loading 223 62 fmj

[usmc1974]

I was going to load some 223 62 grain fmjbt on top of 27 grains of Varget at a AOL of 2.250 in a federal case. But damm that case looked full. To add a 62 gr bullet would really compress the powder.

[Dan Sierpina]

I'm surprised that 27.0 grains of Varget even fits in a .223 case!

[reptoid]

What are you using for load data? That's above the max load shown in the Hodgdon on-line load data

[usmc1974]

It was from another board. I think the poster is wrong. Any way it is to scarey for my loading.

[Mike Morcillo]

Don't even think about using an on-line posters data. Use the data

from the powder or bullet manufacturers, Sierra is my choice.

Try Hodgdons website for starters. Start at the lowest load, work your way up, always looking for signs of over pressure. If you can chronograph, even better.

[dauntedfuture]

look up 60g bullet data and start from there. 62g FMJs will generate more pressure then 60g normal bullets will as they have thicker jackets. Don't consider using 62 SS109 with a penetrator at a match as they are not allowed. I have tried to load some of the SS109/M855 pulled bullets and they do not shoot very well. 27g varget is quite a bit.

[tcoz]

As mentioned above, never use loads posted on forums. They can make for some interesting reading, but stick with bullet and powder manufacturers for loads. In addition to Sierra, Nosler and Barnes also have data for various powders. The Lee Modern Reloading Manual is a good compilation of loads from reliable manufacturer sources. It probably has more loads for more kinds of bullets and powders than any other manual.

[RDA]

No offense, I take responsibility for all of my loads, but I take data from bullet manufacturers, powder manufacturers, reloading manufacturers as well as private individuals and their personal experiences. After a while, it isn't too hard to discern "fact from fiction", good advice from bad advice.

YMMV.

[tcoz]

No offense taken. I should've expounded a bit and said that I do take other individuals loads into consideration when developing mine, but they have to fall within ranges of manufacturers loads. I may go overboard a bit, but when I'm developing a load, I generally have anywhere from 20-30 that I gather from various sources and I give them a 1-5 stars rating based on my perceived reliability of the source and how many times I've seen it somewhere. By the time I'm finished I usually have 3-4 that I actually load and test. Like I said, I go overboard, but to me the process of doing that is part of the enjoyment I derive from reloading. My wife says that I live my whole life like that and I tell her that's why I'm so seldom wrong. Ha.

[rtp]

No offense, I take responsibility for all of my loads, but I take data from bullet manufacturers, powder manufacturers, reloading manufacturers as well as private individuals and their personal experiences. After a while, it isn't too hard to discern "fact from fiction", good advice from bad advice.

YMMV.

+1 on this. I always start with factory/mfgr load data, but then look to see what people have already discovered about the combination of bullet, powder, and in some cases, gun (moreso for pistol, but also rifle barrel twist). If, e.g. 24.5gr of TAC with a Hornady FMJ-BT is more or less the 'golden accuracy standard' for that bullet/powder combination in an AR, and is within published load range (~23-25.Xgr), I'm not going to load up a ton of bullets at 23.2gr, 22.4gr, etc. I'll still load a couple, but depending on the amount and quality of data I see elsewhere, I might load up 23.5gr, 24gr, 24.5, and 24.8gr the first time, vs smaller increments and starting lower.

YMMV, as always, and I'd never trust a 'one off, random recipe,' but there is knowledge and useful data out there, as well.