Range Report: Comparison of .223 Bullets of Various Weights with Four Powders in a Colt AR
Questions being explored
I started reloading a year ago. One of the advantages of reloading is that you can do some testing and find the combination of bullet, powder, and assembly dimensions that gives your rifle an accurate cartridge.
I wanted to explore three topics.
1. What weight .223 bullets work best in my 1:7 twist AR?
2. Are match grade bullets more accurate than standard grade bullets in my AR?
3. How much does the powder choice affect accuracy?
Setting up the Test
Some of you are already thinking: “This guy is asking too many questions to definitively answer in one test.” You’re right. To really do good science, I would need to narrow my focus and run more tests to minimize the effects of a multitude of variables.
I decided to take the approach of the crab fishermen on “Deadliest Catch.” Early in the season, they set a series of “prospecting” pots widely spaced throughout an area. Then they haul in the pots and see which ones yielded the most crab. Then they set their regular strings of pots much more closely spaced in those best areas.
In like manner, I selected five bullet weights, nine types of bullets, 4 types of powder, and two factory loadings; then mixed them all together into twenty-two different loadings to test twice. Some of the selection was based on availability and personal interest. Some was just because Aszerigan was generous enough to get me two more types of powder to test. I was hoping that from this grouping, I could form some observations that would encourage me to do more specific testing on bullets and powders.
What Was Tested
46 grain reloads, Win HP bullet, 26.1 grains Benchmark powder
46 grain reloads, Win HP bullet, 26.2 grains H4895 powder
46 grain reloads, Win HP bullet, 25.8 grains H322 powder
55 grain reloads, Berry's Plated bullet, 24.0 grains Benchmark powder
55 grain reloads, Berry's Plated bullet, 26.0 grains Varget powder
55 grain reloads, Hornady V-Max bullet, 24.0 grains Benchmark powder
55 grain reloads, Hornady V-Max bullet, 25.5 grains H4895 powder
55 grain reloads, Hornady V-Max bullet, 22.0 grains H322 powder
55 grain, PMC factory rounds
55 grain reloads, Hornady V-Max bullet
62 grain reloads, Berry's Plated bullets, 23.0 grains Benchmark
62 grain Lake City green tip M855 rounds
62 grain reloads, Berry's Plated bullet, 23.1 grains VV N530
62 grain reloads, Military pulled bullet, 23.1 grains VV N530
69 grain reloads, Sierra Match King bullets, 22.5 grains Benchmark powder
69 grain reloads, Sierra Match King bullets, 25.0 grains H4895 powder
69 grain reloads, Sierra Match King bullets, 22.0 grains H322 powder
69 grain reloads, Sierra Match King bullets, 21.9 grains of VV N530 powder
75 grain reloads, Hornady Match bullet, 22.5 grains Benchmark powder
75 grain reloads, Hornady Match bullet, 23.5 grains of H4895 powder
75 grain reloads, Hornady Match bullet, 21.0 grains of H322 powder
75 grain reloads, Hornady Match bullet, 21.5 grains of VV N530 powder
I gathered the rounds I already had on-hand and then made 20 rounds of each load I didn’t have. I weighed each charge and did all loading on a RCBS RockChucker single stage press. All reloads used once fired Lake City cases that had been trimmed to 1.75” and swaged. Primers were CCI small rifle type.
Here is a view of my reloading bench as I was creating these rounds.
I found a box that conveniently held 18 of the test groups.
Test Protocol
I decided to shoot 5 rounds of each of the twenty-two ammo types being tested at individual paper plate targets at 50 yards off of a wooden bench. I would use the bipod on my AR with sandbags at the rear to stabilize the rifle. This series of tests would be done twice.
Here is the equipment on the bench the day we did the second series of testing.
This is a view from the bench to the target stand on the first day of testing.
I love shooting in the Fall! This is the view of the pond next to the shooting lane on the first day of testing.
Here is what a set of 4 targets looked like when we were done with them.
I took pictures of each target and entered the picture into “On Target Precision Calculator” version 2.10 (a computer application) to get an accurate minute of angle (MOA) measurement.
http://www.ontargetshooting.com/
A typical target* looked like this.
(* I’ve already been berated by kr_treefrog2 for the labels! I had 44 targets to keep straight. She’s a fine one to be telling me I’m a bit too OCD.
)
After inputting the bullet holes and an actual measurement to scale the picture, the On Target software would give out data like this:
The MOA results for each target was put into an Excel spreadsheet and I looked at the data several ways.
Here’s a sneak peek at the best target of the day; shot by esrice using a 69 grain Sierra MatchKing bullet pushed along by 22.5 grains of Benchmark powder. Overall MOA of 1.24. (Note: This was the only called flyer esrice had during the testing.)
And here’s esrice shooting:
Rifle
The test rifle was a Colt 14.5” heavy barreled AR-15 having approximately 3400 rounds through the barrel. The gas system is carbine length. One 20 round PMAG and 1 20 round Colt magazine were used during the testing. There were no mechanical issues.
The scope is a 3x9x40 Trijicon AccuPoint set at 7 power.
Disclaimers
This testing was looking at what bullet weight/powder combination works best in my rifle. You may have very different results when you try the same ammunition in your firearm.
Yes, I know that the number of tests we ran was far fewer than that required to achieve statistical significance. Give me free ammo, free firearms, and pay me and I’ll gladly bury you in data!
There are many INGO rifle shooters that can outshoot me (many for real, some only via their internet claims). The purpose of this test was not to find the best INGO shooter. Comments maligning my general shooting aptitude will be viewed negatively.
Tabular Results
Overall Data
The overall MOA for each target was put into an Excel spreadsheet and then some data manipulation was done to try to understand what the data had to say.
Here’s the overall data in tabular form:
And for the graphical among us, the average MOA performance arranged by ascending bullet weight.
I narrowed in to look at the bullet type and powder choice by using the pivot table function in Excel. It allows you to slice the data different ways pretty quickly.
Bullet Type
Some people have said that bullet type doesn’t make a difference unless you’re shooting 200 yards or more. This test would refute that. MOA isn’t distance specific. If the grouping is 4 MOA at 50 yards, it’s going to be 4 MOA (or larger) at 300 yards. (I said larger because the grouping may get bigger as the round is affected by wind, gravity, and rotational shear affects along with other forces.)
I was a bit surprised by how much better the premium or ‘match’ bullets performed compared to the less expensive bulk bullets. I’d still use the Berry’s bullets for plinking or taking a CQB carbine class, but I would switch to the better bullets for longer distance shooting (or give esrice the standard bullets while I secretly use the match bullets when we’re shooting together!)
The surprise to me was how well the M855 rounds performed. I’m hoping some of our military savvy members might have some comments on why that is.
Here is the data for Average MOA by Bullet Type in graphical form:
Powder Performance
I looked at the overall performance of the powders in the test. (See chart below.)
My interpretation of the chart is that the choice of powder didn’t have much affect on the round’s performance. Even though there is a progression from best performance to worse performance, it’s not really that pronounced, particularly taking into account the comments below. There are many quality powders on the market. It’s more important to first select the proper powder for your intended cartridge. Once you’ve honed in on a specific bullet, then you can try some tweeking of powders to find the one that gives you the edge or has a better ‘feel.’
Two notes I want to make. The Varget powder was only used on one bullet combination, the Berry’s 55 grain plated round. I believe it was the bullet that had the poor performance, not the powder, so I don’t hold it against Varget.
The VihtaVuori N530 powder was used in five bullet/powder combinations. It did well in all but one of those combinations; the one with the Berry’s 62 grain plated bullet. Without that combination, the overall data would have been 2.58 MOA, making it the second best performing powder.
Average MOA by Powder Type
Winners and Losers for this Test
Winners:
– 46 grain –
This lightweight round isn’t a great fit for the 1:7 barrel. It had acceptable performance with two powders. H4893 performed the best.
– 55 grain –
Hornady V-Max gave consistent performance with all four tested powders.
– 62 grain –
Didn’t have any ‘premium’ grade bullets in this weight group to test. (Future test idea!)
The surprise was the M855 ‘Green Tip’ rounds delivering some of the tightest groups of the test (fourth best out of 22 tests).
– 69 grain –
The Sierra MatchKing bullets performed well with three of the four powders tested. Surprisingly, the H4895 powder gave mediocre results at the hands of both testers in this weight class.
In a very subjective observation, both shooters independently noted that the combination of a 69 grain Sierra Match King bullet and 21.9 grains of VihtaVuori N530 powder for having a very nice ‘feel.’ There was less felt recoil and less scope rise. One shooter said he could hear the ‘smack’ of the round hitting the target or dirt.
– 75 grain –
The Hornady Match bullets performed well with all four powders.
Losers:
– 46 grain –
The rounds fueled by the H4895 powder had larger groups than the other two powders tested.
– 55 grain –
The groups for both shooters opened up considerably when the Berry’s Plated bullets were used. Both Varget and Benchmark powder gave average results; most likely due to the bullet, not the powder. The factory PMC rounds were disappointing, yielding some of the poorest results of this test.
– 62 grain –
The Berry’s 62 grain plated bullets gave poor results while the military pulled 62 grain bullets gave average results. We didn’t test all the powders with the Berry’s bullets, but suspect it’s the bullet more than the powder since the N530 gave good results in other tests.
– 69 grain –
Both shooters had difficulty shooting the 69 grain Match King/H4895 combination. Results were mediocre at best with an average MOA of nearly 4 inches. I have no explanation for this.
– 75 grain –
There were no ‘losers’ in the 75 grain group using the Hornady Match bullets.
Conclusion/Impressions
Accuracy improvements come from better bullets, even at this short range (50 yards).
Powder selection has a much lesser affect as long as you have chosen powders in the right burn range.
I was pleased to see that my Colt rifle with 1:7 barrel is very versatile in its ability to shoot a variety of bullet weights from 55 to 75 grains. I don’t anticipate shooting 46 grain bullets very often. This rifle isn’t a varmint rifle and with the fast twist, it’s pushing the rpm limits of the light bullets. It’s hard to imagine, but a calculated RPM for a 46 grain bullet is around 325,000 RPM! (All of the 46 grain bullets did make it to the target. None flew apart!)
I have to say it: Shooting stuff is fun!
Future Plans
I’m planning to continue testing some of the 62, 69, and 75 grain match bullets with some varied powder charges to see if there is much change in accuracy.
I also plan to shoot some of the test combinations at 200 yards to see how they perform.
As time allows, I want to try working on some accuracy load testing with premium bullets in a .223 bolt rifle I have.
The Affect of Two Shooters
Choosing to have two shooters in this test was a risk. Often, the shooter is the greatest source of variation in a test. This time, however, it shows that some bullets/powders really did perform better or worse than their counterparts, even in the hands of different shooters.
When I compiled the performance with me and esrice shooting the same series of twenty-two targets, I was amazed. For the most part, our MOA results tracked along with one another quite well. Remember, it only took one slight flyer to make them look different.
Here’s a chart of the results. The left-hand scale is in MOA. The bottom axis lists the test targets, 1-22.
When I see a specific bullet/powder combination suddenly get large or small MOA results and both shooters experience it, I feel more confident in saying that that combination is either a poor or great choice for my rifle.
[Geek warning] The Excel correlation function gave us a correlation factor of 0.843 indicating a very strong correlation between the two strings of targets, one shot by me and the other by esrice. (Correlation factor ranges from -1 for highly inversely correlated data to +1 for highly positively correlated.)
I have to publicly admit that esrice outshot me. His overall average MOA results were 2.96 while mine were 3.15.
The other effect of having two shooters is that the fun is more than doubled! I very much enjoy my range time with esrice and hope for many more years enjoying our mutual interest in firearms!
Questions being explored
I started reloading a year ago. One of the advantages of reloading is that you can do some testing and find the combination of bullet, powder, and assembly dimensions that gives your rifle an accurate cartridge.
I wanted to explore three topics.
1. What weight .223 bullets work best in my 1:7 twist AR?
2. Are match grade bullets more accurate than standard grade bullets in my AR?
3. How much does the powder choice affect accuracy?
Setting up the Test
Some of you are already thinking: “This guy is asking too many questions to definitively answer in one test.” You’re right. To really do good science, I would need to narrow my focus and run more tests to minimize the effects of a multitude of variables.
I decided to take the approach of the crab fishermen on “Deadliest Catch.” Early in the season, they set a series of “prospecting” pots widely spaced throughout an area. Then they haul in the pots and see which ones yielded the most crab. Then they set their regular strings of pots much more closely spaced in those best areas.
In like manner, I selected five bullet weights, nine types of bullets, 4 types of powder, and two factory loadings; then mixed them all together into twenty-two different loadings to test twice. Some of the selection was based on availability and personal interest. Some was just because Aszerigan was generous enough to get me two more types of powder to test. I was hoping that from this grouping, I could form some observations that would encourage me to do more specific testing on bullets and powders.
What Was Tested
46 grain reloads, Win HP bullet, 26.1 grains Benchmark powder
46 grain reloads, Win HP bullet, 26.2 grains H4895 powder
46 grain reloads, Win HP bullet, 25.8 grains H322 powder
55 grain reloads, Berry's Plated bullet, 24.0 grains Benchmark powder
55 grain reloads, Berry's Plated bullet, 26.0 grains Varget powder
55 grain reloads, Hornady V-Max bullet, 24.0 grains Benchmark powder
55 grain reloads, Hornady V-Max bullet, 25.5 grains H4895 powder
55 grain reloads, Hornady V-Max bullet, 22.0 grains H322 powder
55 grain, PMC factory rounds
55 grain reloads, Hornady V-Max bullet
62 grain reloads, Berry's Plated bullets, 23.0 grains Benchmark
62 grain Lake City green tip M855 rounds
62 grain reloads, Berry's Plated bullet, 23.1 grains VV N530
62 grain reloads, Military pulled bullet, 23.1 grains VV N530
69 grain reloads, Sierra Match King bullets, 22.5 grains Benchmark powder
69 grain reloads, Sierra Match King bullets, 25.0 grains H4895 powder
69 grain reloads, Sierra Match King bullets, 22.0 grains H322 powder
69 grain reloads, Sierra Match King bullets, 21.9 grains of VV N530 powder
75 grain reloads, Hornady Match bullet, 22.5 grains Benchmark powder
75 grain reloads, Hornady Match bullet, 23.5 grains of H4895 powder
75 grain reloads, Hornady Match bullet, 21.0 grains of H322 powder
75 grain reloads, Hornady Match bullet, 21.5 grains of VV N530 powder
I gathered the rounds I already had on-hand and then made 20 rounds of each load I didn’t have. I weighed each charge and did all loading on a RCBS RockChucker single stage press. All reloads used once fired Lake City cases that had been trimmed to 1.75” and swaged. Primers were CCI small rifle type.
Here is a view of my reloading bench as I was creating these rounds.
I found a box that conveniently held 18 of the test groups.
Test Protocol
I decided to shoot 5 rounds of each of the twenty-two ammo types being tested at individual paper plate targets at 50 yards off of a wooden bench. I would use the bipod on my AR with sandbags at the rear to stabilize the rifle. This series of tests would be done twice.
Here is the equipment on the bench the day we did the second series of testing.
This is a view from the bench to the target stand on the first day of testing.
I love shooting in the Fall! This is the view of the pond next to the shooting lane on the first day of testing.
Here is what a set of 4 targets looked like when we were done with them.
I took pictures of each target and entered the picture into “On Target Precision Calculator” version 2.10 (a computer application) to get an accurate minute of angle (MOA) measurement.
http://www.ontargetshooting.com/
A typical target* looked like this.
(* I’ve already been berated by kr_treefrog2 for the labels! I had 44 targets to keep straight. She’s a fine one to be telling me I’m a bit too OCD.
)After inputting the bullet holes and an actual measurement to scale the picture, the On Target software would give out data like this:
The MOA results for each target was put into an Excel spreadsheet and I looked at the data several ways.
Here’s a sneak peek at the best target of the day; shot by esrice using a 69 grain Sierra MatchKing bullet pushed along by 22.5 grains of Benchmark powder. Overall MOA of 1.24. (Note: This was the only called flyer esrice had during the testing.)
And here’s esrice shooting:
Rifle
The test rifle was a Colt 14.5” heavy barreled AR-15 having approximately 3400 rounds through the barrel. The gas system is carbine length. One 20 round PMAG and 1 20 round Colt magazine were used during the testing. There were no mechanical issues.
The scope is a 3x9x40 Trijicon AccuPoint set at 7 power.
Disclaimers
This testing was looking at what bullet weight/powder combination works best in my rifle. You may have very different results when you try the same ammunition in your firearm.
Yes, I know that the number of tests we ran was far fewer than that required to achieve statistical significance. Give me free ammo, free firearms, and pay me and I’ll gladly bury you in data!
There are many INGO rifle shooters that can outshoot me (many for real, some only via their internet claims). The purpose of this test was not to find the best INGO shooter. Comments maligning my general shooting aptitude will be viewed negatively.
Tabular Results
Overall Data
The overall MOA for each target was put into an Excel spreadsheet and then some data manipulation was done to try to understand what the data had to say.
Here’s the overall data in tabular form:
And for the graphical among us, the average MOA performance arranged by ascending bullet weight.
I narrowed in to look at the bullet type and powder choice by using the pivot table function in Excel. It allows you to slice the data different ways pretty quickly.
Bullet Type
Some people have said that bullet type doesn’t make a difference unless you’re shooting 200 yards or more. This test would refute that. MOA isn’t distance specific. If the grouping is 4 MOA at 50 yards, it’s going to be 4 MOA (or larger) at 300 yards. (I said larger because the grouping may get bigger as the round is affected by wind, gravity, and rotational shear affects along with other forces.)
I was a bit surprised by how much better the premium or ‘match’ bullets performed compared to the less expensive bulk bullets. I’d still use the Berry’s bullets for plinking or taking a CQB carbine class, but I would switch to the better bullets for longer distance shooting (or give esrice the standard bullets while I secretly use the match bullets when we’re shooting together!
)The surprise to me was how well the M855 rounds performed. I’m hoping some of our military savvy members might have some comments on why that is.
Here is the data for Average MOA by Bullet Type in graphical form:
Powder Performance
I looked at the overall performance of the powders in the test. (See chart below.)
My interpretation of the chart is that the choice of powder didn’t have much affect on the round’s performance. Even though there is a progression from best performance to worse performance, it’s not really that pronounced, particularly taking into account the comments below. There are many quality powders on the market. It’s more important to first select the proper powder for your intended cartridge. Once you’ve honed in on a specific bullet, then you can try some tweeking of powders to find the one that gives you the edge or has a better ‘feel.’
Two notes I want to make. The Varget powder was only used on one bullet combination, the Berry’s 55 grain plated round. I believe it was the bullet that had the poor performance, not the powder, so I don’t hold it against Varget.
The VihtaVuori N530 powder was used in five bullet/powder combinations. It did well in all but one of those combinations; the one with the Berry’s 62 grain plated bullet. Without that combination, the overall data would have been 2.58 MOA, making it the second best performing powder.
Average MOA by Powder Type
Winners and Losers for this Test
Winners:
– 46 grain –
This lightweight round isn’t a great fit for the 1:7 barrel. It had acceptable performance with two powders. H4893 performed the best.
– 55 grain –
Hornady V-Max gave consistent performance with all four tested powders.
– 62 grain –
Didn’t have any ‘premium’ grade bullets in this weight group to test. (Future test idea!)
The surprise was the M855 ‘Green Tip’ rounds delivering some of the tightest groups of the test (fourth best out of 22 tests).
– 69 grain –
The Sierra MatchKing bullets performed well with three of the four powders tested. Surprisingly, the H4895 powder gave mediocre results at the hands of both testers in this weight class.
In a very subjective observation, both shooters independently noted that the combination of a 69 grain Sierra Match King bullet and 21.9 grains of VihtaVuori N530 powder for having a very nice ‘feel.’ There was less felt recoil and less scope rise. One shooter said he could hear the ‘smack’ of the round hitting the target or dirt.
– 75 grain –
The Hornady Match bullets performed well with all four powders.
Losers:
– 46 grain –
The rounds fueled by the H4895 powder had larger groups than the other two powders tested.
– 55 grain –
The groups for both shooters opened up considerably when the Berry’s Plated bullets were used. Both Varget and Benchmark powder gave average results; most likely due to the bullet, not the powder. The factory PMC rounds were disappointing, yielding some of the poorest results of this test.
– 62 grain –
The Berry’s 62 grain plated bullets gave poor results while the military pulled 62 grain bullets gave average results. We didn’t test all the powders with the Berry’s bullets, but suspect it’s the bullet more than the powder since the N530 gave good results in other tests.
– 69 grain –
Both shooters had difficulty shooting the 69 grain Match King/H4895 combination. Results were mediocre at best with an average MOA of nearly 4 inches. I have no explanation for this.
– 75 grain –
There were no ‘losers’ in the 75 grain group using the Hornady Match bullets.
Conclusion/Impressions
Accuracy improvements come from better bullets, even at this short range (50 yards).
Powder selection has a much lesser affect as long as you have chosen powders in the right burn range.
I was pleased to see that my Colt rifle with 1:7 barrel is very versatile in its ability to shoot a variety of bullet weights from 55 to 75 grains. I don’t anticipate shooting 46 grain bullets very often. This rifle isn’t a varmint rifle and with the fast twist, it’s pushing the rpm limits of the light bullets. It’s hard to imagine, but a calculated RPM for a 46 grain bullet is around 325,000 RPM! (All of the 46 grain bullets did make it to the target. None flew apart!)
I have to say it: Shooting stuff is fun!
Future Plans
I’m planning to continue testing some of the 62, 69, and 75 grain match bullets with some varied powder charges to see if there is much change in accuracy.
I also plan to shoot some of the test combinations at 200 yards to see how they perform.
As time allows, I want to try working on some accuracy load testing with premium bullets in a .223 bolt rifle I have.
The Affect of Two Shooters
Choosing to have two shooters in this test was a risk. Often, the shooter is the greatest source of variation in a test. This time, however, it shows that some bullets/powders really did perform better or worse than their counterparts, even in the hands of different shooters.
When I compiled the performance with me and esrice shooting the same series of twenty-two targets, I was amazed. For the most part, our MOA results tracked along with one another quite well. Remember, it only took one slight flyer to make them look different.
Here’s a chart of the results. The left-hand scale is in MOA. The bottom axis lists the test targets, 1-22.
When I see a specific bullet/powder combination suddenly get large or small MOA results and both shooters experience it, I feel more confident in saying that that combination is either a poor or great choice for my rifle.
[Geek warning] The Excel correlation function gave us a correlation factor of 0.843 indicating a very strong correlation between the two strings of targets, one shot by me and the other by esrice. (Correlation factor ranges from -1 for highly inversely correlated data to +1 for highly positively correlated.)
I have to publicly admit that esrice outshot me. His overall average MOA results were 2.96 while mine were 3.15.
The other effect of having two shooters is that the fun is more than doubled! I very much enjoy my range time with esrice and hope for many more years enjoying our mutual interest in firearms!
Last edited:
