Is .223 worth it?

[Black Beard]

Nice to hear you are way ahead of me. I think 7.62 is the other way around with 308 in a 7.62 being the problem combination.

[sarge4318]

Back to the original question:
Shooting any reasonable quantity per year and don't just plink at 100, it will be better to reload - it won't be cheaper (especially if you factor in your time) but you will get a much more consistent round. I find the cost of components to be about the same as the cost of milsurp. Generally the worst reload* will out perform a good factory load for consistency, and that's what it is all about - consistency.

And besides, it gives me a good excuse to forget to do the chores and have few hours of peace on my own in the workshop. That is worth it even if the components double in cost and is better than yoga at relaxing me.

*by 'worst' I mean making the best you can on the cheapest equipment with average or better components - not some fool filling the cases with a spatula and levelling off, etc.

[junkyard dog]

Hand loading all the way in my opinion. Factory ammo is ok but if you want accuracy you have to tune a round to suit your rifle.
I get 1/2 moa at 100M (If I do my bit) using 69g SMK with 22.2g of N140 loaded 15 thou off the lands. Rifle is a .223 Browning A bolt tactical varmint with a 22" barrel and a 1-9 twist.

[Dave74]

I cannot believe people will settle for mediocre groups at any distance.
If you can't rely on the ammunition to produce the accuracy the rifle, what's the point? We are regularly pushing towards the limits of 223, and need reliable loads to do it. A reload can cost only a few pence more per shot than a rubbish factory or milsurp round. You wouldn't run a Supercar on kerosene would you?

Hi do you mind if I ask what you would consider mediocre at 100yds?if any rifle is shooting out of the killzone at that range I’d give up
Also in my experience you can reload the best bullet for a rifle and have amazing groups benchrested,but when you’ve just did a couple hundred yard stalk on your stomach your not going to produce the same shot,but you are going to get it in the killzone if your a competent shooter

[taz2]

Hi do you mind if I ask what you would consider mediocre at 100yds?if any rifle is shooting out of the killzone at that range I’d give up
Also in my experience you can reload the best bullet for a rifle and have amazing groups benchrested,but when you’ve just did a couple hundred yard stalk on your stomach your not going to produce the same shot,but you are going to get it in the killzone if your a competent shooter

Well, that's a difficult question to answer. Peoples' perceptions vary enormously as to what they're satisfied with. Personally, I reckon if you can't consistently put 5 shots into under an inch with a factory sporter, and under half that regularly with a half decent target rifle, you've got room to improve.
Most modern rifles are easily capable of doing it. Some even guarantee it nowadays.
A good reload will improve most rifles, I dare say even transform them.
I take your point about bench versus stalk, but if it's mediocre off the bench, it is for sure it will only get worse.
We all have had 'screamers', but doing it every time takes a bit more effort.
Of course, some guns will never do it---if all fails, time for a change.

[kennyc]

Well, that's a difficult question to answer. Peoples' perceptions vary enormously as to what they're satisfied with. Personally, I reckon if you can't consistently put 5 shots into under an inch with a factory sporter, and under half that regularly with a half decent target rifle, you've got room to improve.
Most modern rifles are easily capable of doing it. Some even guarantee it nowadays.
A good reload will improve most rifles, I dare say even transform them.
I take your point about bench versus stalk, but if it's mediocre off the bench, it is for sure it will only get worse.
We all have had 'screamers', but doing it every time takes a bit more effort.
Of course, some guns will never do it---if all fails, time for a change.

I have always been slightly amused at the thought that target performance will dictate field performance, a rifle that can hold 1/2 MOA on a target will not neseccarilly shoot better on a live target than a 2MOA rifle, yes it is theoretically more accurate, but in practice the rifle accuracy is way down the list of factors when making a shot from sticks, freehand, off the side of a tree trunk etc,
the only real effect that 1/2MOA has in confidence, which admitted , is a definite positive for a lot of people, but its not the "be all,end all " for a hunting rifle, and I think this is where the apparent difference of opinion occurrs between those that demand ultimate accuracy, and those that realise "dead is dead" (humanely, I'm not talking about the poor thing hovering around for half an hour)

[taz2]

Well, I don't really have an answer to that. Quite clearly we are never going to agree over this. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
I still stand by my views and original statement, and still can't understand why anyone would settle for a gun which shoots less accurately than it could with a bit of effort, be it targets OR hunting.
The prospect of shooting live quarry, a thing I have done and still do occasionally without a gun as accurate as I can make it fills me with self doubts--- but that's just my opinion.

[tacfoley]

Nice to hear you are way ahead of me. I think 7.62 is the other way around with 308 in a 7.62 being the problem combination.

.308Win, in general, operates at around 2000 psi higher than the usual 7.62z51 NATO 150gr round. SAAMI figures.

Also, AFA UK proof houses are concerned, this is borne out by the proof stamps -

1. 7.62x51 = 20 TPSI.

2. .308Win = 21 TPSI.

tac

[Parabuteo]

.308Win, in general, operates at around 2000 psi higher than the usual 7.62z51 NATO 150gr round. SAAMI figures.

Also, AFA UK proof houses are concerned, this is borne out by the proof stamps -

1. 7.62x51 = 20 TPSI.

2. .308Win = 21 TPSI.

tac

Spot on although there are still arguments over what is what.

7.62 NATO also generally has thicker brass and the chamber will have several more thou headspace. 7.62 NATO is circa 146gr although M118 is chucking 175gr. Also be aware that some older 7.62x51 chambered rifles may be tight bore to get the best out of the 7.62x51 NATO that was issued for NRA competitions. The bullets are circa .306

I have a 7.62x51 AR on order Tac, it will have to be that as it is what it says on my ticket, but it will be more than capable of shooting .308. Oddly because of the way my licensing authority work I have sold my .308 but kept .308 Win and 7.72x51 NATO on the ammo allocation as I will hand load cases stamped .308 Win, but also shoot the occasional surplus round through it. Same goes for my BAR15, I have allocations for 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem, just in case Mr Plod gets confused by headstamps.

[223AI]

Don't forget, military 5.56 is externally the same as .223 but is designed for a different chamber. It will give higher pressures in a .223 chamber than a military rifle. It will probably also be designed for maximum velocity at minimum cost, so expect pressures to be high anyway.

BB

I thought the chamber was identical but the leade is different?

[223AI]

Well, I don't really have an answer to that. Quite clearly we are never going to agree over this. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
I still stand by my views and original statement, and still can't understand why anyone would settle for a gun which shoots less accurately than it could with a bit of effort, be it targets OR hunting.
The prospect of shooting live quarry, a thing I have done and still do occasionally without a gun as accurate as I can make it fills me with self doubts--- but that's just my opinion.

Time?

I shoot various quarry with various guns, reloading for a few calibres, 5 of which go into the field. Shots on vermin never really past 300, deer under 200. If I spent all my time chasing itsy bitsy groups with each rifle I'd never get over the 4000 acres or so I shoot in my spare time (with mr kennyC), <1" at 100 of of a bench (or roof of the truck) and I'm done with load development. I take the rifle out and use it for what it was made.....

On smaller game if you're not shooting for the table then all you have to worry about is being humane (apart from safety obviously), a 40 gr HP bullet 'somewhere' in the chest of a rabbit from a .22LR will result in some runners, a 40 gr HP from a .22 Hornet 'somewhere' in the chest of a rabbit is instant death, even if you're an inch off the heart. Energy can make up for some lack of accuracy or driver error.

[Parabuteo]

I thought the chamber was identical but the leade is different?

Chambers differ Scott. Mine has been reamed a tad slacker so it will take NATO and not stick with the hot stuff, it cycles nicely with most ammo. The NATO chamber should be a tad longer in terms of headpace IIRC to deal with any available NATO spec SS109 etc, and hot/dirty chambers.

[taz2]

Time?

I shoot various quarry with various guns, reloading for a few calibres, 5 of which go into the field. Shots on vermin never really past 300, deer under 200. If I spent all my time chasing itsy bitsy groups with each rifle I'd never get over the 4000 acres or so I shoot in my spare time (with mr kennyC), <1" at 100 of of a bench (or roof of the truck) and I'm done with load development. I take the rifle out and use it for what it was made.....

On smaller game if you're not shooting for the table then all you have to worry about is being humane (apart from safety obviously), a 40 gr HP bullet 'somewhere' in the chest of a rabbit from a .22LR will result in some runners, a 40 gr HP from a .22 Hornet 'somewhere' in the chest of a rabbit is instant death, even if you're an inch off the heart. Energy can make up for some lack of accuracy or driver error.

ok
last try and then I'm done.
A ''2min'' rifle equates to 4 ins spread at 200 yds (your max for deer). Add that to your personal error in aiming (not a sleight on you--but your own admission due to 100 yd stalk), and suddenly you could be out of the kill-zone for a deer--- maybe a lot out.
Oh, and despite taking the time to ensure that my rifles shoot as well as possible, I do find time to use them for what they're made for. You only have to sort a load out once usually.

[223AI]

Chambers differ Scott. Mine has been reamed a tad slacker so it will take NATO and not stick with the hot stuff, it cycles nicely with most ammo. The NATO chamber should be a tad longer in terms of headpace IIRC to deal with any available NATO spec SS109 etc, and hot/dirty chambers.

So i mean chamber spec's are the same, clearly not though, every day's a learner . . .

[kennyc]

ok
last try and then I'm done.
A ''2min'' rifle equates to 4 ins spread at 200 yds (your max for deer). Add that to your personal error in aiming (not a sleight on you--but your own admission due to 100 yd stalk), and suddenly you could be out of the kill-zone for a deer--- maybe a lot out.
Oh, and despite taking the time to ensure that my rifles shoot as well as possible, I do find time to use them for what they're made for. You only have to sort a load out once usually.

you could be, but in real life you aren't, I have watched Boydy take repeated headshots on rabbits out to 150+yards without a miss, yet his rifle probably wouldn't impress on paper, and these were at night with NV and off of sticks!