I always keep American Eagle 50 grain tipped varmint around. It has shot very well out of several rifles for me, usually right around 1 moa. Last weekend, I tanked in a match using mostly  AETV that I purchased recently. I took the rifle to the range today to see what was up. AETV produced groups of 2.24 and 3.82 moa, both from the same box. This rifle has previously shot 1.13 moa groups with AETV. The best groups from today were  two .68 moa groups with 77 TMK handloads, so the problem is not me or the gun.

Has anybody run into recent problems with AETV?

Update: New AETV has 27.6 grains of ball powder, old had 26.2. More details below.

Update 2: My emails with Federal are below.

To Federal, sent by me via their website:

I am fairly sure that I have purchased some American Eagle Tipped Varmint.223 ammo that has an excessive powder charge in it. It is lot number SMQ16K829-002. By pulling apart cartridges, I found lot no. SMQ16K829-002 has 27.6 grains of powder, while some older AETV ammo I have has only 26.2 grains.

I suspected the problem after I shot poorly in a match using ammo from lot no. SMQ16K829-002. After the match, I went to the range for testing. My match rifle historically shoots AETV at just over 1 moa. Lot no. SMQ16K829-002 shot roughly 3 moa in post-match testing. The best group from the same rifle the same day using my handloads was .68 moa. At home, I pulled apart cartridges from older AETV and some from lot no. SMQ16K829-002. Lot no. SMQ16K829-002 had almost 1.5 grains more powder than the old AETV.

Please let me know whether 27.6 grains is the correct charge for American Eagle 50 grain Tipped .223 ammo and, if not, how I go about replacing the over-charged ammo that I have.

Federal's August 14 response:

Each lot of powder will vary in burn rate. Testing during manufacture can result in the powder amount being adjusted accordingly. There can also be variation from lot to lot of powder.

Thanks
Federal

My August 15 response:

What is the specification for grains of powder for lot no. SMQ16K829-002?

I understand some slight variations in powder charge weights for powders that appear to be the same. Both old and new lots have identical-looking ball powder. However, 1.4 grains is a very large difference, especially for a load that already ran at high pressures. An excessive powder charge puts me at risk of severe injury and my firearms at risk of destruction. I am entitled to know what the correct charge is for the ammo I have purchased so that I know whether the ammo I have is safe to shoot, according to your specifications.

Federal's August 15 response:

That information is not available.

My August 15 response:

Do you mean you don’t have the information or you are not going to give it to me?

Federal's August 15 response:

We consider this proprietary and will not pass the info onto you.

I haven't seen any for sale in years, but thanks for the info.  I'll be wary of the new stuff until more data confirms or dispels yours.

Haven’t seen that ammo anywhere for awhile, but the ammo I did have shot great.

Is it the new hollow point stuff?

I haven't seen any of the gray tipped stuff for sale for awhile.

Haven't bought any Gray Tipped Varmint Tip AE 50gr since PSA stopped their $0.30/rd sale
I guess AE changed their formula?
The old stuff is very accurate.

I was going to post this. I haven’t bought any since then, and boy do I wish I got more then than I did. That stuff shot right up there with Black Hills SMK’s.

My older stuff came mostly from that PSA sale. The newer stuff came from the recent Academy sale. The box is different (colorful instead of black and white), but the ammo looks the same.

I still have some of the old stuff and it is sub MOA in every AR that has shot it.

Seconded.

I’ve seen it online here and there, but haven’t found it in stores for quite a while. What has popped up is a new 50gr “AE Varmint Predator”. It comes in a colorful box, and I initially thought it was updated packaging for their VT. Given that Federal has recently changed the look of a lot of their boxes.

A little research showed it wasn’t the same load. It’s also reported to be mediocre in the accuracy department. IIRC, it’s a frangible, open tip/hp projectile. So, while my initial thought is that you may have mistakenly purchased this new loading. The fact that you stated the round looks the same suggests otherwise.

I’ll be bummed if it turns their VT has degraded in accuracy. It was such a great round for the price.

New box:



New lot number:



I found some of the old stuff, so I'll be able to test it.

I have had great luck with it for years. Picked up a couple blue boxes of it mid 2017 and had bad accuracy.

The federal varmint predator I get 1ish moa at 100yds sometimes better, the new tipped varmint i was getting 3-4moa. I actually tried it in a few AR's  and a bolt gun after shooting it so poorly in the first rifle to make sure it was not my gun.

The fact that federal included it in their branding updates is encouraging from an availability standpoint. Multiple reports of poor accuracy, however, is pretty disappointing. Hopefully it was just a bad lot or two.

I’m thinking about emailing Federal to ask if they’ve changed anything with the loading. A third-party comparison might be even better.

The last time I reached out to Federal, I got a personal response. But they overlooked/ignored most of my questions. What little they did provide was awfully vague. Though, it could have been a case of “not knowing”: rather than “not wanting to say”.

Seven cartridge weights in grams from the old black box:

11.130
11.130
11.150
11.160
11.165
11.205
11.235

11.168 average

Seven cartridge weights in grams from the new colorful box:

11.175
11.195
11.200
11.205
11.240
11.245
11.260

11.217 average or .049 grams heavier than the average weight of the old cartridges. .049 grams is .76 grains.

The new box lists velocity at 3,240 fps. The old box doesn't list one. My 16" shot the old stuff at 3,075, so 3,240 is about right for the 20"+ barrel that the listed velocity likely comes from. I'll pull some rounds apart later.

I've been to half a dozen Academy stores since I read this thread, I still haven't found any new TV.

If I do, I'll compare it to the old stuff.

Try BestBuy

I pulled a new and old cartridge apart. Both bullets looked the same. Old bullet was .775", new bullet was .780". Old bullet weighed 50 grains, new bullet weighed 49.8 grains. Both cartridges had ball powder that looked the same.

Here's the kicker: The old cartridge had 26.2 grains of powder, but the new had 27.6 grains! That's a big difference.  I think I'll contact Federal.

Bump for update 2 in OP.

OP,

The charge weight variation that you posted is not out of the realm of possibilities.  Federal buys large lots of powder and lot to lot variation in burn rate is common.  Age of the powder as well as ambient conditions during loading also factors in.  Federal is not going to give you the charge weight because they are typically adjusted to meet pressure and velocity requirements for the round.  P&V is tested and confirmed at various points throughout a run of ammo.

Also, even though the powders look the same (and they might be, but with a variance in burn rate) Federal may have qualified additional powders that can be used if the primary powder is not available.

With respect to your comment about the round already being high pressure, how was that verified?

Box velocity on .223 spec ammo is usually shot out of a 24" barrel.

I asked Federal a very simple, basic question: Is the charge correct? They won't answer it, which is bullshit. There's nothing proprietary about whether a charge is in spec. It's a yes or  no question.

Usually, when people dodge simple yes or  no questions, it's because the answer is bad for them.

I found my video from 3 yrs ago. Charge weight on the black box stuff I had was 25.4gr. Bullet Length .776"

Yeah, except it's not a bullshit answer.  Any charge weights are a suggested guideline for the operator to use as a starting point.  Final charge weight is chosen by adjusting to make sure P&V is within spec (within an acceptable pressure range and to the box velocity plus or minus their tolerance).  And to Federal, information regarding powder charges IS proprietary even it is just answering a question like yours.

Either ask them whether your lots met pressure and velocity requirements or request that they P&V your suspect lot.

Have you ran the suspect ammo over a chrono to see how it compared to the old lot?

ETA: I just reread the email chain that was posted and you specifically asked for the specification, not just whether it was in spec.  That is absolutely proprietary information.

Your pissing into the wind...

If the 77gr shoots, shoot them.

This isnt the 1st time someone has said the new load sucks.
If it sucks....who cares, it sucks.

Anything that they  tell you, or dont tell you, or you figure out yourself isnt going to magically make them unsuck.

When I find a commercial load that is excellent, I try to buy as much of that lot as possible. Frequently, the manufacturer will fuck it all up before long. The Fed 50gr Tipped is a load that I relied on for accuracy in the past.

If it's out of spec, they should replace it with in spec.

The very first question I asked was "Please let me know whether 27.6 grains is the correct charge for American Eagle 50 grain Varmint Tipped .223 ammo . . . ."

That calls for a simple "The charge is correct" or "The charge is incorrect."

This is the last email I sent them.  They did not respond.

How can whether a particular lot of ammunition is charged correctly be proprietary information? That’s consumer safety information. Regardless, anyone can pull apart a cartridge and weigh a powder charge. There’s no legitimate basis for asserting a charge weight is proprietary. Is 27.6 grains of powder within the specifications for lot no. SMQ16K829-002 or not?

Again, a simple "yes" or "no" will do.

I am  not a Hornady spy. I have not asked for details. I have simply asked whether the ammo I bought that performs poorly and has a significantly heavier charge than other lots of the same ammo is in spec. If Federal doesn't like my phrasing, they can simply say "It's in spec." It's bullshit that they will not answer that question for a customer who has a reasonable basis to be concerned about whether the ammo is in spec.

Handloading and mass loading for production are not the same thing.  Pulling down a round from 2 factory rounds that came out of two different lots and seeing a measurable but relatively small difference in powder charges is NOT an indicator of out of spec ammo.  Mass production loading is set to pressure and velocity specifications, not charge weights.  Powder charge weight alone is not a reliable way for Federal CS to tell you whether your rounds are in spec, nor is it consumer safety information.  Your continued questioning to Federal about charge weight is likely to keep getting the same answer from them.

If you are seeing major pressure signs on fired brass, blown primers, or velocities well over what should be expected out of a 16" barrel (i.e. near box velocity), then you have a legitimate complaint that they should investigate.  Poor accuracy from a single lot alone will likely not trigger one.

I appreciate your input. I understand that mass-produced ammo is going to have more variation in charge weight than hand loads, for many reasons. However, I have a hard time believing that Federal doesn't have a specification for minimum and maximum powder charge for that and every other lot of ammo. They have to set the mass-production equivalent of a powder measure at something, and the "measure" has to have a range at which it is considered to be functioning properly.  27.6 grains is either within spec or it isn't. I don't see any reason why Federal can't say whether a charge is within spec.

As to the idea that 1.4 grains is "a measurable but relatively small difference in powder charges," I'm going to challenge you on that a bit.

The powder in both old and new AETV ammo is ball powder that looks like BL(C)-2. I know it isn't BL(C)-2, but we'll use BL(C)-2 charge weights as an example. My guess is that whatever powder AETV uses doesn't behave radically different than BL(C)-2, based on my experience using AETV and BL(C)-2 with 50 grain polymer tipped bullets. For 50 grain bullets, the starting load for BL(c)-2 is 24 grains with a maximum load of 26.5 grains. That's a safe range of 2.5 grains. I don't think a charge increase of 1.4 grains, which is over half of the listed safe range for a similar ball powder, can be described as "relatively small." 1.4 grains could very easily put a mid-range charge over a maximum load. To me, "relatively small" is variation that would not make a material difference in safety or performance regardless of what direction it went in. I don't see 1.4 grains as "relatively small." I would be interested in what, if any, data you are using to conclude 1.4 grains is a "relatively small difference." To me, it's a big difference.

Also, I have not chronographed the new loading, and I did not examine the brass for pressure signs. I'll do that eventually. When I shot the groups, I wasn't expecting to find a 2 moa increase from the old lot of AETV to the new. I expected the issue to be my shooting or something loose on the scope mount, so I wasn't paying attention to the brass and didn't set up the chrono. I only started suspecting the AETV ammo after I shot the .68 moa group with the TMKs.

My data comes from direct experience having worked as an engineer at Federal in the past.  I have witnessed charge weight adjustments similar to what you found necessary to maintain pressure and velocity specs.  These observations were in both shotshell and centerfire rifle loads when powder lots were being changed.  Lot to lot burn rate variation was confirmed by the powder engineer at Federal when I asked him about it.

You're trying to apply handloading logic to mass production again.  Powder load data development from bullet manufacturers is typically developed with a single lot of powder. Each company may have reduced suggested charge weights by some factor of safety to try to take that into account without measuring multiple powder lots or they capped their max pressures lower than SAMMI max.  Either way, Federal (and other ammunition makers) are taking direct measurements of pressures from the loader so that there is no guess work.  This is why I am trying to tell you that powder weight alone will not likely tell you if your rounds are out of spec.

I don't think you can expect Federal to guarantee a powder load. Certain level of accuracy, safe pressures, velocities, maybe.

This

I bought very heavily on the grey tipped PSA deal,still have 3K of it left