AR 15 Pistol Ammunition
- Thread starter oli700
- Start date
Feel free to add or comment
I am going to start playing with finding a good load for my pistol
All the rounds fired here will be fired through a Ballistic Advantage 8” 1:7 twist
[/URL
]
I may add 300BLK to this later also a Ballistic Advantage 8” ….but for now all will be 556/223
All velocities are measured with a Pro Chrono Digital 10 FEET from the muzzle
5 round averages
To start this off I want to chronograph some existing reloads
This is my plinker load, tin can shooting. 55gr SP or FMJ….these were SP. These usually get 2648 FPS out of my 18”
23 gr IMR 3031 over 660fps loss
[URL=http://s45.photobucket.com/user/oli700/media/2a/imagejpg2_zps4c7dd68a.jpg.html]
This round usually averages 2876 FPS from the 18”. This is the one I keep loaded in the guns.
24gr AR Comp over 540 FPS Loss
This has shown me quite a bit already. I know fast powder is preferred for lighter projo and slow is better for heavier bullets.
The debate is what powders are best for short barrels.
Common since says a fast powder would expand its energy in a shorter space, therefore all available energy would be utilized in a short barrel.
But in pistol shooting it seemed to me in my data that the reloads that were fast in a longer barrel were not always fastest in the shorter barrels when bullets got lighter.
The rounds that were loaded with the heavier bullets and slower powder lost the least amount of velocity especially as bullets got heavier.
Just this little bit of data reflects that yet again the slower burning powder lost the least amount of velocity
IMR 3031 is the fastest powder I load for 223, Comp is one of the slowest.
I have acquired a slower yet powder since I reloaded last, Hodgdon CFE 223.
When I start fresh loads for the pistol I will be working with this CFE 223.
I have two more existing loads to put through just to confirm but that’s the way I’m leaning for propellant
http://s45.photobucket.com/user/oli700/media/2a/IMG_0360_zps14e13102.jpg.html
[URL='http://s45.photobucket.com/user/oli700/media/2a/imagejpg2_zps4c7dd68a.jpg.html'][URL='http://s45.photobucket.com/user/oli700/media/2a/imagejpg1_zps016ac034.jpg.html'][/URL][/URL]
[URL='http://s45.photobucket.com/user/oli700/media/2a/imagejpg2_zps4c7dd68a.jpg.html'][/URL][/URL]
I am going to start playing with finding a good load for my pistol
All the rounds fired here will be fired through a Ballistic Advantage 8” 1:7 twist
[/URL]
I may add 300BLK to this later also a Ballistic Advantage 8” ….but for now all will be 556/223
All velocities are measured with a Pro Chrono Digital 10 FEET from the muzzle
5 round averages
To start this off I want to chronograph some existing reloads
This is my plinker load, tin can shooting. 55gr SP or FMJ….these were SP. These usually get 2648 FPS out of my 18”
23 gr IMR 3031 over 660fps loss
[URL=http://s45.photobucket.com/user/oli700/media/2a/imagejpg2_zps4c7dd68a.jpg.html]
This round usually averages 2876 FPS from the 18”. This is the one I keep loaded in the guns.
24gr AR Comp over 540 FPS Loss
This has shown me quite a bit already. I know fast powder is preferred for lighter projo and slow is better for heavier bullets.
The debate is what powders are best for short barrels.
Common since says a fast powder would expand its energy in a shorter space, therefore all available energy would be utilized in a short barrel.
But in pistol shooting it seemed to me in my data that the reloads that were fast in a longer barrel were not always fastest in the shorter barrels when bullets got lighter.
The rounds that were loaded with the heavier bullets and slower powder lost the least amount of velocity especially as bullets got heavier.
Just this little bit of data reflects that yet again the slower burning powder lost the least amount of velocity
IMR 3031 is the fastest powder I load for 223, Comp is one of the slowest.
I have acquired a slower yet powder since I reloaded last, Hodgdon CFE 223.
When I start fresh loads for the pistol I will be working with this CFE 223.
I have two more existing loads to put through just to confirm but that’s the way I’m leaning for propellant
http://s45.photobucket.com/user/oli700/media/2a/IMG_0360_zps14e13102.jpg.html
[URL='http://s45.photobucket.com/user/oli700/media/2a/imagejpg2_zps4c7dd68a.jpg.html'][URL='http://s45.photobucket.com/user/oli700/media/2a/imagejpg1_zps016ac034.jpg.html'][/URL][/URL]
[URL='http://s45.photobucket.com/user/oli700/media/2a/imagejpg2_zps4c7dd68a.jpg.html'][/URL][/URL]
I want to add this load from the post above is loaded with 69gr Nosler Custom Competition Hollow Point Boat Tail
This round usually averages 2876 FPS from the 18”. This is the one I keep loaded in the guns.
24gr AR Comp over 540 FPS Loss
This round usually averages 2876 FPS from the 18”. This is the one I keep loaded in the guns.
24gr AR Comp over 540 FPS Loss
Cool, seems short barrel likes a slower powder that wants to keep pushing to the end. The results trade off seems to me would be kind of a waist of powder in the way that it is still wanting to accelerate the bullet but comes to an end in 8" thus waiting energy.
Trade off worth it to me to gain speed in a cartridge dependant on speed to perform, looking like I will still have a good velocity with in 100- 150 yards.....80 percent of the shooting distance offered in my country
Speed is good for AR bullets.
I have heard so many people try to talk with authority that short barrel rifles (especially ARs) lose too much velocity to be effective.
Your posts above prove otherwise. And that's with one of the shortest barrels that you can get.
2000 fps is still effective out of an AR, especially at the distances you would be using it at.
Is 2300 better?
Of course, but even at 2000 will work. I don't think you'd find any volunteers to try to prove otherwise
I have heard so many people try to talk with authority that short barrel rifles (especially ARs) lose too much velocity to be effective.
Your posts above prove otherwise. And that's with one of the shortest barrels that you can get.
2000 fps is still effective out of an AR, especially at the distances you would be using it at.
Is 2300 better?
Of course, but even at 2000 will work. I don't think you'd find any volunteers to try to prove otherwise
wonder how much velocity you will lose as you start droppeing powder charge? would it be worth it to lose 1-200 fps if you can save a grain of powder? obviously you want to find that sweet spot of most amount of powder while maintaining complete burn within the barrel.
its looking good, you've shot these a lot more than me so I'm sure you wouldn't invest if you thought it was a waste of time.
2000 fps sounds like a good number to keep as a minimum for ammo you expect to penetrate and expand .
I'll keep that as a benchmark minimum......I wont have a max as I wont be able to get long gun speed anyway.
2000 is good for minimum fps in regards to the bullet type as well.
I have not the real means to test bullet performance like I can test reloads for grouping, velocity and component changes...endless possibilities.
I though road kill deer would be cool but then I thought it would be my luck a cop comes up on me, dead deer.....riddles with holes.....AR 15 pistol/sig .....40 round mag.....probably take a minute to talk my way out of that.
I thought about gel, don't want buy the good stuff...anyway I am just going to have to depend on others gel testing on line and manufacturer data
I have been researching solid when I can and have found a lot of projectiles that I like.....
however only a few really perform below 2100 fps....
Barns TSX ,TTSX,LE/M to me seem the nicest.....Winchester Bonded , Hornady AMax, Vmax are a couple.
of the few only a couple actually penetrate and expand like the Winchester and Barnes.
Of the couple that do all that only one really stands out to me as a projectile that penetrates most things including auto glass and drywall , Barnes all copper tsx and its relitives. The tipped TSX is not one I have seen many tests on.
Barnes claims the TSX line of .224 bullets will expand at 1700 fps.....
2000 fps sounds like a good number to keep as a minimum for ammo you expect to penetrate and expand .
I'll keep that as a benchmark minimum......I wont have a max as I wont be able to get long gun speed anyway.
2000 is good for minimum fps in regards to the bullet type as well.
I have not the real means to test bullet performance like I can test reloads for grouping, velocity and component changes...endless possibilities.
I though road kill deer would be cool but then I thought it would be my luck a cop comes up on me, dead deer.....riddles with holes.....AR 15 pistol/sig .....40 round mag.....probably take a minute to talk my way out of that.
I thought about gel, don't want buy the good stuff...anyway I am just going to have to depend on others gel testing on line and manufacturer data
I have been researching solid when I can and have found a lot of projectiles that I like.....
however only a few really perform below 2100 fps....
Barns TSX ,TTSX,LE/M to me seem the nicest.....Winchester Bonded , Hornady AMax, Vmax are a couple.
of the few only a couple actually penetrate and expand like the Winchester and Barnes.
Of the couple that do all that only one really stands out to me as a projectile that penetrates most things including auto glass and drywall , Barnes all copper tsx and its relitives. The tipped TSX is not one I have seen many tests on.
Barnes claims the TSX line of .224 bullets will expand at 1700 fps.....
Speed is good for AR bullets.
I have heard so many people try to talk with authority that short barrel rifles (especially ARs) lose too much velocity to be effective.
Your posts above prove otherwise. And that's with one of the shortest barrels that you can get.
2000 fps is still effective out of an AR, especially at the distances you would be using it at.
Is 2300 better?
Of course, but even at 2000 will work. I don't think you'd find any volunteers to try to prove otherwise
I think I will be like that with my practice and plinker rounds as conserving any powder is a good thing.
For now I am going to figure out the ammo I am most likely to defend with. I'll find a load to keep in the mags that will be as devastating as possible out of both my AR's as they will be my go to...
But for sure if I can save grains and still make hole in paper, ring steel I will be happy.
I'll work up some H335 pistol plinkers too so since I don't care if those are fast and I don't have a BDC to match loads with like my 18"
Oli, there are many things that affect how a bullet acts.
Tumbling, fragmentation, expansion or a combination of all of the above.
Going off of memory, I think it's generally assumed that for good fragmentation is around 2350 fps and that's what most people judge 223 on.
Not saying that tumbling and expansion is a bad thing because it's not, just different end results.
The last few years, I've just been using my 8.5" barrel as the dedicated 22LR conversion/suppressed upper and I've been using a 10.5" for 223 just because I can get a little more speed out of it.
Not saying that 8 or 9 inch barrel is bad because it isn't. But they do have slightly different affects on the bullet due specifically to velocity. Especially down range at target distance.
Punching paper doesn't really matter how the bullets are reacting as long as they're stabilized, but I'm sure for your grab mag, you'll have the ones with the most velocity and best bullet combo in them.
But from your chrony above, your pistol is doing really great at launching and I'm sure will get even better with more tests.
Tumbling, fragmentation, expansion or a combination of all of the above.
Going off of memory, I think it's generally assumed that for good fragmentation is around 2350 fps and that's what most people judge 223 on.
Not saying that tumbling and expansion is a bad thing because it's not, just different end results.
The last few years, I've just been using my 8.5" barrel as the dedicated 22LR conversion/suppressed upper and I've been using a 10.5" for 223 just because I can get a little more speed out of it.
Not saying that 8 or 9 inch barrel is bad because it isn't. But they do have slightly different affects on the bullet due specifically to velocity. Especially down range at target distance.
Punching paper doesn't really matter how the bullets are reacting as long as they're stabilized, but I'm sure for your grab mag, you'll have the ones with the most velocity and best bullet combo in them.
But from your chrony above, your pistol is doing really great at launching and I'm sure will get even better with more tests.
Lol very close.
