Armory Sponsor
Posted: 7/23/2026 7:30:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SyberSniper][Edited]
|
I've picked around the old posts and ducked the net and only came up with a couple (including some of my old test loads)... I know about the Nosler v9 data and a QL run someone did. Someone else mentioned an Accurate Powder Load data and another a Winchester guide for their 64 BSB load (RA556B) but I can't find either of those - can anyone post an image or point me to the list version? I found 190 of the newer style 64 T4 with the lower canneluer (for cOAL 2.21") and am planning on loading them up in the next few days I have TAC, W748 and A2460... the GRT Powder Parametric indicates 2460 is the better of the 3 so I was planning on using it with 24.6-24.9-25.2 test loads in my 11.5"-16"-18" or maybe a 22" boltgun... then load the remaining 145, but I wanted to check to see if there was anything new out here... |
|
Just a quick look, Western Powder Handloading Guide 8.0 has a load for the 65 grain Sierra, that should get you started. Attached File |
Team Ranstad
|
Thanks, I appreciate the post... but I have that one... (actually all of theirs back to 1989), I'm a little skeptical to use the 65gr Sierra data as iIRC its lead core and not 'zackly comparable to a solid base... Suppose I could start low and go up but I'm limited on projectiles and don't wanna buy more (just loaded 300 of the 62gr T3 and 350 Fusion) I considered using M855 data because of the hard penetrator but decided still too different - about the only comparable bullet I know of is the Nosler BSB... I wonder if any of the Barnes TSX lines would be comparable - at least data is easier to find. I would have thought that by now with AR selling tons of pulls, there would be more info available... In my first go-around I loaded these up to 25.6gr but IMO that is a bit too hot... I didn't get the spec 3100 fps (only got 2970-18"BA) and the CCI-450's were a bit flatter & square than I like... 
|
|
I loaded up 5 each of the above TBBC.T4 loads, enough for 3 guns then threw a few others in the box and went to the range. When testing, I usually like to have the POI offset a little from the POA but I decided it was time to adjust my sights for a 50/200 BSZ POA/POI. The 18" gun has a 6-24 FFP scope on it so I debated whether to keep its zero at 100yd but decided to go ahead and try 50 yd - the other two have reddots so 50 its suited for them. I included other 62gr loads I have, just as a comparison, including: (FPS below = 16"/18") 55gr oem.Win Q31 (3214/3250) as a baseline 62gr TBBC-T3- 25.5.Tac (2904/2898 <- yes 16" faster but essentially the same 62gr Fusion (GD) 25.5.Tac (2947/2939) <- yes 16" faster but essentially the same 62gr Core Lokt 25.5.H335 (3023/na fps-Do Not Use-Too HOT in 95*F - 3 blanked primers) 62gr pTip AAC.SBBT 25.8.Tac (2935/na) And the 3 loads of interest 64gr TBBC.T4 24.6.a2460 (2773/2832) 64gr TBBC.T4 24.9.a2460 (2864/2869) <- Essentially the same 64gr TBBC.T4 25.2.a2460 (2879/2898) The day was HOT with no breeze - it started out at 90* @ 10am and the reading at 1pm was 101* I must be getting really old as I couldn't finish - I drank all my water and eventually got really heat stressed and decided to call it a day - (didn't start the 3rd gun-will do the 11.5" another day). Lots of data got logged but in summary The 16" Reddot produced typical 1.5~2 MOA groups clocking 2875~2930fps for most loads, except for the 62gr Core-Lokt which gave 3023fps & .93 MOA + enough pressures to blank 3 CCI-450 and crater the other 2... Since I know H335 is temp sensitive but I've shot these several times previously without issues (at cooler temps), I'm either gonna pull all of them and download em or save them for winter temps. In short... todays winner of the 64.T4-a2460 contest was the 25.2 load @ 0.99 MOA and 2898 fps from the 18".  A tad high for 50/200 but I think I can live with it for now... ETA: fixed the 16/18" fps order. Calc'd the 100yd trajectory and that 0.6" high above turns into 2.8" at 100... a bit too high IMO - est about a 280yd zero if my calc is right... a little long for these parts, so I will have to go back and reshoot/adjust. durn work is never done... I should probably add a disclaimer to not use the load data I use above as it was previously worked up in my guns - yours will be different. You should reduce the listed charges 10% and work up yourself or start with published book data, looking for pressure signs. I will add that several of the above fired primers were very flat and square shouldered, indicating high pressure... including the oem.Win Q3131 tested. Below is one of the a2460 25.2 and a oem.Q31 for comparison.  
|
|
@SyberSniper Have you had a chance to shoot any of the factory loadings to see what velocity those show in your rifles? I generally want something that is good in a wide variety of rifles, so I like to be fairly close to the factory spec if possible. I think I went thru this with the 62gr TBBC pulls, and had a decent load similar to the FBI load velocity, but the accuracy was nothing spectacular if I recall correctly, which I was OK with (wanted these for barrier loads, not precision), but the main issue is that the POA/POI shift in every rifle I used the TBBC printed way off from where everything else does. Meanwhile the Gold Dot 62’s seem pretty close to everything else. Believe I was using A2520 for all the testing and because I had a lot of it at the time. So at this point, I am now stocked up on the Gold Dot pulls….problem is I also stocked up in the TBBC earlier as the Gold Dots were not really available nearly as often for a year or so. Both are good bullets for their needs, but I have used GD’s plenty in factory loads and trust them. As far as the Nosler 64 BSB projectiles- I have shot plenty of those in testing of the factory Winchester Ranger loading. They need Magpul M3 Pmags for best feeding due to that big blunt nose. Colts would occasionally choke on them, but HK’s absolutely had issues feeding them- like multiple times per mag. (Both when using GI aluminum mags). The M3 Pmag has a different feed angle and worked in both platforms just fine. Meanwhile Gold Dots have a nice thin nose profile, and I have never seen a feed issue with them as a result, just one more reason I like them. Obviously they don’t have a solid base like the TBBC or Nosler though. |
a loaded gun won’t set you free, so you say…
|
Best method I have found, backwards, after having wasted a lot of components... fire 2rd pairs in appropriate increment, say 0.3gr for a 223rem, until you find whatever is comfortable for max. Those 2rd pairs should be fired at one single POA until there's too many holes to keel track of, say 6-10rds on each. You're hoping that despite the variation in charge, the impacts are still relatively on-level (good load). Particularly the heaviest three increments, a good load will tend to stack them into the same POI at 100yds. For all year safety, best done with nice warm ammo in the summer. Back off the charge an increment or two as necessary. Fire 20rds of that load, two 10rd groups is great. Congrats. You're done. Either the load shoots or it doesn't. If it doesn't shoot, switch powder, bullet, maybe even primer. Particularly in a typical gas gun, the difference between 5rd test groups is nothing. The potential error gives false positives and negatives. The actual performance is an aggregate of all those groups. Eta: I do tend to give start-charges a bit more leeway, the low pressure loads tend to shoot looser. I put more weight into the performance of the top half or third of the charge range. |
|
Another wall of text... @tac556 My routine is pretty similar to yours... and I agree on the Golddots I usually try to shoot a OEM load as baseline for comparison with my reloads, however, No I have not shot OEM 64-T4 yet. This trip all I had with me was Win Q31. Looking at previous records, most oem have also been 55 M193 (since I once stocked up on cheap surplus). What is interesting is the records show M193 clocking around 2750 from this barrel (Apr-May, temps 60-70) and one other at 2800 at 85* (June) ... Since OEM loads are typically the first shot during a session, the temp that day was also about 85* at 10AM. The Q31 MV was 2997...about 150 faster than previous... and 200~250 from normal. Looking at previous 62gr loads (11"bbl), surplus IMI M855 typically has a V0 of 2700... reloads using a2460 - M855 averages 2642 (24~24.5gr), Golddot=2741 (25.7gr), AAC-SBBT=2666 (24.7gr)... So without testing actual 64gr-T4 from this bbl, 2650-2700 fps might be a reasonable expectation. OTOH considering the test loads V0 2680-2710 fps as in-the-ballpark may be a little high, per bullet weight and sb construction... the primers indicate it's a bit too hot for this particular barrel (but not in the other 2 tested). I often baseline loads in a 20" mil-surp bbl... then shoot them in various other 11"~24" barrels... other than a known 223 chamber, I don't think about if psi is safe for the particular barrel (after all it shot just fine in the 20") until after firing. What tipped me off was the 11" vs 16" primers and GRT psi graphics. 11"  16"  I've only recently noticed this psi difference, so now I'm now considering some questions I hadn't thought about previously... Why does the psi rise with the same load (sometimes to dangerous levels) in a short barrel than it does in a longer? Is this only found in semi-auto (AR) systems? Is it based on bbl length, gas port location or some other factor? Note that most manuals use between 20" and 24" test barrels - then we shoot the loads in shorter barrels -so if the psi rise is true... under what conditions and what are the implications? Of course 223/556 chambers are one aspect. Looking further into this indicates that something in the design related to bbl length may be a consideration of what works fine in one rifle may not work the same in another. One theory is that the location of the carbine gas port vs mid-length (& assoc. dwell length), is the reason... supposedly because the gas has a shorter time/distance before is gets vented to the gas key, thus higher pressure... (this may explain extraction issues but psi delta ?) I'm still trying to wrap my head around this theory because IMO pMax in both 11 & 16" occurs (nominally) at about 3.3" from the breech, while the closer carbine port is 7" (so, not yet vented in either)- so how can there be 10~15 kpsi difference? I can understand a port pressure difference at 7" and 9" locations but not 10k at 3" in both. IMO, my pressure issue is probably due to chamber/throat differences between the barrels. The 11.5" is an DPMS (circa 2005), the 16" is a Faxon 223 Wilde and the 18" is a BA 5.56. I used a Hornady OAL gage to measure several bullets cOAL to touching lands (including other 223 & 556 rifles). The DPMS is marked 5.56 but in actuality, several different results match another DPMS marked 223 and a 223 Rem-700... so my conclusion is that this 556 marked bbl has a 223 chamber... and psi issues are due to chamber throat differences... plus maybe a little due to the carbine gas port timing. This 11.5" has always been a problem child - FTX, Ripping rims, over-gassed... I fixed a lot of that with a heavier buffer and finally an AGB but I got tired of dealing with it and just replaced it with a Rosco 11.5" 556 bbl. One interesting difference is that the Rosco will eat the 223 no-go but not the 556 no-go test. I am interested to see the retest results (although on a cooler day).. |
|
As an added note to the above GRT graphics... for a specific (powder/bullet) load You cannot compare the differences... its easier to go crazy... what I have found thru use... (1) the V0 is accurate based on the exact charge & chrono data entered (2) the psi is likely correct based on the specs entered but without lab confirmation... ya gotta just trust it. (3) everything else... it depends Although the initial load specs may be identical (OAL, case length, seating depth etc) the actual psi calc seems to be primarily based on the fired case. You cannot rely on the initial pre-firing base simulation results (although they may be close... or not) because... (1) the initial specs used are past averages or pre-firing constants (2) Case load specs will change upon firing (oal, h2o) (3) you need to have actual chrono velocities to adjust the load curve (via OBT powder burn rate adjustments)... In the above loads the avg fired differences seem minor 11" cOAL 1.755" - H2O vol 31.4gr 16" cOAL 1.753" - H2O vol 31.5gr so, to develop my base load as a ballpark simulation I use previous avg. case info and load specs, then post range I take actual fired case measurements (case OAL and H2O vol) along with chrono data and run OBT to calc the psi graph... and because avg case stretch and avg H2O vol will always be different between two sets of fired strings, the calcs for K, Ba, Load Ratio (and psi) will also be different. In this case probably the most influential parameter is the H2O vol. but even that can't account for the large psi delta, so that leaves the chamber differences. If you use a case that has more vol, the psi will be lower or seat the bullet out further. |
|
I just realized I didn't update the post with results from the 2nd range trip with the 11.5... will fill in the blanks later once I shoot the replacement barrel. ETA... Poking around some more in GRT I found a setting that affected the psi calc significantly. During one of my experiments I must have set it and forgot to set it back for the 11.5" but not the others. It seems you cannot use the actual port size in the 'gas leakage' feature or it will raise the calculated pressure. I've found no way to turn the feature off once its activated. Changing the port area to .0001 negates its affect but still shows the port location on the graph. In the previous post, GRT was reporting a pressure of 62,172 psi. Changing the port area from .070 back to .0001 negated its affect and reduced the psi graph to 57,539... within CIP/NATO tolerance (even the 25.2gr load is now under 62kpsi). I feel a little better, the 11/16 psi delta isn't as great as it was but it still shows that shorter barrels have higher psi for the same load. |
Armory Sponsor