. One day, for some reason, it close (notice close) to fully harden in groups.

Again, thank you for the clarification. So it's not necessarily that a 4-day old boolit is less accurate inherently than a 14-day old boolit, it's just that the hardness from day to day varies enough to affect accuracy, meaning trying to develop an accurate load for a 14-day old boolit using a 6-day old boolit is an exercise in futility. That makes sense. Can you link me to any of these tests BTW? I've heard lots of opinions on age hardening with alloys containing antimony (like my WW alloy), ranging from "it takes a week to stabilize in hardness" to "it takes multiple years to stabilize in hardness." I'd love to see scientific data if you have any, until then I'll go off of what you said and make sure my boolits hit 14 days old before I shoot them.

RPM only effects bullets that aren't balanced, have defects, are started into the bore crooked, and don't exit the muzzle correctly. RPM thus doesn't have anything to act upon. Think of RPM as an amplifier for bad bullets. It amplifies all the things I mentioned above and ruin the bullets accuracy by changing it's flight charactoristics. If you had a perfect bullet started straight, exits the crown good, it would take a mind boggling fast twist to make it unstable.

So this mostly matches what I understood about twist. Namely that an uneven, rough, wrinkly, or otherwise defective boolit will destabilize at a much lower RPM than a smooth and even one. However, I also understand that boolit length/weight, diameter, and alloy (or more directly, hardness) has a lot to do with the RPM at which the projectile is most stable. For example, a 77 grain projectile (which is inherently longer than a 55 grain projectile) will need a faster spin to enter the "stable" zone, as well as a faster spin to exceed the "stable" zone and lose its accuracy.

Furthermore, I wasn't aware that it was possible for a straight lead alloy boolit (i.e. not one of the fancy ones people are making where they alloy in copper and stuff to increase hardness significantly) to perform well at the same RPMs as a jacketed bullet. No matter how good of a job I do casting, culling, etc. my home cast 55 grain WW alloy boolit will never be as hard or as smooth (or as long) as a 55 grain FMJ. Yes, a theoretically perfect cast boolit could reach some impressive RPMs before de-stabilizing, but no boolit is actually theoretically perfect, and the maximum realistic threshold for quality in a cast boolit is just lower than the normal smoothness and balance of a factory-made FMJ. However, your next quote seems to refute my understanding.

Runfiverun's daughter has an AR15 with a 7 twist shooting jacketed velocities with cast with great accuracy. This was seen at a match that Castboolit people use to gather at. There are others with fast twist doing similar feats.

This is the first time I have ever heard of anyone shooting a home cast lead 55 gr pill at 3000+ FPS (in a 1:7 barrel no less) without absolutely horrific accuracy. In fact, I've heard lots of stories of spinning a cast .223 so fast that it fragments before even impacting the target; effectively the centrifugal force exerted at such high RPMs is too much for the lead alloy to withstand without flying apart. No matter how nice and smooth and perfect your boolit is, if it's lead, I wasn't aware it could handle the RPMs you would get pushing it at jacketed velocity through a 1:7 barrel, just due to the weakness of the alloy. This is why some enterprising people on the fringes of this forum are playing around with adding plant fertilizers to their melting pots so they can get a bit of copper into their alloy and drive the hardness up past what you can get using lead, tin, antimony, & arsenic.

Please link me to this. I am highly intrigued if someone is pulling off jacketed velocities with a cast boolit in .223 at ALL, let alone with a fast twist barrel and good accuracy.

The Wylde chamber is only different, due to freebore, that can let you shoot both 223 Remington and 5.56 NATO with zero problems. I'm not going to get into that debate. The Wylde chamber is by no means a match chamber and I think many people had thought that.

Yeah that's fine. My rifle is by no means a match rifle. It's a poverty pony. I was just intrigued that you seemed to be saying that .223 Wylde chambers are actually identical to .556 NATO chambers. Whether they are or not is basically immaterial to me since I'm not planning on switching chambers, and I think if I ever build a match rifle I'll use the tighest of the three options, plain old .223 Remington. But interesting info all the same.

You've probably read here on CB a lot with many saying fit the throat not use the groove diameter to judge your sizing. That's because that has been proven to shoot better. Of course flukes happen there are good groups sometimes with the bullet being skinnier.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding here again, are you saying using a boolit significantly larger than groove diameter will be more accurate (assuming it fits the throat and doesn't jam)? Luckily my mold is dropping large. I could pretty easily lap out my .225 sizing die to be a .226 or .227 sizing die if you think that will get me better accuracy. But if my boolits were too small, I suspect I would be getting leading by now. As is I'm close to 200 lead boolits through the bore and it still comes squeaky clean after a single dry patch. I've had leading in my 9mm previously so I know what I'm looking for.

On making aluminum gas checks as you go up in caliber you have to increase your material thickness because the gas check shank depth to receive the gas checks becomes deeper as caliber goes up.

Great info, thank you. I'm still buying checks for the time being, but when it comes time to have a die made up for punching my own, I'll keep in mind what you said about thickness requirements for different calibers, since I do cast gas check style boolits for both my .223 and my 7.62x54R rifles and would like to be able to make my own checks for both calibers.

Apologies for bombarding you with more questions, but I really appreciate the info you're giving me here, and am always excited to learn more about the underlying science behind making the best boolits and rounds I can make.

popper

02-19-2018, 09:11 PM

I don't shoot 223. I do BO AR & 308AR. WD from the oven, size the next day and you can shoot in a couple more. I find Cu GC to be better, (hornady work better than home made in my 308). If a new AR, drench the BCG with atf or mobil one to get it worn in. Don't hone out the sizer till you test dummy rnds in the chamber. Try unsized, seated long and see if they fit, measure where they don't. You need to size to fill the throat without possible jam problems. If you want better accuracy, add some Cu to the alloy. It works. Sometimes dacron helps,but I've heard rumors that you shouldn't download 335 (ball powder) too much.

BHuij

02-19-2018, 09:17 PM

...I've heard rumors that you shouldn't download 335 (ball powder) too much.

Because...? Never heard any such thing, but always ready to hear more info.

vzerone

02-19-2018, 10:58 PM

Runfiverun's daughter was shooting around 2700 fps so that is in the jacketed range. I didn't spefically say 3000 or 3000+ Larry Gibson has shot over 3000 fps in a 30 caliber cartridge he helped design. I believe he was usually straight LinoType. I know a fellow that shot 2700 fps in a 7mm-08 with accuracy.

Another thing about alloys that harden over time is that they also grow! One past member once loaded some 45 Colt rounds with cast, shot a few, put the rest away for a short while. Then one day decided to shoot some more the them and they wouldn't fit the gun!!!!

Yes a bullet that fits the throat, and doesn't jam in it, and is over groove size that you would normally go over a few thou, will shoot very accurately. Popper gave good advice to try a fat bullet before changing your sizing die to insure you can chamber the cartridge. If you know the diameter of the neck area of your chamber you can mic your case neck thickness and determine how fat a bullet you can shoot. Another way, though not as accurate, is to see how fat a bullet you can push into a fired case neck. Remember brass shrinks back for the chamber, so that fired case won't give you the exact diameter of your
chamber neck, but darn close. You have to have some clearance or your case neck won't release the bullet and that's a big no no.

Look up the Wylde chamber on google and you're learn a lot.

If you paper patch a lead bullet (not alloyed) you can shoot it to some amazing velocity accurately. You can also add a wee wee bit of zinc to your alloy to harden it. This is taboo, a big taboo, for many casters. Too much zinc will ruin your alloy.

When Pope was fooling around doing his thing he experimented with barrel twist starting from 1 turn in 1 and on up!!!!!!!! That blows my mind. You are correct that it's the bullet length that determines the twist. Many say weight, but weight goes up with length, except when comparinnd lead/alloy core jacketed bullet or strictly lead and alloy bullets, to other materials that are lighter like copper. Now most definitely a longer copper bullet is heavier then a shorter copper bullet. LOL

I'm coming to find out that chromed bores are as friendly to cast shooting as non-chromed ones. Has to do with smoothness of the bore.

TCLouis

02-20-2018, 02:27 AM

Using duckduckgo.com vs google so my info was not tracked like it is with google, I found that rather than alluding to something, I could post a link to it

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2013/10/18/secrets-of-the-houston-warehouse-lessons-in-extreme-rifle-accuracy/

BHuij

02-20-2018, 02:20 PM

As a side note, my case prep stuff got here last night, and it took me about 4 minutes to discover why everyone hates case prep so much, and to develop a blister on my thumb :D

Larry Gibson

02-20-2018, 06:47 PM

BHuij

So this mostly matches what I understood about twist. Namely that an uneven, rough, wrinkly, or otherwise defective boolit will destabilize at a much lower RPM than a smooth and even one. However, I also understand that boolit length/weight, diameter, and alloy (or more directly, hardness) has a lot to do with the RPM at which the projectile is most stable. For example, a 77 grain projectile (which is inherently longer than a 55 grain projectile) will need a faster spin to enter the "stable" zone, as well as a faster spin to exceed the "stable" zone and lose its accuracy.

Your understanding about twist and RPM is incorrect. An "uneven, rough, wrinkly, or otherwise defective boolit" will not destabilize, "at a much lower RPM than a smooth and even one", any bullet not even a cast bullet. If the bullet has sufficient RPM for stabilization it will be and will remain stable regardless of the bore condition. Also, there is no "stable zone" once the bullet is stable it remains stable. Over spinning a bullet does not cause it to lose stability. Over spinning a bullet with any imbalance can and does cause it to lose accuracy by causing the bullet to delineate from its intended flight path. The farther the range the greater that delineation will be.

The RPM required for stabilization and the adverse affect the centrifugal force has on imbalances in the bullet caused by RPM are two completely different things and affect the bullet in two completely different ways. As mentioned, a perfect bullet coming out of the bore stabilized will shoot very accurately, basically into one hole shot after shot. The trick is casting and getting that bullet out of the bore perfectly balanced. That is what match shooters, particularly bench rest shooters including cast bullet bench rest shooters, strive fore.....with both cast and jacketed bullets......it is their holy grail. As I said, once the bullet is stable it will remain stable across most if not all of it's flight path.

That leaves the centrifugal force aspect of RPM that is causing the larger group sizes.

Now, that being said, there have been numerous threads regarding the adverse affect RPM can have on bullets, especially cast bullets, at certain levels of RPM. No need to rehash that here but it is suffice to say that you are actually seeing the affects RPM is having on your bullets, i.e. the large groups. If you really want to find a useable cast bullet load for your 9" twist AR that will consistently group into 2 to 4 moa with the 55 gr cast bullet you are using then I suggest you use an easily ignited powder such as H322, RL 7, 3031 or H4895 that, when used with a Dacron filler, will function the action reliably while maintaining a velocity in the 1850 to possibly 2250 fps range. You can choose to not believe what I just said but unless you can cast perfectly balanced bullets and then get them out the end of the ARs barrel perfectly balanced you will find it so........because you already have.

Let me add when I say "consistently group" I am not talking about a single 3 or 5 shot group at 50 or even 100 yards. I am talking about at least several magazines full over a days shooting, especially with an AR. Being able to shoot a 3 or 5 shot group with any bullet means nothing to me with an AR. The AR and its ammunition must prove reliable and consistently accurate for many rounds or it is useless, at least to me anyway. I am also talking about shooting to at least 200 yards if not 300 yards with a cast bullet "practice load". However, if you are interested in only 50 or 100 yard max range, as many are with such loads, then you can boost the velocity to 2400+ fps and maintain 3 - 5 moa accuracy over several magazines full of such a load. However, you must cast and load a more perfect bullet even then.

BHuij

02-20-2018, 07:33 PM

BHuij

The RPM required for stabilization and the adverse affect the centrifugal force has on imbalances in the bullet caused by RPM are two completely different things and affect the bullet in two completely different ways.

So I have always thought that the accuracy loss at too-high RPMs was a result of the boolit destabilizing. It sounds like I was basically attributing cause and effect improperly. The boolit will not destabilize when spun too fast, but accuracy is still adversely affected by having too high of an RPM. Thank you for the clarification.

If you really want to find a useable cast bullet load for your 9" twist AR that will consistently group into 2 to 4 moa with the 55 gr cast bullet you are using then I suggest you use an easily ignited powder such as H322, RL 7, 3031 or H4895 that, when used with a Dacron filler, will function the action reliably while maintaining a velocity in the 1850 to possibly 2250 fps range.

The part about hitting a velocity from 1850 to 2250 lines up perfectly with what my research told me before I ever dropped a single .223 boolit from the mold, and has been confirmed so far in my testing (the most accurate loads have been just north of 2000 FPS for me). In fact, one of the IMR 4227 groups in that velocity range from my first test was hitting 4 MOA, it just unfortunately wasn't cycling the action.

I am intrigued about needing an easily ignited powder to ensure accuracy. Is H335 not considered easily ignited? I didn't have any failures to fire out of 100 rounds with the powder in my last test. Do you believe it's possible to reach 2 MOA consistently using H335, or do you think I will need to change powders to achieve that level of accuracy?

Once again, many thanks for taking the time to answer my incessant questions and educate me. It's cast boolit vets like you who make this forum as awesome as it is.

vzerone

02-20-2018, 08:22 PM

[QUOTE=BHuij;4296613]So I have always thought that the accuracy loss at too-high RPMs was a result of the boolit destabilizing. It sounds like I was basically attributing cause and effect improperly. The boolit will not destabilize when spun too fast, but accuracy is still adversely affected by having too high of an RPM. Thank you for the clarification.

....and this is where the arguments are BHuij. It takes an astronomically high rpm to adversely affect the bullets accuracy. Brian Litz spoke about this, but most here don't want to believe. He's a ballistics engineer, currently designing Berger's bullets.
You won't have to worry about that with your AR15 with it's 9 twist, not even if it were a 7 twist. Just pm and ask Runfiverun about it.

BHuij

02-20-2018, 09:48 PM

....and this is where the arguments are BHuij. It takes an astronomically high rpm to adversely affect the bullets accuracy.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly--

Do you mean to say it takes an astronomically high RPM to adversely affect a theoretically perfectly balanced boolit's accuracy? That I can believe no problem. If you're saying it takes an astronomically high RPM to adversely affect the accuracy of my crappy wrinkled excuse for a boolit, then I'm confused. My accuracy loss thus far, which is clearly observable once I go much above about ~2100 FPS, is not due to an overabundance of spin for the specific projectile I'm using, but some other factor entirely?

In other words, if my boolits are not accurate, it's not because they're spinning too fast, it's because they're unbalanced. High RPMs might magnify the effect of having an unbalanced projectile, throwing off the accuracy more and more as RPM gets higher and higher. But the RPM is not the root issue, it is only making the pre-existing effect of an unbalanced projectile worse. Even if I could cut the RPMs in half (theoretically shooting the boolit at ~1000 FPS) the accuracy wouldn't be any better, because the boolit is too fundamentally flawed to shoot at 2 MOA at any speed (never mind that it might not fully stabilize at 1000 FPS). Correct?

If this is what you're saying, that makes sense to me, but as no projectile actually reaches the theoretical level of "perfectly balanced," it seems like I can more or less safely assume that my projectiles will at some point spin too fast to reach the accuracy goal I'm trying to hit (2 MOA in my case). If I had a perfectly balanced projectile, I could spin it as fast as I wanted and still have accuracy. Since I don't, there is a practical upper limit to how fast I can spin my projectile and still expect good accuracy. With the boolits I am currently using, I can observe that the best accuracy thus far is obtained at about ~2050 FPS. A little math tells me that RPM at that velocity is 164,000. If I had a more perfect boolit, I could probably obtain even better accuracy even at higher RPMs (and therefore higher velocities).

Some people (like Runfiverun) have gotten so good at making really well-balanced .223 boolits that they can run them at 2700 FPS through a 1:7 barrel and still get good accuracy, which is awesome. I never would have suspected that a cast 55 grain boolit could be accurate at 243,000 RPM. And increasing the quality and balance of my boolits is a really good goal and a really good way to increase accuracy. But as things sit right now, with the boolits I've been making, and my 1:9 barrel, I seem to be doing best right around 2050 FPS, when I push it faster, the RPMs affecting my imperfect boolits are compromising their accuracy to the point that I no longer consider the results "good enough" for my goals.

Please correct if I am wrong. I'm concerned that my replies seem argumentative or skeptical; that is not my intention. I just want to learn and understand, and it seems I've hit a very complex and controversial area of the science of reloading, which is rife with misinformation and misunderstanding :D

Larry Gibson

02-20-2018, 11:13 PM

BHuij

First let me say this about H335 in the .223/5.56 cartridge; H335 has been my "go to" powder for use with 45 to 55 gr jacketed bullets since the mid '70s. I have shot many pounds of it up in such loads in Bolt actions SSs and gas guns. However, when it comes to cast bullet use in the .223/5.56 I have not found H335 to work well with those cast bullets of 60 gr or lighter. All powders may ignite (some more easily than others) but many, H335 included do not burn efficiently until a certain level of pressure is achieved within a certain time span. In the 223/5/56 cartridge with a 60 gr or less cast bullet by the time a load is developed that reaches uniform burning pressures the velocity/RPM is too high.

The powders mentioned in my previous post ignite easily and burn efficiently at a lower pressure than does H335, especially in the .223/5.56 with cast bullets. Those powders will also develop enough gas port pressure to function the action while keeping the velocity/RPM down at a manageable level for some accuracy. With cast bullets many times what powder we want to use isn't going to be the best to use or the powder that works. With heavier cast bullets than 60 gr H335 does seem to hit it's efficient burning pressure level sometimes. Thus to answer your question; no, I do not think you will get consistent 2 moa accuracy with H335 under your 55 gr cast bullet. Yes, you should look to a more easily ignited powder that then burns efficiently, functions the AR action while keeping the velocity/RPM down at a manageable level.

Your basic concept of RPM as reiterated in your last post is essentially correct. There is an RPM Threshold with all bullets. The better balanced the bullet is, cast or jacketed, that it exits the muzzle at the higher that threshold will be. Under the RPM Threshold the bullets will behave in a normal fashion and follow the intended and exhibit normal linear dispersion as the range increases. However, when the bullet exceeds its threshold it departs at a tangent from the intended flight path (trajectory) or in a long helical spiral around that flight path (trajectory) that exceeds normal linear dispersion. The longer the range the greater that non linear travel will be from the intended flight path (trajectory). That is when/where flyers come from or when the total groups accuracy really goes south. Even then you may note that the bullet holes in the target are still round. That indicates then went point forward through the target meaning the bullets were still stable even if totally inaccurate.

With your 9" twist barrel your best accuracy with the 55 cast bullet you're using would be down under 1900 fps. However, that may or may not function the AR action reliably. Given the heat treatment and PCing you do to the bullet you should be able to push the velocity/RPM up to at least reliable functioning and maintain accuracy at least consistent with what U.S. made M193 ball. That probably will be in the 2 - 3 moa range for consistent accuracy over numerous rounds. You might find a bit heavier cast bullet of 70 or 75 gr to work better in your AR.

vzerone

02-20-2018, 11:46 PM

BHuig

Read what the ballistic engineer Brian Litz wrote about how much that excess spin affects your bullets accurazy at 1000 yards.

Bryan Litz says:
July 25, 2013 at 7:24 am
For practical purposes, the answer is FALSE
As a bullet arcs on a long range trajectory, it’s axis is torqued (by aerodynamic forces) to constantly align with the oncoming airflow. When a spinning object has its axis torqued, the object reacts by pointing its axis primarily ‘out of plane'; 90 degrees from the applied force. This results in a nose-right orientation (for right twist barrels) known as the yaw of repose. The yaw of repose steers the bullet ever so slightly to the side resulting in gyroscopic (spin) drift.
The bullet nose will point slightly above its velocity vector (pitch), but that pitch is only about 1/10 of the yaw of repose which is not enough to cause a practical vertical drift (less than 1/2″ at 1000 yards). Typical yaw of repose remains below 1/60th of one degree, while pitch is on the order of 1/600th of one degree. This small amount of pitch and yaw is not enough to induce a measurable amount of additional drag, even for highly stabilized bullets.
All of the above applies to stable projectiles in supersonic flight on ‘flat fire’ trajectories. For projectiles fired at high angles (above ~10-20 degrees above the line of sight), it is possible for the bullet to not track, or trace with the trajectory. This is a common design challenge for artillery shells that are often fired on high angle trajectories. The axis of the spinning shell may be too rigid to bend with the exaggerated trajectory. In that case the shell can ‘belly flop’, or fall base first. However for small arms projectiles on flat-fire trajectories, this isn’t a problem.

Another consideration with spinning a bullet too fast is related to bullet failure. This discussion assumes the bullet remains structurally in tact.

Dynamic instability during transonic flight is also a different problem, not related to the above discussion.

Now for the H335 I've never used it for cast in the .224 calibers only for jacketed along with lots of surplus 844 and WW748 which all three are very very close to one another. I have used it in larger calibers with great success.

You should try weighing some of your bullets and see how much weight variance you have. If it's more then .1 to .3 then you need to work on your casting...all avenues of it.

I've shot culled bullets that had wrinkles, creases, etc. in them just for the heck of it and they actually shoot better then one would think. I know a lot of guys that do it. Most important thing is getting the bullet started straight. Your 2 MOA is more then doable even with your 9 twist at the higher rpm range you mentioned. Remember when I told you that a chromed bore isn't a cast bullets friend? Ask Runfiverun about that too, tell him I told you too.

BHuij

02-21-2018, 11:35 AM

Thanks everyone for the info. Larry, I read some of your posts on other threads elsewhere on this forum and found a few places where you mentioned ideal RPM for cast boolits to be somewhere in the range of 125,000-140,000. I assume this is the basis of your statement that best accuracy with my 1:9 barrel would probably be achieved at under 1900 FPS, as I would have to get down to about 1700 or 1750 FPS to hit those RPMs. Even if H335 would cycle my action at those low speeds, the burn at that pressure would be so inconsistent that it would cause its own set of problems with accuracy. I estimate I would have to drop the charge down to about 16.5 grains to arrive in the ideal RPM threshold you describe, which is a full grain less than the lowest load I have tested so far. Highly unlikely to reliably cycle my action. So it sounds like I may need to delegate the rest of my pound of H335 to be used in a larger caliber like 7.62x54R where I can much more easily reach the pressures required for a clean and consistent burn.

You have recommended a handful of other powders that burn cleaner at lower pressures and would probably allow me to get closer to, if not directly into, the 125,000-140,000 RPM range without compromising my reliability: H4895, H322, Reloader #7, or IMR 3031. I think that, unless my next set of tests gets me into the 2 MOA range, I will take your advice and buy one of these powders. I would lean towards H4895 just because I am most familiar with it out of the 4 you mentioned, but do you have a recommendation for which one would be best? Ideally one that meters well--I'm seeing that people using H4895 and especially IMR 3031 struggle with metering.

Vzerone, I have a pretty long checklist of quality control items to implement for my boolits. While I don't know that I'll be weight sorting every time, I am definitely interested to at least check my cavities against each other so I can be aware if there are major consistent weight variances between cavities. I suspect though, that if I can get my boolits shaped consistently, all having good fill out and flat bases, then any weight variances would be more of a difference maker if I was trying to hit sub-MOA with these instead of 2 MOA. The fact that I was able to hit 4 MOA using boolits with voids, poorly-applied powder coat, and, apparently, inconsistent powder burn, as well as being probably in the neighborhood of 164,000 RPM (well above what Larry indicates is optimal) AND with zero case prep in mixed range brass... I suspect I will be able to get to 2 MOA by fixing the higher return-on-investment problems here, and am optimistic that I won't have to weight sort all of my projectiles in the long run for plinking ammo.

If/when I get a heavier mold for longer range and more precision shooting, weight sorting as a matter of course makes lots of sense.

Thanks again all. You have provided some fantastic information for me to digest and work into the procedures for subsequent tests while I chase down the accuracy I want.

vzerone

02-21-2018, 12:14 PM

Forget that rpm thing. The velocity you picked as the most accurate pretty well may not be. To say it wouldn't shoot more accurate at a higher velocity is just not true.

BHuij

02-21-2018, 12:16 PM

I have not found H335 to work well with those cast bullets of 60 gr or lighter. All powders may ignite (some more easily than others) but many, H335 included do not burn efficiently until a certain level of pressure is achieved within a certain time span. In the 223/5/56 cartridge with a 60 gr or less cast bullet by the time a load is developed that reaches uniform burning pressures the velocity/RPM is too high.

My first test loads were loaded to an OAL of 2.060, my next set of tests (the first ones with H335) were loaded to an OAL of 2.075. I realize this is a fairly minuscule change, but .223 isn't a particularly large casing, so even a small change could theoretically have a significant effect on pressure.

My question is, if I shorten the OAL somewhat to increase pressures, will the resulting increase in burn consistency be a bigger factor for improving accuracy than the loss suffered by not seating as close to the lands?

dverna

02-21-2018, 05:42 PM

Larry Gibson

02-21-2018, 06:02 PM

BHuij

My first test loads were loaded to an OAL of 2.060, my next set of tests (the first ones with H335) were loaded to an OAL of 2.075. I realize this is a fairly minuscule change, but .223 isn't a particularly large casing, so even a small change could theoretically have a significant effect on pressure. My question is, if I shorten the OAL somewhat to increase pressures, will the resulting increase in burn consistency be a bigger factor for improving accuracy than the loss suffered by not seating as close to the lands?

I have measured the pressure in thousands of cast bullets loads in many different cartridges including the 223/5.56. You will not be able to shorten the OAL enough to make any difference. Any difference would probably require multiple 10 shot pressure tests of each OAL. Then I doubt any difference in the measured average pressure would still fall within ES of either OAL tested. Lots of theories out there but many don't pan out. Yes in many instances seating a bullet deeper can and does raise the pressure. However given the nature of H335, the case capacity of the 223/5.56 case and the minimal amount you can seat the bullet deeper a sufficient increase in pressure just isn't going to happen.

Your best bet is to switch to a powder I suggested, start low and work up to reliable functioning. That will be where your best accuracy will be in the AR with a cast bullet load that still functions the action. It still may not meet your accuracy requirement but since you are hardening and PCing the bullets you won't know until you try.

dverna's "KISS example" is valid.

BHuij

02-21-2018, 06:07 PM

BH

It sucks when you get two opinions that appear to be different wrt RPM effects.

I would lean more towards what Mr Gibson is recommending. I offer a KISS example...

Consider a car tire and how large and massive it is. Yet, to balance that tire, weights as low as 1/2 oz are used to remove vibrations. Running a slightly out of balance tire at 25 mph may not even be noticed. Take the speed to 70 mph and things change.

If you have a well balanced tire, (jacketed bullet), it will run smoothly (accurately) at a wide range of speeds (RPM). A tire that is not balanced (cast bullet with imperfections) may be serviceable at lower speeds but not acceptable at higher speeds.

Cast bullets do equal the consistency of jacketed. Visual inspection and weight sorting will cull the worst out, but even with that, they fall short of jacketed bullets.

You are dealing with a very light bullet. A +/- .2 variation resulting from the bullet dropping at a different weight from a different cavity is not going to matter much, if the bullet is concentric. That same variation caused by a void near the surface or a wrinkle will matter.

I doubt you will achieve your goal without at least closely inspecting your bullets before coating them, and again after the GC is applied. And it may be necessary to weigh them.

Thank you for the input and example. It seems like the heart of the disagreement is one party says "no cast boolit will ever be balanced enough to spin faster than 140,000 RPM without compromising accuracy" while the other party says "if you're really careful with your cast boolit making, you can spin them as fast as you would ever need to (i.e. much faster than 140,000 RPM), so make really good boolits and you'll never have to worry about RPMs messing up your accuracy."

I think everyone's in agreement that there is actually an upper limit to how fast you can spin a boolit and still have good accuracy. Just seems like we can't agree on where it is. Either it's at 140k, or it's so much higher than 140k that we don't need to worry about it... again, provided we're making really good quality boolits, and getting them through the chamber, throat, into the bore, and out the crown as straight as possible.

As for me, I'll do my own testing to determine if I'm capable of making boolits good enough to spin faster than 140k RPM and still hit my intended target accuracy of 2 MOA. I am optimistic that this is actually possible. I have reached 4 MOA with no case prep, using crappy, crappy boolits with voids and wrinkles, uneven powder coat, and mashed gas checks that messed up the flat base of the entire boolit. These projectiles fired at an approximate RPM of 164,000.

There are so many things that can mess up my boolit's balance (bad casting practice, weight variations, bad powder coat, bad gas checks, case necks swaging the boolit when seating, seating crooked, crimping too much, crimping too little, too tight of a throat in the rifle, boolit deformation due to chamber pressure, I could go on and on), that I won't be surprised if I do find a practical upper limit on my RPMs at some point during the testing. But indications thus far are that I can get at least reasonable accuracy already at 164k, so I think by improving my boolit and cartridge quality as dramatically as I am, I can probably reach my modest goal of 2 MOA @ 100 yards out of my rifle using this mold and this powder, and hopefully without needing to take drastic measures like weight sorting every single projectile every time I sit down at the reloading bench to put together .223 cartridges.

But the proof for me will be in the pudding. There's some testing ahead for me, and getting my own results on paper is the only way I can confirm or deny anybody's educated guesses about what's going to happen when I pull the trigger. Looking forward to seeing what I can get with improved quality rounds on my next test day at the range. If it's just not getting there for me, that's when I know it's time to look into different powders, perhaps a different mold, etc.

BHuij

02-21-2018, 06:13 PM

You will not be able to shorten the OAL enough to make any difference... ...given the nature of H335, the case capacity of the 223/5.56 case and the minimal amount you can seat the bullet deeper a sufficient increase in pressure just isn't going to happen.

This is unsurprising, thanks for your input. I'll leave the COAL as is (just shy of max) unless I discover a compelling reason to change it.

vzerone

02-21-2018, 06:32 PM

You got it right BHjiu in that the rpm to ruin accuracy is so high that not only do we need not to worry about it, it doesn't make enough difference to care about.

I'll lean towards a engineer schooled in the things that are needed to fully understand ballistics and such things as rpm effects like Brian Litz. He's not the only one schooled in it by a long shot.

vzerone

02-23-2018, 03:39 PM

BHuig you asked about a PID. HATCH, the moderator here, is the man to go to. He builds and sell him. Ask him your questions. I believe JonB in Glencoe is another to ask questions too, he's also a moderator.

BHuij

02-24-2018, 06:41 AM

I have added a video to the Test #3 post going over some of the new information I have picked up in the last week, and outlining the direction I'm headed in my testing.

35remington

02-27-2018, 10:52 PM

BHuij

03-01-2018, 12:17 PM

This has probably been stated here elsewhere, but I will revisit it to give it emphasis.

There is an “easy” button and it is most beneficial to hit it first. Select a powder of such speed that it enables cycling of the action and no more. The AR will cycle and lock the bolt back at surprisingly mild velocity levels. Pick a bullet of good design and fit to your possibly generous chamber and throat. Use Dacron as suggested to avoid velocity swings from shifting powder position which produces inconsistent pressures and action cycling especially when flirting with the bottom end of reliable function.

Such loads, for me, produce a useful point of impact at 100 yards when my rifles/carbines are zeroed at 200 yards with full power jacketed ammo.

Once this is settled on, practice your brains out, shoot lots of groups, have fun as you have done something useful, made a decent load of considerable utility, and find out what the potential of “easy” is.

If that becomes boring, you may increase the throttle and along with it likely also your frustration level. If you receive claims that great groups are no problem to achieve with cast at near or equal to full power jacketed bullet velocities, it is reasonable to ask to see multiple groups shot on the same piece of paper from said claimant so you may see that such results are produced by actual intent and not by accident.

Proof of this type avoids cherry picking a group here and there and claiming it is average accuracy. Average accuracy is just that, and can be produced repeatedly and verifiably on demand. Do not take such things on faith. In that regard, pretend you are from Missouri.

Have fun, but be realistic as well.

Good advice and perspective.

While I am not expecting shooting cast .223 at jacketed velocities with good groupings to be "no problem," I am encouraged that it may be possible. Won't know until I try. For the time being, I'm still looking for 2 MOA at 100 yards. If and when I decide to try and develop a more accurate load that I can shoot faster and out to longer ranges with better groupings, it will almost definitely be with a heavier bullet, and one with a better ballistic coefficient than the Lee 55 grain.

At that point I fully expect my bullet quality will need to skyrocket - that's when weight sorting, using a PID in my melt while casting, and looking into conventional lube and heat treating for maximum alloy hardness comes into play, as well as more advanced case prep - in other words, that's when my amount of effort expended per round goes way up :D

BHuij

03-11-2018, 01:24 AM

Update from today - I got to the range and shot my next set of ladders for Test #3.

Results weren't as accurate as I was hoping, but I think I have probably discovered at least one or two major reasons why. Details in the post from page 2 of this thread labeled as Test #3, including the results video.

BHuij

03-20-2018, 07:30 PM

I picked up an inexpensive scope, and I'm itching to try it out. So even though I haven't had a chance to cast up some hard, heat-treated/quenched bullets to try with traditional lube, I will be hitting the range this coming weekend to see if I can get a better idea what these soft powder coated bullets are actually capable of. I highly suspect my own poor accuracy with iron sights was a significant limiting factor in my tests so far.

BrassMagnet

07-29-2018, 08:54 AM

This thread really interests me.
One of my goals is to see what I can accomplish with cast in .223.

I have yet to watch the videos in this thread. I will, but later, when Mrs. Brass isn't sleeping. She can be grumpy when awakened by loud videos!

Your scientific approach is neat.
However, even though I have not fired cast in .223, I firmly believe some lessons from firing jacketed bullets are also applicable to firing cast boolits. They may need to be applied differently to achieve the same results.

Failure to properly prepare the brass for loading can destroy accuracy!
Properly preparing brass to load cast boolits may not be the same as properly preparing brass to load jacketed bullets. Different techniques may achieve the same final goal.

Books have been written on what it takes to load accurate .223 loads in AR style rifles. To sum up the main issues it comes down to consistent dimensions, consistent case capacity, consistent neck tension on the bullet, and not damaging the bullet's base during loading.
These same factors certainly apply to cast, but implementing them must differ!

My personal belief is the brass preparation is more important than some of the other loading stages.

For jacketed loads, I full length size, trim, chamfer, and then VLD chamfer before loading. Any burr that makes the tiniest of scratches on a bullet's base or boat tail is a flyer. Add more range and add more error which increases to complete misses off the target frame at longer ranges.

I compete at High power so my loads are fired for score at 200, 300, and 600 yards.

Where I believe brass preparation for cast boolits must differ is in neck tension and in protecting the base and sides of the boolit. A standard expander ball will be too small for cast and the mouth of the neck will also be too small for cast boolits. Without flaring the case mouth, the case mouth will likely shave off lube and metal from the boolit. The case neck might re-size the castboolit.

I suspect the Lee Universal Neck Expander die will flare the neck, but I don't know what it will do for neck tension.
I suspect a Lyman "M" die will prevent re-sizing the castboolit and flare the neck, too!

For my cast boolit .223 loading experiment, I might begin by full length sizing and trimming with a Dillon Rapid Trim and then use a Lyman "M" die before chamfering and loading. I will likely try lubed, powder coated, and Hi Tech coated to see if I can measure performance difference.

Now for some quick notes!
Most of my barrels are 1 in 7 twist. I have a 1 in 8 twist barrel. I don't believe I have any slower than 1 in 8. That could throw a wrench in my plans. I will likely try boolits from 55 to 75 grain. Some are RN and some are Nato pattern from Mihec.

Since Varget was suggested for cast and I already have a little, I will likely try it first. Reloader 15 and IMR 3031 are others I would consider!

You won't hurt my feelings by critiquing my comments and plans.

Harter66

07-29-2018, 10:24 AM

Brass,
I have some points of interest .
Cold facts .
I have 1-8 and 1-12 , 22 cal twists .
The 1-8 tops out at 2050 and the 1-12 tops out at 2625 for best groups per rifle . It doesn't seem to make a difference between a 22' bolt gun or a 16" gas gun . Same boolit same batch . Now there is a possibility that a change from H322 for the gas gun to H4198 in the bolt gun will change that as the groups were improving with the gas gun but I had a long curve thing going on causing a failure to function believed to be the case pressure to high when the gas port opened but only enough to retard ejection ......

The difference between carbine and rifle length gas in a larger cal all other parts equal is about 150 fps from a Mossy 16 carbine to an ARP 20 rifle gas in 6.8 load for load draw your own with this .

One rifle .
I get away with 4 cycles at 80% FL sizing for several MSRs .
I have fat expanders so I get by with a 20 mm bullet flair tool . They are .222 for my .225 bullets .
I anneal necks after the 4th and 9th cycles and FL at the anneal cycles .
I trim to .002 under chamber length .
I trim after sizing .
I load to magazine length , 2.285 for mine .
Hold up the ceilings ! I seat and crimp together but there isn't enough crimp to do any more than just over flatten the flair .

Multiple rifles
I change in the above .
I size for the smallest chamber , also my FL setting .
I trim to .002 under the shortest chamber .

As far as match prep goes I knock the burrs off the flash holes and swage primer pockets as needed . Fat NATO brass gets trimmed with the old Herters and the 22 cal neck reamer pilot after sizing new to me cases the first time .

I use a NOE 225-55 @ 62 gr .
The barrels are Mossberg , Wilson 2nds , Savage or whoever supplies ATI .
The 1-12 is a 222 Rem in a Savage 340 the rest are an ATI Omni Hybred , Blackthorne kits or Axis rifles . The MSRs fitted and relieved for contact do MilSpec pass/fail just under 2" at 100 and just under 2.5" with the best cheap 5.56 I've run through them for base line and run in . Again cheap ammo and rifles intended as building bases not comp guns . The bolt guns do much better . With the 340 1-12" having turned in a .3 at 2600 fps for 5 shots and .67 for 10 the Axises and Stevens 200 are consistent .9-1.1 whether 5 , 10 or all day at 2050 fps . Again a switch to 4198 for the bolt guns may boost speeds .
This may not make 600 yd 3" groups , actually not a snowballs chance with me and my gear .

jmort

07-29-2018, 11:22 AM

Don't overlook RL 7 and RL 10
Handgun/shotgun powders will drive you mad.
All my ARs are 1 in 7 to 1 in 9
Twist is too fast for the slower burning rifle powders in my opinion.
15 + grains of RL 7 shows promise.
I am not going to get a 1 in 12 barrel.
I just want the AR to rock with a PC cast bullet every single time and have some decent accuracy.
There are some threads out there where a few tried Unique and it never worked.
Would be nice if it would work.
Wnat to try RL 10 next

BHuij

11-10-2018, 02:09 AM

So I've been absent from posting updates for a while here, but do have some updates to share as my testing is ongoing (just very slowed down since the new addition to our family arrived).

I'll post more details after my next set of tests (which are loaded and waiting for a good range day). But here's the super short version of what's happened since my last video:

• I believe my bullet design is my #1 hindering factor. From what I have learned over the past several months, bullet fit in the specific rifle's throat is absolutely paramount for cast bullet performance in rifles. Any slop in the fit leaves space for the bullet to deform under the high pressures that happen when it is fired. Deformation (especially at the base) = poor accuracy.
• For this reason, I have stopped pursuing high velocity (upwards of 2300 FPS) with my current mold. This is fine, my original goal was a cast round that cycled and hit at least 2 MOA with no requirement for high velocity. If I have to slow down to 2000 FPS to hit that goal, so be it. This is a plinking round. At some point I will no doubt want to try for HV in my AR using a better mold, but not right now.
• Since my bullet fit is poor, the best thing I can do to limit deformation upon firing is use the hardest alloy possible. Through heat treating my pure COWW alloy and quenching it in cold water, I have so far been able to achieve a BHN of 35. BHN isn't the whole story on alloy toughness, etc. But my best results so far have been about 2800 FPS with these super hard bullets, hitting around 5 MOA. This was using IMR 4895. Not great accuracy, but quite good for the velocity. I haven't yet tried these hard bullets at lower velocities, but I suspect groups will tighten up. Of course, I don't think it's velocity or RPM that is hurting me, I think it's the pressure required to get to these higher velocities deforming my bullets. I have high hopes for a lower velocity load with hardened bullets.
• I have jumped off the lube train. I don't have proper equipment for quickly lubing bullets, nor the patience for finger lubing or pan lubing in mass. I tried Felix lube. While it did work to prevent leading, it was horrifically messy and showed no accuracy advantage over powder coat. I'm back to powder coat now for the foreseeable future.
• My next set of tests includes some 55gr FMJ rounds I loaded with H335, and some cast bullets in the upper 20s for BHN loaded to jacketed velocities with IMR 4895. The FMJs are a sanity check to make sure I'm not doing all this testing with a horribly inaccurate rifle. The cast bullets are basically an extension of my last test - my most accurate load was my hottest one (just shy of FMJ velocity territory), so it seems prudent to check if groups close up any more by going even hotter. I am not expecting them to, but might be pleasantly surprised. If they don't get me where I want to be (2 MOA), then the next set of tests will be down at the lowest velocities I can achieve with IMR 4895 without sacrificing 100% cycling reliability. If those tests don't get me to 2 MOA, I'm going to have to try other powders. H335 might do it, and there are a few others on a short list of promising powders to try.

BHuij

11-21-2018, 12:43 PM

I was able to get to the range yesterday. This wasn't my usual outdoor range with decent benchrest equipment. It was cold outside and I'm just getting over the flu so I didn't want to make things worse for myself. I figured I was doing my testing at 25 yards anyway, so why not just do it at the indoor pistol range? Unfortunately it's really made for standing and offhand shooting in there, so even though I did find a chair and was able to use my bipod, it wasn't really a good benchrest situation. Just "somewhat more supported than offhand."

Although I had a wide spectrum of loads to test, almost all of them shot more or less the same, in the neighborhood of about 8 MOA.

The two winners for the day were, unsurprisingly, the Hornady 55gr Jacketed BT Spitzers (over 22gr of H335), which came in at 4 MOA, and the lead bullets over 19.5 grains of H335, which came in at 6 MOA. I suspect that both loads could have performed better if I actually had sandbags to shoot off of.

At this point, I think I have concluded that neither H335 nor IMR 4895 is going to be able to give me 2 MOA results I want with this bullet in this alloy. I think before I try a new powder (maybe something slower?), I am going to take the advice of some folks who are actually getting jacketed accuracy from their cast .223 loads with high velocities, and try an alloy with more antimony and tin. This apparently helps the bullet survive the jump from the throat to the rifling better without as much deformation or skewing. If the new alloy doesn't fix the problem, I will do one last set of tests using a different powder. And if that doesn't get the job done, then I will conclude that this bullet is incapable of 2 MOA at any cycling velocity through an AR. I know the bullet design is the weakest link, so I won't be totally surprised if that's the case. But I'm enjoying the process enough that it's worth it for me to check every dark corner to make absolutely sure I'm not just missing the magic recipe for a great, dirt-cheap plinking round :)

Since I happen to have nearly 100 more heat-treated bullets from the same batch (so around 30 BHN), I think I will do a set of tests centered around the 19.5gr load of H335, as well as perhaps some tests using IMR 4895 in loads of similar pressure. Probably do these at 50 yards, and focus in on my shooting technique instead of some half-baked "bipod on a pistol bench" thing. See if I can't shave off an MOA or so. I might be happy with 3 MOA for a plinking load.

230802
230803

BHuij

12-01-2018, 08:43 PM

So I took some refined loads to the range both with FMJ projectiles and cast, working off of the best loads from last session - 19.5gr of H335 for cast, and 22gr of H335 for jacketed.

Because they were possible confounding factors, I removed the cheap scope I've been using and went back to peep sights on the carry handle, and took of the bipod and shot from sandbags instead. I'm not a good enough shot with peep sights at 50 yards to test 5 different loads with 10 shots each on one sheet of 8.5x11 paper, so I did my testing at 25 yards again.

This time my best jacketed load was 21.7gr of H335 and my best cast load was 19.6gr of H335. The two groups were nearly identical: 6-7 holes touching and 3-4 fliers. If I remove the fliers, the cast load actually did better than the jacketed load! 7 touching holes from the cast load fit into 2.32 MOA, while 6 touching holes from the FMJ load fit into 2.8 MOA. This means that it's either myself, the rifle, or both limiting my accuracy, NOT my ammo.

Interestingly, I also did two groups of American Eagle 55gr factory ammo, and both performed worse than 4 MOA.

So now it's time to dig into the next two things that appear to be stopping me from reaching my 2 MOA goal with this AR: shooting technique and the rifle itself.

I have two bricks of .22LR ammo to put downrange at 50, 75, and 100 yards through my trust 10/22 over the next month or two, and I'm really hoping that will help me fix my benchrest technique and close down my groups.

Meanwhile it's off to the dark corners of the internet to research what tweaks might help me squeeze a bit more accuracy out of my rifle from a mechanical standpoint. I bought the upper fully assembled, barreled, etc. from PSA and it's an inexpensive one, but I've heard that they overtorque their barrel nuts, among other possible things. More to come.

231362
231363
231364

dverna

12-02-2018, 12:16 AM

KISS

Are you able to shoot 1 MOA off a bench with an accurate gun and load? If the answer is “No”, get some help. You are wasting time and resources otherwise in your quest.

First give the barrel a good cleaning.

Get a few different jacketed bullets and see what the rifle will do. Varget is a known good powder for jacketed bullets in the .223. This will give you a base line. If your gun will not shoot jacketed bullets accurately, address that first. Rarely will cast bullets shoot more accurately than jacketed bullets.

nun2kute

12-02-2018, 08:58 AM

Professor BHuij :razz:

I don't recognize that range, where are you ?
Curious of that Lee mold. I have a 22 Hornet and 223 Bolt guns that I think would benefit from it. My AR 223 hasn't ate any lead yet, but has good success with CFE 223 and Varget. I have been playing with the 30 Cal version of that bullet profile from Lee and came to the conclusion that my gun will not function with that flat nose so I got the NOE 310-165-FN, Meplat's much smaller, but I haven't had it long enough to get anything PC'd yet. What ever you do, DON'T get into Swaging your own from 22lr brass. You now have 18 years before you'll have enough money for that. [smilie=l: Keep up the good work !

BHuij

12-02-2018, 11:44 PM

Yeah, I looked at swaging and came to the conclusions that there was no way no how it would fit my budget right now. Get back to me after I finish a Master's Degree ;)

The range I do almost all of my shooting at is the Provo City range in Utah. It only goes out to 100 yards, but it's really cheap to shoot there, they have steel targets and places to mount paper targets, and the RSOs are all a bunch of friendly volunteers. Couple of casters among them even.

If you like, I am happy to send you some PC'd bullets for you to try out in your Hornet and your bolt guns. I have a 6 cavity mold and get my COWW alloy lead for free, besides that these are really tiny bullets so I get over 100 of them from a single pound of lead. PM me your address if you want some. I worried initially about the wide nose feeding in my AR but it hasn't been a problem at all.

nun2kute

12-03-2018, 11:30 PM

I really appreciate that offer, I got all the lead I need tho. What I need is the same as you, more TIME ! Not enough time to play with all the guns I want to shoot. Keep us posted on your progress.

BHuij

12-03-2018, 11:54 PM

Yeah, will do. I may have a friend who is a better shot than me see if he can do better than 2-3 MOA from the bench with my AR. I also may test some alloy that is slightly higher in antimony and tin than COWW.

But I have all but decided to get a .223 bolt gun and swap the barrel in my AR to 300 BLK. So it's entirely possible future tests in this caliber for me are going to be out of a Remington 783.

willicd76

12-23-2018, 10:48 PM

Having a good cast load that would reliably run through an AR would be a great thing to have access to even if you didn't use it regularly!

jmort

12-23-2018, 11:07 PM

I am hoping that the current group buy from Mihec will be the .223 AR cast bullet that runs real good.

parkerhale1200

01-06-2019, 12:06 PM

I love to read this tread, like every tread on cast for the ar.
Instead of buying a other caliber upper, why not try a different mold?
If i wasn't living in the Netherlands, i would gladly send you some casts of mine.

Like rcbs or noe, for myself works rcbs very good in my ar.
When you start casting, make sure you have a steady pass.
Line up 4 or 5 buckets of water.
With every 100 drops change your bucket of water where you are dropping them in.

When your session is getting longer your mold is getting more temperature.
And that will influence you re final bhn.
If you happen to get a smear of lead on the surface of your mold the weight will change also.
If you cast per 100 drops per bucket you are more close to a uniform weight.
That's what i think, maybe its going to work for you aswel.

I never tried powder coating, I think (especially for those tiny buggers) that they are becoming less uniform by weight.
With bigger ones like the fat 30, I think there is not much of a problem.
I will try this in some years from now, for my ph1200, when i have "the" time.

For the pick up range brass, aldo you have made batches per headstamp, you never no how much they where reloaded by the previous owner, or what bullet was on that case.
Just buy 100 new ones, or try to get 100+ from somebody that where fired one time.
I also never use a crimp, I only take the bell strait again.
In my Lyman m die i have a thorn that sets the bell and opens up the inner diameter of the caseneck to 225.

I recently discover what my ar wants.
D060 lovex 15,6-15,8 grain. at 110 yards under two inch groups. Iron site

This is what I do and think, I hope there is some information use full for you.

Congratulations with your offspring!!!!

parkerhale1200

01-06-2019, 12:13 PM

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?156326-AR-15-500-Round-Cast-Bullet-Test

ColoradoGunNut

02-09-2019, 08:07 PM

Very interested in this thread. Are you still testing accuracy of the 223 boolit? Can you do another video with your final findings?

BHuij

03-10-2019, 12:42 PM

Hey guys, I just wrapped up the video series for this. Later today I hope to insert a quick write-up and summary into the first post on this thread for anyone who finds it later on.

Thanks all for your help along the way, I couldn’t have done any of this without your insights.

I think it's likely I'll come back to casting .223 for my AR in the future. For the moment, I will be limiting my cast .223 to my new TC Compass, and that AFTER I have a match-grade jacketed load worked up with either SMKs or Hornady match 69gr HPBTs. There are lots of things left to try to improve my results in the AR platform with this caliber. I believe a different alloy and a better barrel are among the top "good ideas."

I have put a .300 BLK barrel in my AR, and I think that's my next great adventure... especially since I'm planning to form 1 a custom suppressor for it.

For now, I have summarized my .223 findings in hopes that future casters who want to run .223 through an AR without piss-poor accuracy will have a good starting point:

https://youtu.be/W8Nd0yFu_o8

HeadLead

06-10-2019, 07:13 PM

I've been searching for a starting point to load my 223/5.56 AR after PC'ing my recently Cast 61 grain .225 boolits.

I found my happy place when I finally came across this Post.

Thanks for your hard work, your persistence and the data supplied. I will continue to watch this post to see if anything new comes along.

I to have recently added a 300 upper to one of my AR lowers and am waiting on a Can.

Thanks again! :D

Alferd Packer

06-21-2019, 08:55 AM

Met some shooters that gave me a good piece of info.
They said you don't need bullet lube when you use gas checks.
Oh and by the way, they say cast bullets aren't any good in ARs.
I wonder why?
Sorry, but i am oldvfashioned and i still use bullet lube with or without gas checks on cast bullets.

sureYnot

06-21-2019, 11:23 AM

Oh and by the way, they say cast bullets aren't any good in ARs.
I wonder why?

Lots of folks like to say that. I think it's because they started casting for their .45 ACP or 30-30 lever action. There's more to be considered with a gas operated semi-auto. So, it isn't as easy starting out. Then they get "too hard for me" confused with "impossible" or "not worth the trouble".
My first cast was for the AR. So, lucky for me, I had no idea it's usually easier.

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk

Mark1Mod0

10-04-2019, 03:51 AM

Bhuij, I want to thank you for your efforts. I too began the search for a decent AR15 cast boolit load that could get the job done for me about 4 months ago. I think I have finally hit the nail on the head. I am a gunsmith by trade, and a bullet caster of almost 40 years, so I tend to try anything that seems to have merit. I cast and shoot about 30,000 rounds a year, so I think I might have forgotten more than most people know about the game. And forgetting stuff aint' always bad! Years before PC bullets came onto the scene, I was searching for the magic coatings that numerous bullet casters were coating their products with. I was trying desperately to cut my production times for making copious amounts of gun food for competition by not using traditional lubes in my star sizers. Finally, the PC info hit the web, and I was off to the races! The "forgetting" part comes from the fact that you can forget about most all of the traditional rules and things that you learned the old school way. The best phrase I ever read on a thread about PC'ing was "...PC changed EVERYTHING!". I agree. Back to the topic at hand... I started down the 223 path as many have with the Lee 55-225 6 cavity mold. I used safe low velocity loads working up to minimum loads that would reliably lock my M4 bolt open on the last round. I like to use surplus (cheap) gunpowder, and WCC844 is everywhere. I found that 20.0g of 844 behind the PC/GC Lee would cycle reliably in a 14.5 M4 piston variant. After my first 1k loads through the M4 (aka, 1K gas checks), it was still accurate enough to clang 10" steel 100% of the time at 100 yards with a zero magnification RDS, and there is ZERO leading of the barrel or the gas piston system. However, I found there was not enough "oomph" to reliably cycle some of my longer gas impingement systems with that load. So, back to the loading ladders.... I decided to run up a ladder of 1/2 grain incremental loads from the starting 20.0g, up to the suggested "book" loads 0f 25.0g suitable for 55g jacketed ammo. I figured that I would eventually find that spot where lead would eventually start to deposit in the bbl and bolt areas of the rifles. NOPE! Even at full loads the gun keeps hummin' like a jug! Additionally, at 24.5g I hit the sweet spot for one of my varmint AR rifles that grouped 5 round clusters into .92" and .96" groups. BTW, none of the loads went over 2.5 MOA at my 100 yard testing range. I'm done with ladders at this point! So, for those looking for the details, here ya' go: Use at your own discression with all the usual precautions of working up to this load:
FC cases, case mouths trimmed to length and inside neck chamfered to ease bullet insertion. WSR primers, 24.5g WCC844, COAL 2.13".
Boolit specs:
Lee cast 55-225 6 cavity gang mold. I use straight air cooled linotype (REAL lino with the headlines still readable on it!). At $3 a pound, its worth it to cast 15 pounds into 2000 52g slugs for $45. 1 light coat of HF red applied for 15 minutes in a dedicated HF vibratory tumbler. Toaster oven cured at 400 degrees for 20 minutes, then dumped and shaken to break up the clumps in an old wooden ammo crate before quickly cooling them down with a house fan. Hornady GC's seated and crimped in a Lee .225" push through sizing die (I used a .224 die the first 1K rounds) after PC'ing.

I know to those who are just starting out casting, this all seems like a lot of effort. But when you look at doing 2K or more at a single sitting, this effort is well worth the time and $ spent to squeeze the last cent out of your reloading dollars. Casting 2K takes about 2 hours. PC takes about 30 minutes. GC and sizing takes about 4 hours. TOTAL = 6.5 hours and +/- $100. The CG's are the most work really, and the most expensive part of the process, going anywhere from 2.4 cents (Midway USA, on sale last month), up to 4 cents apiece just for the copper cups from Hornady (I will use no others, as they are far superior in my experience). YMMV....

Dapaki

04-14-2020, 04:31 PM

* Updated *

This has been a good thread to read with the 'stay indoors' order and all. I too have been chasing the .223 cast boolit ghost first for my Mini 14 and now my AR. The H&T Handi was EZPZ, 7gr Red Dot got me sub MOA all day long, cheap and about the same recoil as a .22 lr.

The Mini 14 was fitted with an Accuracy Systems barrel 1:9 twist (OOPS! 1:12!) and was pretty interesting to tame for cast boolits, it likes round nose (Lyman 225462) stuffed up to the lands (.223 chambering) and only H335 will make it happy to hold the bolt open on last shot ( 19gr on the nose) though I like the way 22gr feels on the cycle and accuracy is nearly the same.

My BCA upper with a 24" barrel 1:8 twist (Again, OOPS! 1:9 twist) (certified sub 1moa) will shoot Federal/Speer Gold Dots (64gr) all day with .75" groups at 100yds from a hard rest but CANNOT shoot under 3.6 moa with boolits of any size or weight.

Having read this thread all the way through and reading the comments, I think I will give this another try (thanks Larry).

Be well, keep your powder dry

*I made the rookie mistake of writing down my memories of the twists without running a rod down the bore to measure the twist. No wonder the boolits are working in the Mini 14 and not the AR!

Mark1Mod0

06-11-2020, 10:22 PM

...at 24.5g I hit the sweet spot for one of my varmint AR rifles that grouped 5 round clusters into .92" and .96" groups...

Dapaki, I think your 8" twist is likely too fast for cast. My above rifle and cast loads that went sub MOA were from a 22" long, 1-14" twist barrel.

sigep1764

06-18-2020, 09:34 PM

Dapaki

06-18-2020, 10:38 PM

Heavy for caliber boolits will be more friendly with high twist rate barrels. 1/7 to 1/8 go with 65 to 75 grain cast boolits and keep speeds between 1900 and 2300fps. W748 will get you there with plenty of gas for the carbine and mid length gas systems in the AR.

Agreed! NO JOY with the 55 gr lee molds (older 2 cavity and new 6 cavity). I am on the list for the Lakehouse mold buy, 75 gr, got an #8 jug of W748 last month. Its got a full rifle gas tube, I will need all the gas I can get!

Dapaki

06-21-2020, 05:49 PM

Dapaki, I think your 8" twist is likely too fast for cast. My above rifle and cast loads that went sub MOA were from a 22" long, 1-14" twist barrel.

I just ran a tight patch down the bore and confirmed the 1:12 twist on the Mini 14 and the 1:9 on the AR. I will not be pursuing the boolits in the AR any longer with your advice BUT I will double down on PC boolits in the Mini 14 as the twist may be very friendly indeed!

Dapaki

06-21-2020, 05:50 PM

Agreed! NO JOY with the 55 gr lee molds (older 2 cavity and new 6 cavity). I am on the list for the Lakehouse mold buy, 75 gr, got an #8 jug of W748 last month. Its got a full rifle gas tube, I will need all the gas I can get!

I get some play time today, I will load a few and ladder some 70gr J-words today for S&G!

guy_with_boolits

07-17-2020, 02:27 AM

I really want to get some cast boolits for my AR going. Ammo and reloading supplies are getting tighter and tighter and more expensive and I want to do LOTS of shooting.

There seem to be quite a few threads all over the webs about getting cast boolits to work in the AR. I've started a spreadsheet that I will keep adding things too whenever I read something about cast boolits for the AR. That includes both empirical results AND theoretical ideas. Heres what I've got so far from just this thread. I will be PM'ing various people to ask for more details for some of the situations they reported. And especially the OP of this thread, to clear up which scenarios were tested (including those that didnt work).

I'm pretty sure we can zero in on the regions of space where things act a certain way and who knows maybe find a really awesome combination that essentially checks off all the boxes. (If you know of one lets hear it!!)

The columns so far in the spreadsheet are:

Report Type (empirical or theoretical)
Twist
Barrel length
Powder mass
Powder type
Mold
Bullet mass
fps
Alloy
Powder coat
Lube
Gas check
BHN
Action (fully cycled, short cycled, etc..)
Accuracy
Gas system (carbine, full length, etc..)
Link to report
Notes

If you want to have a report added PLEASE state all the things above so we can have as much data as possible as to whats going on.

Again THEORETICAL ideas are valued as well! But please be just as detailed about them and the reasoning behind them!

https://i.postimg.cc/9MP3tbfK/Untitled.png

MT Gianni

07-17-2020, 08:59 PM

To your table I would add weight sorting to within .2 gr either side.

guy_with_boolits

07-18-2020, 12:33 AM

To your table I would add weight sorting to within .2 gr either side.

as another theoretical entry?

MT Gianni

07-18-2020, 05:24 PM

as another theoretical entry?

Sure call it what you like.

BHuij

04-14-2021, 12:48 PM

guy_with_boolits

04-18-2021, 12:56 PM

A chance link on Reddit brought me back here to read through this thread again. I'm glad to see other people got some useful info out of my testing, and as a data analyst by trade, I'm downright honored to have made it onto someone else's spreadsheet :D

I still have the AR I used for these tests. It looks pretty different. New barrel, free floated handguard, different stock better grip, and finally got a decent LPVO on top. I shoot it for 3 gun matches now with M193 pulldowns and it runs great. It was a .300 BLK for awhile, but now I just have a separate AR dedicated to running .300 BLK.

With kid #1 at 3 years old and kid #2 coming soon to a theater near you, time for shooting still isn't as much as I'd like it to be, but reading this made me want to go back and play with cast .223 again. I still have some linotype and tin set aside, and a good selection of powders. Given the fact that at the end of all my testing, the main problem was a garbage barrel that wouldn't shoot ANYTHING better than 3 MOA... seems like hitting 2 MOA at 100 with cast should be doable, and there are some pretty obvious things to try that I think would be helpful. A slightly larger bullet diameter, a slightly larger expander ball on the sizing die, and some extra care with keeping bases flat when installing gas checks, I bet I'd be able to get there. Would actually be able to chrono these too, instead of using curve fitting algorithms to estimate velocity based on 2 data points in the reloading manual :D

Whenever I get around to trying it again, I'll be sure to post results here with all the relevant factors.

that spreadsheet has a quite a few more entries in it now:https://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?405422-The-cast-223-5-56-for-AR-load-data-compilation-thread

I'm also going to embark on finding an accurate cast load, however I think it needs to be approached with some more structure.

If the process you are following wouldn't make good ammo using factory off the shelf jacketed bullets, then it shouldn't be expected to make good cast loads either. There are some specifics to making cast ammo that you cant duplicate with a factory bullet, like the alloy composition, PC uniformity, performance at various speeds etc.. but there are also aspects that are in common and should be treated with as much importance.

So I think a quantum leap up in process control and QC needs to occur, as follows:

-pick a brass headstamp, and a good one, and go with it. Lets say lake city because thats so common in range pickups
-trim/chamfer/deburr brass to length
-swage the primer pockets properly
-use a powder that will meter consistently (ball etc..vs extruded)
-pick an alloy of known composition (in the beginning, buy ingots from rotometals so you know exactly whats going on)
-measure BHN of produced bullets
-casting should be done with thermocouples in the mold and the pot to keep the results consistent
-powder coating needs to be done in a way that results in a uniform coating (both on the bullet, and bullet to bullet) that wont cause the bullet to be unstable or vary from one to another significantly. this may require some original ideas
-if gas checks are going to be used, they must be installed properly (as you mentioned)
-chrono all test shots

BHuij

04-22-2021, 11:26 AM

Responding to your recommendations in order:

-I personally don't have the patience to sort brass by headstamp for bulk/volume AR ammo, but most of my brass is LC.
-I do trim/chamfer/deburr all of my .223 brass before loading
-I also swage primer pockets.
-I use Ramshot TAC powder for the time being, it meters extremely well.
-The primary impetus for my starting this project was trying to find the cheapest way to shoot reliable, and reasonably accurate plinking ammo through my AR. That means using the alloy I already have on hand, which is COWW alloy. I may at some point send some off for analysis so I can know the exact composition, but buying rotometals alloy defeats the purpose of the project for me.
-I do measure the BHN of my bullets when testing for this project
-I don't have any melt or mold temp monitoring in place at this time
-I will be continuing to use the shake and bake method for the foreseeable future here. I don't think that my powder coat uniformity is a major factor in the accuracy of these rounds right now
-I have recently taken some steps to more consistently and squarely install my gas checks using some NOE tools. I think this is going to make a noticeable difference
-I will be chronoing going forward.

It sounds like you and I may have slightly different goals. My stated goal from the get-go was to find a load using my existing alloy (COWW) that will shoot as close to 2 MOA as possible at 100 yards out of my AR and also reliably cycle the action. From what you're describing, it seems more like you're trying to find some kind of universally replicable load that has the maximum possible accuracy out of any given AR. I'm happy to contribute to your dataset, and will happily take suggestions I feel are useful to help me reach my target. But I'm probably not going to be doing this with the same amount of scientific rigor aimed at external validity as you are suggesting.

Yesterday I stopped by NOE, I live just a few blocks away from their manufacturing facilities and storefront. Al gave me the tour. Real nice guy, really knows his stuff. I have long suspected that a big part of my problem with accuracy has been how my gas checks are installed (sometimes resulting in less-than-perfect bullet bases) and how much neck tension I have set. My bullets are sized to 0.225" (I want to try bigger), but the Lee sizing die sizes the ID of the neck of the brass to about 0.222". This makes for some very stiff bullet seating. I'm going to try sizing my bullets to 0.226" and using the NOE stepped neck expander that sizes the neck to 0.224" ID, and flares the mouth out as wide as 0.228" if desired. That should give me a better neck tension and likely a better fit for my AR's throat.

I also grabbed the gas check expander that makes them easier to seat squarely, and will be picking up the gas check seating die that NOE makes as soon as he has one in stock.

Between better bases and what I think will likely be a better fit for my throat, and using heat treated COWW alloy bullets in the neighborhood of 30 BHN, I'm hoping I can get the 2 MOA I'm looking for. If not, the next step for me might just be a heavier mold or an enriched alloy with a higher antimony/tin content.