I got the 53-gr V-Max from a friend, his handloads for his single shot. I load up the 52-gr Sierra HP with 25.0 gr of Benchmark, TAC, H335 or W748. Now I am moving to CFE223 for as many .223 and 5.56 loads loads as I can, because I load 55-gr FMJ, the SS109, and the 64-gr Winchester hunting bullets for my AR-15s.
223 twist 1:8 or 1:12
- Thread starter Fendator
- Start date
Fair enough, the 52 smks are a short bullet, shorter than 50 gr z-max. Planning to use them in my AI as they'll stabilise in my 1:14
there is no free lunch
you either spin faster or fly faster, cant have both
many 300yd Bench rest guys use slower twist in their 6BR and 6PPC barrels
they have no intention of shooting long bullets as the best bullets for that range are the flat base sub 90gr, the like of Fowlers
optimised for 1:12" twist
you either spin faster or fly faster, cant have both
many 300yd Bench rest guys use slower twist in their 6BR and 6PPC barrels
they have no intention of shooting long bullets as the best bullets for that range are the flat base sub 90gr, the like of Fowlers
optimised for 1:12" twist
Having owned both 1:12" and 1:8" simultaneously in Tikka .223 Rem Super Varmints, which one do you think I kept?
Not the 1:8".
Great rifle and all, but a bit pointless.
The .223 was designed in slow twists. The advent of fast twists came later, driven mostly by gas guns.
The slow twist .223 does a fantastic job with 40-55gr bullets at high velocity.
The fast twist .223 does an average job with 60-80gr bullets at moderate velocity.
The .243 Win does a brilliant job with 60-80gr bullets at very high velocity.
To my way of thinking, each one of these chamberings got it pretty much right back when it was first designed. The subsequent changes to twist rates are interesting and believe me I keep getting tempted by fast twist .224s, especially the .22-250, but I find that when I really think about it, I can do the same job much better in my .243.
At the end of the day, a 1:8" twist .223 is a good, flexible, jack of all trades, master of none.
Don't get me wrong, I like the concept if fast twist .223s, but I found the 1:12" was perfect, fast, incredibly accurate and very very deadly. The 1:8" was good, not that fast, averagely accurate and also deadly!
Not the 1:8".
Great rifle and all, but a bit pointless.
The .223 was designed in slow twists. The advent of fast twists came later, driven mostly by gas guns.
The slow twist .223 does a fantastic job with 40-55gr bullets at high velocity.
The fast twist .223 does an average job with 60-80gr bullets at moderate velocity.
The .243 Win does a brilliant job with 60-80gr bullets at very high velocity.
To my way of thinking, each one of these chamberings got it pretty much right back when it was first designed. The subsequent changes to twist rates are interesting and believe me I keep getting tempted by fast twist .224s, especially the .22-250, but I find that when I really think about it, I can do the same job much better in my .243.
At the end of the day, a 1:8" twist .223 is a good, flexible, jack of all trades, master of none.
Don't get me wrong, I like the concept if fast twist .223s, but I found the 1:12" was perfect, fast, incredibly accurate and very very deadly. The 1:8" was good, not that fast, averagely accurate and also deadly!
Dodgy, on the other hand the 1/8 works great with 40gr as well as 75gr, will cover all the 1/12 can plus more. For me the best was around 69gr. Was not be far off the sloppy loaded 243 factory ammo I clocked out of a 20" barrel. The 69-75gr out of a 223 can beat a light bullet from a 22-250 at range. I shot better with my 223 than with a 1/14 twist 22-250 at least well beyond 300m. This side of the world living in populated areas we'd be often looking for max range coupled with least noise. The 223 with heavy bullets is a good compromise.
edi
edi
I love my 1:12 Tikka super accurate with 40gr heads and drops foxes no problem out to 300yds..
I'm currently feeding it Hornady 40gr vmax, Nosler 40gr Varmageddon and Zmax 40gr , pushing 3750fps and ragged one hole groups.. I was temped awhile ago by a .204 but I dont't need to with this performance and with a much wider range of ammo and case choice.
I'm currently feeding it Hornady 40gr vmax, Nosler 40gr Varmageddon and Zmax 40gr , pushing 3750fps and ragged one hole groups.. I was temped awhile ago by a .204 but I dont't need to with this performance and with a much wider range of ammo and case choice.
The deer man
Well-Known Member
I've played around with my Remmy 223 1:12 twist using 53gr V-Max and 55grFMJBT quite a lot. Mostly foxing and vermin but also out to 650m on fig.11 & 12's but that's it.
A 1:8 would open up the options even further using 75gr bullets even out to 1000, people do it and the set up would have to be spot on but it's possible, just. Also more importantly for you, from what I've seen with other 1:8 twists it shouldn't compromise you with the 53gr V-Max. The results I saw from another Remmy rifle were the same as mine with 53gr.
I've recently been considering changing my 223 1:12 to a 1:8 and I will do it however I have another rifle lined up for a new Proof Research barrel at the moment so it will have to wait a little longer but when it happens it'll be 1:8.
Not all fast twist 223s shoot light bullets well. I’m aware of quite a few Tikka 1:8” 223s that have to use a minimum of 55 grain bullets for acceptable accuracy. Best accuracy being achieved with 69+ grain bullets, which in my opinion aren’t optimum for typical field use, such as foxing out to 300 yards.
Had have two 1/8 T3's and a few locals close by have a few. All seem ok with 40gr as well as 50gr vmax Fiocchi which is favourite in our area. I use 50gr AE HP cheap ammo a lot because I got loads of it. Knocked quite a few fox at up to 360m with them. With my first T3 1/8 I tried more variety of ammo . One 75gr factory load was disappointing 69gr quite good 1/2" very seldom better. 40gr, 50gr, 55gr varied .5" to 1.5". That rifle was not the best. The one I have now might be a little better and also loves the 69gr.
edi
edi
jthyttin
Well-Known Member
Actually not, they're using 1-7". Some long tracers and 77gr & up generally won't stabilize in 1-9".
jthyttin
Well-Known Member
Primary reason in BR to use slow twists is that spinning the bullet faster also magnifies the effect of bullet flaws (imbalance). Not speed.
Kind of contradicts what is said now about bc in long range. Think a bit of RPM makes a huge difference in angle?
What you say about high RPM and balance makes sense to me anyway. However these flat based shorter BR bullets are probably very well stabilised at lower RPM.
edi
jthyttin
Well-Known Member
I took some time to read on subject and there's contradictory info. I'm ready to believe this I found from Bryan Litz, thus withdrawing my previous claim...
"For projectiles fired at high angles (above ~10-20 degrees above the line of sight), it is possible for the bullet to not track, or trace with the trajectory. This is a common design challenge for artillery shells that are often fired on high angle trajectories. The axis of the spinning shell may be too rigid to bend with the exaggerated trajectory. In that case the shell can ‘belly flop’, or fall base first. However for small arms projectiles on flat-fire trajectories, this isn’t a problem."
Here's a nice fast read on the subject Edi mentioned, also by Bryan:
How Ballistic Coefficent Varies with Twist Rate (Stabilization) « Daily Bulletin
"For projectiles fired at high angles (above ~10-20 degrees above the line of sight), it is possible for the bullet to not track, or trace with the trajectory. This is a common design challenge for artillery shells that are often fired on high angle trajectories. The axis of the spinning shell may be too rigid to bend with the exaggerated trajectory. In that case the shell can ‘belly flop’, or fall base first. However for small arms projectiles on flat-fire trajectories, this isn’t a problem."
Here's a nice fast read on the subject Edi mentioned, also by Bryan:
How Ballistic Coefficent Varies with Twist Rate (Stabilization) « Daily Bulletin
Jthyttin, I had read that already and thought it was interesting. Another angle is twist vs bullet behaviour when it hits the animal. I have a 20" 308 with light palma barrel slightly over 1/13 twist. She did stabilize 175gr but had flyers. 168gr have great accuracy and consistent, however on at least two animals shot I could have sworn the bullet tumbled through the body. Never saw that with the same ammo out of my other 20" 308 1/11 twist with about 20 animals shot. So similar to the M16 idea with the 55gr bullet and slow twist tumbling after impact.
edi
edi
You are referring to the modern M16s and M4s, and I will get to the reason for that in a moment.
The original M16 was a derivative of the .222 Remington, which was a woodchuck cartridge. It had a 1:14 rate of twist, like the .22-250, but the .22-250 has a much higher velocity, so a corresponding higher spin rate of the bullets. 1:14 did not stabilize the 55-gr FMJ used in Vietnam very well, so Colt went to a 1:12 rate, which was much better, in the rifles with 20 inch barrels, but not in the carbines.
After Vietnam, other manufacturers got contracts for the M16 variants. FN developed some better bullets, because they were designing a light machinegun around the 5.56 NATO. The M16A2 and M16A3 had 1:9 rates of twist, which will stabilize the 62-gr boattail SS109 bullet used in the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon. 1:9 from a 20-inch barrel will stabilize bullets in the 55 to 64 grain weights very well. As I stated earlier, these changes gave the M16 much greater accuracy, and enough terminal energy, to move it from a 300 yard weapon to a 600 meter weapon.
But the M4 carbine loses so much velocity with its short barrel ( like the M249 ), that it needs a 1:7 rate of twist to stabilize the long SS109 bullet.
Once the M16 had become match capable against the M14 and Garand in 600-hard matches, bullet makers started making heavier bullets for the 1:7 twist rifles, which could compete handily at 600 meters.
Today, with much of the US Army and US Marine Corps carrying M4 carbines, the rate of twist is 1:7. But there is no magic to that. Don't assume that 1:8 or 1:7 is better than 1:9 or 1:10 or 1:12 for YOUR intended uses. In fact, shooting a very light 40-gr bullet in longer barrel with 1:7 twist can spin the bullets too fast, so that they fly apart completely, or deform and fly poorly.
If you have a particular rifle in mind, and a particular barrel length, go find other owners of those rifles and ask their experience with different bullets. Realize that the twist rate of some other rifle for a bullet you will never shoot is totally irrelevant and just a confusion factor.
Similar threads
