# NEW 223 TIPPED XXX's BARNES



## THE JAMMER

Well I was so excited about the fact that barnes came out with the tipped version of the 223 XXX, and in a previous thread I said I had gotten them. Well the first trip to the range today was not that impressive.

First of all when I was reloading them, I used the same load which is my go- to load for the regular 55 gr XXX, 24.0 gr of VV 135. However, when I went to seat them I found that because of that tip being there, and having a COAL length limit of 2.26, that I couldn't seat the new ones to the same depth that I could the regular ones. I knew it would have to be a bit different, but 50 thousandths??? I was shocked. So I reloaded to max COAL, which in my comparator had them .0050 further off the lands.

In my Colt HBAR 20" bbl, which shoots the regular XXX's into .9" for five shots, with four of those going into .25, the best I could do with the new bullets was 2.8" with even worse results in my Stag- 3.2"

I shot my regular XXX's load throught the colt just to make sure all was well with scope, etc. and put 4 of the oldies into .75.

I know what some will say- keep the old bullet and don't worry about it. But I have this burning need to make "every bullet" work. So I'm sure I will embark on another quest to find a load which will work for the TTSX.

THE DISAPPOINTED JAMMER


----------



## Jonboater

That is disappointing. What twist are your rifles?


----------



## Wolf6151

So the tipped version of this bullet doesn't shoot as well as the regular XXX version with everything else but COAL being equal. That's good info. I was acutally thinking of asking this same question on here. Has anyone else had this same experience with the tipped vs. regular Barnes bullets?


----------



## THE JAMMER

I'm not saying they don't shoot as well, just that what I have tried so far doesn't shoot as well. I have them, so I guess I'll have to try and find that magic formula for them. But since staying within coal limits, and these bullets having a longer ogive, the bullets will, by definition, go further into the case, and that changes everything.

So back to work. My mind, however, is on my Aug 15 Colorado archery antelope hunt.


----------



## Geedubya

THE JAMMER said:


> My mind, however, is on my Aug 15 Colorado archery antelope hunt.


Details?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Might even be fodder for a new thread.

GWB


----------



## Jonboater

Since you didn't bother with answering my question I just looked up the HBAR twist. It can be either a 1 in 7 or 1 in 9. Guessing yours might be a 1 in 9. The Stag appears to only be available in 1 in 9 as well.

Barnes specifies 1 in 9 as the bare minimum for a 55gr TTSX. So if in fact your barrels are only 1 in 9, and the load is on the slow side or the twist is off slightly your probably are not stabilizing that long bullet. You might try working the load up a little hotter watching fro pressure signs depending on where your at now, or you may have better luck with the shorter 50gr since it only needs a 1 in 12 twist.


----------



## THE JAMMER

Jonboater said:


> Since you didn't bother with answering my question I just looked up the HBAR twist. It can be either a 1 in 7 or 1 in 9. Guessing yours might be a 1 in 9. The Stag appears to only be available in 1 in 9 as well.
> 
> Barnes specifies 1 in 9 as the bare minimum for a 55gr TTSX. So if in fact your barrels are only 1 in 9, and the load is on the slow side or the twist is off slightly your probably are not stabilizing that long bullet. You might try working the load up a little hotter watching fro pressure signs depending on where your at now, or you may have better luck with the shorter 50gr since it only needs a 1 in 12 twist.


Sorry Johnboater,

I somehow missed your post. I was on vacation for about 10 days. You are correct about the twist of my two ar's.

However, they both shoot 55 grXXX into 1 moa. I just think it's that I haven't found the right load yet. I have only had one range session. I understand about stabilizing the longer bullet, etc. but I think I can get there.

I might just be ******* up a rope however. My Colt (20" hvy bbl) already shoots 55 XXX into .9 for 5 shots and 4 of those were .25 at 2950 fps, and my Stag ( 16" light bbl) shoots them into .72" at 3022 fps.

We are perfectionists however, right???


----------



## THE JAMMER

Geedubya said:


> Details?
> 
> Enquiring minds want to know.
> 
> Might even be fodder for a new thread.
> 
> GWB


GW,

Oh there will a new thread. Colorado has an archery antelope season with OTC licenses for many good areas. NO DRAW. The season opens Aug 15, and my son, I, and a friend will be sitting in our Primos Vision blind, with black t shirst, black head covers sitting next to a windmill waiting for the goats to come in.

It's going to be an ordeal sitting in those blinds in 90 degree heat, but we also have some of the light weight antelope decoys, and we plan to try some spot and stalk as well. I have done it before, not during the season, and have had incredible luck in getting pretty close. Some have been using a cow silhouette as a decoy with great success.

I will report back.


----------



## Pocketfisherman

You might want to take a look at a powder burn rate list and try a different powder with a faster burn. With the bullet deeper, and less case volume, you'll have less gas volume pushing the bullet. A faster burning powder will give you a bigger pressure spike with the lesser volume, similar to what you had before with the original load.


----------



## Jonboater

THE JAMMER said:


> Sorry Johnboater,
> 
> I somehow missed your post. I was on vacation for about 10 days. You are correct about the twist of my two ar's.
> 
> However, they both shoot 55 grXXX into 1 moa. I just think it's that I haven't found the right load yet. I have only had one range session. I understand about stabilizing the longer bullet, etc. but I think I can get there.
> 
> I might just be ******* up a rope however. My Colt (20" hvy bbl) already shoots 55 XXX into .9 for 5 shots and 4 of those were .25 at 2950 fps, and my Stag ( 16" light bbl) shoots them into .72" at 3022 fps.
> 
> We are perfectionists however, right???


Sorry I was a little rough with my response, "didn't bother.." I didn't mean anything by that but reading it again it may be construed that way.

The regular 55gr non-tipped TSX bullets are way shorter and only require a 1 in 12 twist. BUT there are many 1 in 12 rifles that don't shoot them well. So it is sort of the same issue you might be having using a 1 in 9 with the tipped version. With the way the TSX penatrates dropping down to a 50gr T-TSX may increase your accuracy considerably but the on game performance would be about the same. Good luck in your tests!


----------



## THE JAMMER

Jonboater said:


> Sorry I was a little rough with my response, "didn't bother.." I didn't mean anything by that but reading it again it may be construed that way.
> 
> The regular 55gr non-tipped TSX bullets are way shorter and only require a 1 in 12 twist. BUT there are many 1 in 12 rifles that don't shoot them well. So it is sort of the same issue you might be having using a 1 in 9 with the tipped version. With the way the TSX penatrates dropping down to a 50gr T-TSX may increase your accuracy considerably but the on game performance would be about the same. Good luck in your tests!


Non taken. That's a good idea.


----------



## RobaloSunrise

Laast time I loaded Barnes bullets the actual bullet weights were off by several tenths of a grain. up to almost a grain. Have you weighed the bullets?


----------



## CHARLIE

Robalosunrise

Wow thats a new one. I am gonna check that next time..


----------



## RobaloSunrise

Yeah when you start to get into ultra premium bullets they will all weigh the same. For the rest I sort into batches and load only the same weight.


----------



## CHARLIE

Well I always considered the Barnes a premium bullet. At least the performance is.. I will check weight for sure next time.


----------



## RobaloSunrise

One other thing to look at is down range performance. I had a load for Sierra bullet once that was open and pathetic at 100 yds but the bullet calmed sown by 300 and by 500 was half MOA


----------



## CHARLIE

RobaloSunrise

I have heard stories like that before but have never, never never really seen it. Has to be a freak and not consistant IMHO..


----------



## RobaloSunrise

It happens with every bullet to some extent. Studies have been published about it. Bryan Litz who is a Palma competitor published his findings on long range shooting. Very interesting read. Look at his site appliedballisticsllc.com


----------



## twang56

Had simular problems with 62 barnes in my AR. Since mag restrictions of 2.26 oal i found the best load then started seating deeper and deeper until 2.235 when it went sub 1/2 MOA. No pressure increase but i am not loading hot and i use Varget. 1-8 RR


----------



## CHARLIE

Barns likes the deeper seading (they recommend it). Mine does best with 2.175 with 53 gr bullet but it is still not good. (for me anyway)


----------



## twang56

Have you tried what "Pocketfisherman" suggested? Are you using .223 or 5.56 cases?


----------



## Ernest

There are no differences between 5.56 brass and .223 brass. They are identical. 

There are differences between .223 and 5.56 chambers, but those differences are immaterial if one is resizing the brass prior to reloading.


----------



## RobaloSunrise

556 is a somewhat hotter round with a mil spec powder. And mil spec bullets.


----------



## Samson

Ernest said:


> There are no differences between 5.56 brass and .223 brass. They are identical.


 While the exterior dimensions are the same, the interior dimensions are not. SAAMI spec for the .223 Rem case has it holding 28.8 grains of H2O while the 5.56X45 NATO holds 28.5 grains. This is where the 5.56 gets the additional pressure (and velocity) over your standard .223 rem rounds. Loading hot .223 rem loads in a 5.56 case will net you some serious overpressure, while loading hot 5.56 loads in a .223 rem case will likely show you less pressure and velocity than the equivalent load in a 5.56 case.


----------



## Ernest

Start filling cases with water and compare them to commercial Rem. and Winchester. What you will find is ZERO difference. 

Moreover, you will find that Win. amd Rem cases hold north of 30 grains of water. Then, you will find you would be hard pressed to locate ANY 5.56 brass than holds 28.5. Again, its basically all well north of 30 grains. 

This basic experiment has been conducted repeatedly in an effort to debunk some of the "mil spec" myths surrounding the round. The results are relatively uniform. 

Further, even the Saami difference is immaterial. The manufacturing tolerances are such that the minor difference, even if built to exact spec, is meaningless.


----------



## RobaloSunrise

The difference is the powder, primer, and bullet all mil spec. It has burn rates which Allow it to build gas pressure sufficient to operate the gas system on a M16. 223 in a M16 will cause some feed jams. The pressures aren't that different just enough to ensure reliable operation of the bolt. If you are loading for a automatic weapon you need to load to a factory OAL. If you are loading for a bolt gun load to a OAL that your rifle likes. Some experimentation is needed. Normally this is a few thousandths off the land but every rifle is unique. 

That being said even differences in brass weight and the uniformity of the neck should be considered. 

Changes in case capacity will change the internal ballistics which changes the external ballistics. No detail is too small. When you are trying to place something the size of and eraser into 3 inches at 600 yds. **** is that what we do????


----------



## Ernest

Commericial .223 will not jam the M16 platform. We are NOT talking about M14's here. All that pressure curve or thicker brass nonsense does not apply. 

The minimum pressure necessary to operate the bolt, carrier, and reload function on an M16/AR-15 is very, very low. So low, one can load basically little fart type rounds and still, most all will operate the weapon. The narrow "pressure curve" problem with M14's was designed out of the M16/AR-15. 

Further, the OAL issue is similarly bravo sierra. All the civilians are running way past the mil spec OAL with pert near all the rounds. Thats cause, until relatively recently, all the 5.56 rounds were FMJ rounds, and of course, all the serious reloaders/shooters were using significantly longer Sierra 69's or heavier projectiles loaded to max. mag length (or more). 

Put it this way, if your AR-15/M16 will not eat commerical .223 day in, day out, the problem is with the weapon. Not the ammo. The weapon is messed up.

Mil spec is not some sort of magic or secret. Mil spec primers? Seriously? The change in the primer is to avoid unintended discharge. Its not super hot. Meaning, it does not change internal or exterior ballistics. Its just ever so slightly harder to touch off.


----------



## twang56

As forgiving as the .223 is for handloading i have found variances in new brass neck sized nickle .223 and LC 5.56 using identical everything else. After FL resizing it was less critical but still not equal. I am not talking about function of the AR but accuracy.


----------



## CHARLIE

Dang it this time I am with ole Ernest.. Really the difference between a 223 and 5.56 is not worth worrying about.. either way.. Some folks make mountains out of mole hills..


----------



## RobaloSunrise

Firing low pressure rounds in a full auto rifle could jam the rifle. The reason I know this is because if you don't run the gas rings out of phase (line up the gaps) it will cause feed problems. I have seen this under fire in Iraq. The weapon had to be stripped and the rings placed out of phase during a lull in the battle. No further problems with the weapon. Lining up the gaps could not have caused a huge preasure loss in my opinion just enough to cause a feed jam every so often. 

As far as this thread is concerned we are not worried about the reliability of the weapon just the performacne of the round at terminal range. When you handload for accuracy everything has to be considered or why bother. Competition shooters weigh, match, measure, everything. they do this for consistancy. I have the time and ability to do this so I do it for hunting loads. 

As far as Mil Spec is concerned you are correct it is not special or magic. It is however inspected and has to perform in a certain way, it is doubtful to me that it is just H4831. It has to reach certain performance specs. The primers are heavier walled to avoid slam fire. the powder is designed to create a certain pressure and pressure curve and a certain speed with a certain bullet. It is not much different that Hornady's superperformance ammo, it's just built to a different spec. 

The differences between 223 and 556 aren't enough to worry about in a sporting scenario. the case differences are enough to worry about if ultimate accuracy is your goal. OAL is worth worrying abot if your loads won't fit in a magazine. Or if you have loaded them too long and the bullet is seated against the lands or the bolt won't close properly. 

Will a M16/AR platform eat 223? Of course. Will 223 cause jams? It is possible, however there are so many reasons for a jam worrying about that is asinine. Should you take your time and check everything when you hand load? If accuracy is your ultimate goal.


----------



## Ernest

And one addresses this consistency issue - in the brass - by sorting by headstamps and developing the load in a single headstamp. 

The size of the brass before its first fired is irrelevant. Once fired, it takes on the size of the chamber. So, original SAAMI internal capacity is irrelevant. 

Then, this brass is rammed into a reloading die. This changes the internal capacity again. Makes it smaller. 

Now, upon resizing - be it different head stamps or even with the same head stamps - the spring back rate of the brass is slightly different. After resizing, the brass is NOT smaller than the die. It springs back. Its actually the same size as the die or even a hair larger than the die. This is why resized brass wil not slide into or out of the sizing die without considerable force. 

So, while we sort by headstamps, even then, you will see minor differences in internal capacity after resizing due to variations in the rate of spring back. To minimize this variation in internal capacity, we sort by headstamps, and then by lot or year. 

If the brass has an exterior coating, this changes the spring back rate, which again can result in difference in the internal capacity. 

End of the day, the internal capacity after resizing and trimming of a 5.56 and a commercial .223 vary by manufacturer and lot, but they DO NOT vary based upon whether the brass was originally 5.56 or .223. 5.56 brass is NOT thicker or heavier. 

To reach the lands on a mil spec 5.56, you are talking about a round WAY past max. mag size (or shooting flat head, wad cutter style bullets). Unless you are single loading (or shooting flat head, wad cutter style bullets) you will NEVER reach the lands in a mil spec 5.56 weapon. Never. 

If the round will go into the mag (and you are not shooting flat head, wad cutter type bullets) and the bolt will not close, its not the OAL. The shoulder has not been pushed back enough. Its not hanging up on the lands. Setting aside crazy flat head, wad cutter type rounds, if its mag length or less, you are not jammed into the lands on a mil spec weapon. Same for the .223 wilde chamber.


----------



## Bantam1

RobaloSunrise said:


> Firing low pressure rounds in a full auto rifle could jam the rifle. The reason I know this is because if you don't run the gas rings out of phase (line up the gaps) it will cause feed problems. I have seen this under fire in Iraq. The weapon had to be stripped and the rings placed out of phase during a lull in the battle. No further problems with the weapon. Lining up the gaps could not have caused a huge preasure loss in my opinion just enough to cause a feed jam every so often.


This is a myth too. I believe the weapon had a problem but out of phase gas rings should not cause. If anything the gas rings needed to be replaced. They have a service life and are supposed to be replaced probably around 8000 rounds or so. A service weapon could have an unkown round count (probably higher than we all would like to think) and in need of repair. The weapon will function with one gas ring, not aligned, etc;

Ernest I think that was a great post. Most people do not think about the stretch and spring back on brass cases. I actually weight sort my brass after it has been sorted by head stamp/lot. I only do this for my precision loads and not my general plinking stuff.


----------



## Ernest

Bantam - I was sorting by weight for a while. Then, I was reading some materials suggesting that weight is a relatively poor proxy for internal case capacity in .223. In very broad summary, small changes in trim length or relatively small changes in amount of chamfer can create what appears to be a significant weight difference in .223 brass. Then, there is stuff like small differences in rim thichness. The error adds up. 

At the same time, the materials were suggesting throwing out the very high and very low when sorting by weight has benefits. The significantly different ones. End of the day, according to those materials, weight sorting only helps a bit and it only helps by eliminating the brass that is significantly different. Its a poor method to truly fine tune. 

So, my more recent approach is to simply sort by mfg-er and year. Well, thats not really true. More accurate to say, other than foulers, I only shoot LC 99's in one AR, and only shoot LC 98's in the other one. I have tons of both. 

Plus, I'm a very poor shot, so it was not really helping me anyway. Anti-spastic drugs are what I really need. That and patience.


----------



## Bantam1

I thought that there could be a difference in case volume even with weight sorting the brass. I gave up on doing it with my .308 because I never found a difference. With the AR at distance I have seen a marginal gain. Maybe I'm just being anal. 

I use all '09 LC brass in one AR and '07 in another. We are on the same page there.


----------



## Pocketfisherman

Samson said:


> While the exterior dimensions are the same, the interior dimensions are not. SAAMI spec for the .223 Rem case has it holding 28.8 grains of H2O while the 5.56X45 NATO holds 28.5 grains. This is where the 5.56 gets the additional pressure (and velocity) over your standard .223 rem rounds. Loading hot .223 rem loads in a 5.56 case will net you some serious overpressure, while loading hot 5.56 loads in a .223 rem case will likely show you less pressure and velocity than the equivalent load in a 5.56 case.


Not entirely true about the case capacity, though the NATO round spec allows for more pressure. The risk comes from shooting NATO rounds with longer bullets that would work in the NATO chamber's longer Freebore in a SAAMI 223 chamber with it's shorter throat and less freebore. That along with the higher pressure spec is what can generate a dangerous high pressure because you risk putting the bullet right on the lands. Practically speaking these days, all the brass is manufactured the same (Probably all comes from the same one or two sources) and will support either spec's pressure levels without problem, plus a lot more if you're shooting a Contenter.

There are several good online explanations of this on the Armalite site, Wikipedia, AR15 forums, and elsewhere. This is from Wikipedia:

_While the external case dimensions are very similar, the .223 Remington and 5.56x45mm differ in both maximum pressure and chamber shape. The maximum and mean pressures for some varieties of the 5.56 mm (different cartridge designations have different standards) exceed the SAAMI maximums for the .223 Remington, and the methods for measuring pressures differ between NATO and SAAMI.[2] The 5.56 mm chamber specification has also changed over time since its adoption, as the current military loading (NATO SS-109 or US M855) uses longer, heavier bullets than the original loading did. This has resulted in a lengthening of the throat in the 5.56 mm chamber. Thus, while .223 Remington ammunition can be safely fired in a 5.56 mm chambered gun, firing 5.56 mm ammunition in a .223 Remington chamber may produce pressures in excess of even the 5.56 mm specifications due to the shorter throat.[3]

_NOTE: External Case Dimension is only part of the specification, the other part is the shape of of the barrel and throat.


----------



## CHARLIE

Seems to me that explanation also covers 223 ammo with heavy or longer bullets also not just 5.56. Most folks know (or should know) that a bullet seated longer possibly could create a pressure problem so in reality the claim by some that shooting a 5.56 in a 223 will cause problems is not true. The issue is shooting a bullet that is too long for the chamber is true whether its is a 223 round or a 5.56.


----------



## Texas T

*different cases weights vs H2O capacity*

223 Rem Case Weight vs. Capacity
Case Manufacturer Case Weight* H20 Capacity**
Lake City 06 92.0 30.6
WCC99 95.5 30.5
Sellier & Belloit 92.3 30.5
Remington 92.3 30.4
PMC 93.5 30.4
Hirtenberger 93.7 30.4
Lake City 04 93.0 30.4
Federal 96.3 30.2
Hornady  93.9 30.1
IMG (Guatemalan) 95.4 30.1
Lapua (new lot) 93.4 30.1
Winchester 93.9 30.1
Olympic 97.4 30.0
Radway Arsenal 96.1 30.0
PMP 104.5 29.9
FNM 93-1 97.3 29.8
Lapua (old lot) 104.0 28.0


----------



## Texas T

It wont save the proper spacing on the numbers in my above post but you get a drift of the case weight to H20 internal capacity for various brand of both military and civilian cases. The real difference between the mil and civies is mostly the crimp.


----------



## Ernest

Thanks Tex. T. 

Notice how weight does not necessarily correspond with internal capacity.


----------



## Pocketfisherman

Texas T said:


> 223 Rem Case Weight vs. Capacity
> Case Manufacturer Case Weight* H20 Capacity**
> Lake City 06 92.0  30.6
> WCC99 95.5 30.5
> Sellier & Belloit 92.3 30.5
> Remington 92.3 30.4
> PMC 93.5 30.4
> Hirtenberger 93.7 30.4
> Lake City 04 93.0 30.4
> Federal 96.3 30.2
> Hornady 93.9 30.1
> IMG (Guatemalan) 95.4 30.1
> Lapua (new lot) 93.4 30.1
> Winchester 93.9 30.1
> Olympic 97.4 30.0
> Radway Arsenal 96.1 30.0
> PMP 104.5 29.9
> FNM 93-1 97.3 29.8
> Lapua (old lot) 104.0 28.0


Are those averages of multiple samples per brand, or single samples? If the latter, it could just be sample to sample variance that is still within the specification margin of error.


----------



## Ernest

And, are these measurements taken from fired brass in the same weapon. For reloading purposes, I really don't care about internal capacity initially. And, I can assure you, brass ejected from my tight Win. 70 .223 has ever so slight smaller capacity than the more generous chamber of one of my AR-15's.


----------



## RobaloSunrise

Well now that we have gotten completely off of the OP's subject and on to wether 223 will jam a 556 or blow it up, let's try to get back on target.

Jammer, did you ever get the Barnes bulletes to shoot a good group? If you did what do you think was the turning point?


----------



## THE JAMMER

I have kinda been off line on reloading for the last month or so. Archery antelope and deer have consumed my time. I have, however, purchased the smaller 50 gr version, and will be reloading them this weekend, and will post results.


----------



## Texas T

Pocketfisherman said:


> Are those averages of multiple samples per brand, or single samples? If the latter, it could just be sample to sample variance that is still within the specification margin of error.


Not my study but when I have done similar study with different brass from my rifle or from range pick up it was all about the same results. Conduct your own study and see how your mileage varies.


----------



## CHARLIE

I havent been back to reloading the Barnes yet but next time it will be the standard TSX 50 Gr in my 1X12 twist. Probably end up being my hunting round but we will see.


----------



## spurgersalty

Just in for me.
I'm waiting anxiously for a chance to concoct or begin the process.


----------



## CHARLIE

Spurgersalty

I am curious as to how much longer the 62 Gr Barnes bullet is compared to the partition.


----------



## spurgersalty

I'll measure them when I get off work and letyou know Charlie.


----------



## spurgersalty

Here's the numbers Charlie.
60 gr.Partition FB - .786"
62 gr. TTSX BT - .985


----------



## CHARLIE

Yup thats a problem with some twist rates... Thanks


----------



## spurgersalty

Yessir, I'm a little worried I won't see my perceived accuracy. The box says a 1:8 twist rate or faster is recommended, where as my AR is 1:9. I'm probably makeing more out of it than it is though.


----------



## THE JAMMER

TA DA !!!!!

I think I finally got something on the 50 gr tipped XXX. 

205 primer; RP SS used brass; 2.26 oal; 22.4 gr re 10x

I some times load more than five rounds of a load I am working on, in case I knowingly pull one, so I can end up with a good 5 shot group.

First five shots looked great from the bench (later miked .78") I said things are going good, let's shoot another one, stayed within .78"; let's try another opened up to .93" but from the bench still looked great. I had one left, so I said what the heck and fired it. DANG opened up to 1.47" THE UPPER RIGHT HOLE-- the guy next to me fired just as I was firing. In other words definitely pilot error.

I think I have found a great load for my Colt HBAR 1x9.

THE JAMMER


----------



## spurgersalty

I'm glad you worked it out.


----------

