Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/12/2013 4:31:41 PM EDT
|
some interesting stuff i've run across but don't see tagged anywhere here.
WC844 & WC846 info Source: Army Ammunition Data Sheets Small Caliber Ammunition FSC 1305 Headquarters, Department of the Army April 1994 Cartridge, 5.56, Ball, M193 Projectile Wt.: 56 gr. Propellant: WC 844 28.5 Gr. CMR 170 26.5 Gr. Pressure: 52,000 psi Velocity: 3250 fps (15 ft. from muzzle) Cartridge, 5.56, Tracer, M196 Projectile Wt.: 54 Gr. Propellant: WC 844 28.5 Gr. IMR 8208M 25.3 Gr. CMR 170 26.5 Gr. Pressure: 52,000 psi Velocity: 3200 fps (15 feet from muzzle) Cartridge, 5.56, Ball, M855 Projectile Wt.: 62 Gr. Propellant: WC 844 26.1 Gr. Pressure: 55,000 psi Velocity: 3025 fps (78 ft. from Muzzle) Note: 1. When reading re-loading data used by other re-loaders, remember that powders vary from lot to lot, so always start at the lowest velocity & work up! 2. The 5.56 NATO round lead to higher pressures and there was some primer piercing by the firing pin in some brands of primers. CCI makes a MIL SPEC small rifle primer to prevent this problem,. |
|
The Army and Lake City use bulk powder which is tested to determine burn rate for each powder lot. Reloaders use cannister powders that are blended so that powder burn rate does not vary much. The Army ammunition data sheets are worthless for determining any load information for 1) cannister powders or 2) surplus powders because the burn rates and lot nos. of the powder used in the loads shown is not known.
Please do not make the mistake of using these Army data sheets for any reloading purpose. Regarding the note on primers, while I somewhat agree that regular primers may blank (pierce) at 5.56 pressures, there are other primers beyond the so-called milspec CCI primer that offer thicker cups - Rem 7-1/2, Wolf 223M, Wolf 556, and CCI-450 come to mind. |
|
Quoted:
The Army and Lake City use bulk powder which is tested to determine burn rate for each powder lot. Reloaders use cannister powders that are blended so that powder burn rate does not vary much. The Army ammunition data sheets are worthless for determining any load information for 1) cannister powders or 2) surplus powders because the burn rates and lot nos. of the powder used in the loads shown is not known. Please do not make the mistake of using these Army data sheets for any reloading purpose. Regarding the note on primers, while I somewhat agree that regular primers may blank (pierce) at 5.56 pressures, there are other primers beyond the so-called milspec CCI primer that offer thicker cups - Rem 7-1/2, Wolf 223M, Wolf 556, and CCI-450 come to mind. I for one would like to see were you got your info about those primers. It is my understanding that its not just the thickness of the cup that makes a primer MIL-SPEC. The gap between the cup and anval are differant too. As for that load data thats right in line with the load and velocity's we got with the WC844 and we have had more than two lot ## also. Not that anyone here should go there.  
|
|
Quoted:
The Army and Lake City use bulk powder which is tested to determine burn rate for each powder lot. Reloaders use cannister powders that are blended so that powder burn rate does not vary much. The Army ammunition data sheets are worthless for determining any load information for 1) cannister powders or 2) surplus powders because the burn rates and lot nos. of the powder used in the loads shown is not known. Please do not make the mistake of using these Army data sheets for any reloading purpose. Regarding the note on primers, while I somewhat agree that regular primers may blank (pierce) at 5.56 pressures, there are other primers beyond the so-called milspec CCI primer that offer thicker cups - Rem 7-1/2, Wolf 223M, Wolf 556, and CCI-450 come to mind. just sharing FWIW...I'm loading for accuracy be it lowest grain or highest grain, whatever my load works up to starting from the low end, working up safely. Really have no care to replicate military load as I can outperform it with proper loading for accuracy and purpose. Even deadlier if you can put it on target 100% of the time than just throwing high powered charges down range with no accuracy. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Army and Lake City use bulk powder which is tested to determine burn rate for each powder lot. Reloaders use cannister powders that are blended so that powder burn rate does not vary much. The Army ammunition data sheets are worthless for determining any load information for 1) cannister powders or 2) surplus powders because the burn rates and lot nos. of the powder used in the loads shown is not known. Please do not make the mistake of using these Army data sheets for any reloading purpose. Regarding the note on primers, while I somewhat agree that regular primers may blank (pierce) at 5.56 pressures, there are other primers beyond the so-called milspec CCI primer that offer thicker cups - Rem 7-1/2, Wolf 223M, Wolf 556, and CCI-450 come to mind. I for one would like to see were you got your info about those primers. It is my understanding that its not just the thickness of the cup that makes a primer MIL-SPEC. The gap between the cup and anval are differant too. As for that load data thats right in line with the load and velocity's we got with the WC844 and we have had more than two lot ## also. Not that anyone here should go there.
Here is one source of primer information: http://www.sksboards.com/smf/index.php?topic=56422.0 I agree with you that the CCI "MIL-SPEC" primer has a gap between the cup and anvil. We may disagree on whether that gap offers any benefit in a semi-automatic AR15. I was not in any way suggesting the other primers are "MIL-SPEC" according to CCI's definition or MIL-SPEC according to DOD definition. I only offered that there are other primers available that have thicker cups and are thus less likely to blank (pierce) at 5.56 pressures, compared to standard small rifle primers. Regarding the Army ammunition data sheets, see the linked discussion, especially post #39: http://www.shootersforum.com/handloading-procedures-practices/82542-spherical-vs-extruded-powder-2.html I do not have near the experience that you do with pulldown powders (I have seen your pictures of powder jugs) or with loading mass amounts of ammunition, but I do know that pulldown powders are an advanced course reloading gig and that there is no substitute for load data for the specific lot from the supplier. |
|
Just a fast read though that shows that it is not only the thickness of the cup . But what alloy of brass is used to form it and how work hardened it got when formed. I can see the CCI# 450 being a primer that can stand up to higher pressures than the #41. But some of those you have listed are on my iffy list,, like the WOLF .223 primers. They may use the same cup as their 5.56 primer. I just don't want to find out the hard way they don't. I'll stay with the CCI #41 primer it is still the prefered primer for loading 5.56 ammo to be used in semi and full autos rifles.
|
|
REAL WORLD data for WC-844T anyplace? It is supposedly similar to regular 844 (which is said to be similar to Hodgdon 335) - but the "T" version burns hotter for use with tracers.
I do not have or need tracers. But the 844T was all I could find in stock. Does anyone have any load work ups for 55 and 62 grn bullets? I'm just looking for same 223 numbers; no need for 5.56mm pressure or velocity. Anyone? |
|
Quoted:
2. The 5.56 NATO round lead to higher pressures and there was some primer piercing by the firing pin in some brands of primers. CCI makes a MIL SPEC small rifle primer to prevent this problem,. So you 'think' that the regular old CCI 400 primers may be too soft and pierce when loaded at high pressure??? Take a good hard look at these CCI 400 primers and tell me how you think they held up. (fired in 5.56 chambered barrel) 
These cases were only reloaded ONCE and were loaded to WAY to high pressure... ( I broke the original seal on the factory ammo can and was the first to fire them when they were 'new' factory ammo - I only got ONE reload out of them with this particular load. This was NOT range pickup brass of unknown history used here) This is what happened to the necks: 
My point here is this: NONE of these (so called 'soft') CCI 400 primers 'failed' due to the obvious overpressure... ALL of the cases failed first... Split or destroyed the necks on every single case. NONE survived. NO pierced primers at all... Flattened yes - Pierced NO... (no slamfires either) 
I have a few boxes of the CCI 41's in the stash but dont really think they are 'required' to be safe in a 'hot' load based on my own personal experiences. I am not in any way suggesting that anyone load ammo this hot or think it is safe for them OR their gun. My comments and pictures here are ONLY intended to inform people about how much obvious abuse a 'regular' CCI primer can take before things start going south in a big way...
FWIW - I have lots of this brass and it is not what I consider bad or weak in any way. When loaded correctly it lasts for a good while before going to the recycle bucket. If I ran the same exact load in LC brass it would take an immideate crap as well... 
|
Armory Sponsor