Subsonic .222 recipes
- Thread starter Foxyboy43
- Start date
Think carefully before you do this as there has been issues with chamber detonations. very hard to replicate or poove it wasn't a double charge
Do we actually need them ? its not like its legal to shoot deer with a heavy for calibre bullet and a good moderator and a pretty standard 222 / 223 rem or other similar small cartridge like 22 hornet is better again
" just for the "crack" or rather than just for no "crack " in this case is it worth it ? if i was to do it i would want a fullish fill like tin star etc offered . All these powders are being discontinued it seems on a global scale , not sure if thats because they are not commercially viable or because of chamber detonations ? speaking to a long time RFD and shooter a few weeks back about this and i am leaning towards the fact they aint making the firms enough to warrant the space on a line . Btw he claimed to have seen one , thing is nobody can ever proove the person who made the round didnt double charge in those loads that work on low fill levels
Do we actually need them ? its not like its legal to shoot deer with a heavy for calibre bullet and a good moderator and a pretty standard 222 / 223 rem or other similar small cartridge like 22 hornet is better again
" just for the "crack" or rather than just for no "crack " in this case is it worth it ? if i was to do it i would want a fullish fill like tin star etc offered . All these powders are being discontinued it seems on a global scale , not sure if thats because they are not commercially viable or because of chamber detonations ? speaking to a long time RFD and shooter a few weeks back about this and i am leaning towards the fact they aint making the firms enough to warrant the space on a line . Btw he claimed to have seen one , thing is nobody can ever proove the person who made the round didnt double charge in those loads that work on low fill levels
Neddle
Well-Known Member
Phone call in the morningSorry no. You can be sure it will be a lot but at least it is there.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
You got proof of that or is it an imagination?
How are shotgun cartridges going to be loaded without faster grades of powder?
I also think you will find a combination of certain spherical rifle powders in rifle case and wrong primers or case fill volumes have also caused danger. Is there talk of them being phased out?
When it comes to reduced loads I like the faster range of powders. Why?
Chiefly because most of them light up real easy despite the air space in the case.
I just avoid the fastest powders like bullseye or 231.
Blue dot in hornet is frugal with only 7gn max for 22wmr performance.
In larger bores Herco works well around 6-8 grns.
Unique is a favourite of reduced loads. A2400 and h4227 works well also but not necessarily sub sonic, more 1/2-2/3 velocity ranges.
All the above light up easy with out hesitation, hesitation is what you don't want!
Just don't double dose.
Easy steps to prevent.
Un charged cases are upside down in the tray.
Make a measuring stick to insert in a charged case.
Weigh the completed rounds.
No need to soil pants over it. If it does soil your pants or nearly does just don't bother.
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Hmmm.
I recall a thread on chamber detonations and the view was that they couldn’t be proven or indeed replicated in laboratory conditions so if that was correct has something changed or is the double-loading a more likely event?
That said, I started this thread in the context of a subsonic load for my .222 and NB using Titegroup which is listed by the manufacturer for subsonic .308 loads indeed I have used these to good effect for many years now. Their load of 8gns barely covers the shell base so if any powder was going to flash-over this would be up there in those tiny quantities, I imagine.
Anyhoo and to avoid any eejit, sorry reloader, thinking of trying to devise a subsonic load using other than Titegroup - forget it! Manufacturers have gone to a lot of trouble to devise safe data - do not go off piste!
its easy to blame a double charge but there is never a way to say it that is correct , many have been caught out though . The safest reduced loads have always been those with a good fill, issue is such powders keep disappearing from sale .Hmmm.
I recall a thread on chamber detonations and the view was that they couldn’t be proven or indeed replicated in laboratory conditions so if that was correct has something changed or is the double-loading a more likely event?
That said, I started this thread in the context of a subsonic load for my .222 and NB using Titegroup which is listed by the manufacturer for subsonic .308 loads indeed I have used these to good effect for many years now. Their load of 8gns barely covers the shell base so if any powder was going to flash-over this would be up there in those tiny quantities, I imagine.
Anyhoo and to avoid any eejit, sorry reloader, thinking of trying to devise a subsonic load using other than Titegroup - forget it! Manufacturers have gone to a lot of trouble to devise safe data - do not go off piste!
There are powders that give a high fill on reduced loads but then they keep getting dropped by manufacturers
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Aye. I remember reading Dr Richard Lee’s bible on reloading and he covered this in some detail including the use of “fillers “ for low volume loads - I will have a rummage and return…..
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Ay and their lawyers also get involved.
They are not going to want to contend in a court to defend against someone double charging a case but denying they double dosed. Even if they the manufacturer can not disprove a detonation they will be sued hence the special powders that can be proven to not detonate.
Stuff like this tends to work backwards with the slant towards litigation limitation.
If you visit many old famous forums with many older generations of shooters you will find many many recipes.
Firearms don't just blow up. Anyone cross referencing, applying some logic can work up a safe load and will be given henceforth plenty of warning sign if it's not going well.
No one is suggesting an experimenter go and fill a rifle case with pistol or shotgun powder/s. That would be real dumb!
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Reloading a 222 to Hornet velocities
Hi all, I own two CZ527 chambered in the .222 rem, and would like to reload for one of them to duplicate .22 Hornet velocities. Unfortunatly Hogdon 4895 is not an option here for me, but Vihtavuori powders are. Have read a SD member here using the cowboy action Tin Star N32C to reduce a 22/250...
www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Thanks SD - now you have set another hare (brained) running in what is left of my noggin.Reloading a 222 to Hornet velocities
Hi all, I own two CZ527 chambered in the .222 rem, and would like to reload for one of them to duplicate .22 Hornet velocities. Unfortunatly Hogdon 4895 is not an option here for me, but Vihtavuori powders are. Have read a SD member here using the cowboy action Tin Star N32C to reduce a 22/250...
The neurons whizzing round and round suggest that having failed to get a subsonic round for the triple deuce with Titegroup and because of it‘s well known low-fill stability I could in theory start to increase my powder charges until I achieve a round below the destructive 3,000 fps and possibly acceptable for rabbit shooting? As can be seen from my earlier photograph the 55 gns Blitzking went up the range sideways but the 55 gns Gamekings were stable though inaccurate - I have in mind a lighter, shorter bullet with less bearing surface which might work.
Anyhoo this would all be done very cautiously - in very small increments until either I see pressure signs; failure to obtain desired accuracy or
!Hopefully my ultra cautious approach will avoid the third scenario!
tackb
Well-Known Member
lighter (shorter) bullet , aim for a reasonable velocity and work down , i use trailboss but confess never for a 222 , it's a lot of fun but take your time with load development the slightest change can make a huge difference !
also make sure you test without your mod until you are getting stable bullets on target otherwise you will trash your mod with baffle strikes
i am also in the doubtful group regarding flashover but make sure i use the correct powders so as to prevent it if it is actually a thing but i think by now they would have been able to prove pressure spikes under test conditions if it was a thing?
you may read about drilling primer flash holes , i found it to be unnecessary personally in 223,6.5 creed,308 and 45/70
a good resource is one of the old lyman reloading books as they have a lot of slow lead bullet data you can reference
also make sure you test without your mod until you are getting stable bullets on target otherwise you will trash your mod with baffle strikes
i am also in the doubtful group regarding flashover but make sure i use the correct powders so as to prevent it if it is actually a thing but i think by now they would have been able to prove pressure spikes under test conditions if it was a thing?
you may read about drilling primer flash holes , i found it to be unnecessary personally in 223,6.5 creed,308 and 45/70
a good resource is one of the old lyman reloading books as they have a lot of slow lead bullet data you can reference
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Ta - I am going to try 50 gns Sierra Varmint with Titegroup and work up - they have a short bearing surface so we shall see.
Ideally I would like to get down to velocities sub-1500 fps but stability - the bullet’s not mine, will be the killer or maybe not…
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Thank you sir - good tip re the mod - mine is an Utra so very short but will defo keep an eye on it.
@Foxyboy43 Can you tell us which primers are you using in your experiments please?
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Safety addition to above responseCCI Small rifle.
If you are trying something similar please be very careful. Use only those few powders suitable for low volume/subsonic loads and work up in 0.2gns increments checking each round every time for pressure signs.
Or better still just pause and await my response.
Stay safe!
Thanks. These are what I have as well.CCI Small rifle.
Not planning on trying this until I have some suitable powder and also I will do quite a bit more reading around the subject first too as there is potential for disaster. I want to be sure I have fully got my head round the potential pitfalls before I start experimenting.Safety addition to above response
If you are trying something similar please be very careful. Use only those few powders suitable for low volume/subsonic loads and work up in 0.2gns increments checking each round every time for pressure signs.
Or better still just pause and await my response.
Stay safe!
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Good man.
Chambering dependent there is a lot of info on the Hodgdon site (see post #1 on this thread) but in the case of the .222 there's nada - likely because of the very slow twist 1:14 and stabilisation issues against the .223’s 1:8 or thereabouts (from memory).
Similar threads
