Ammunition for Shorter Ranges

S

SmallBoreBuyer

New member
Hello All,

For various reasons (low recoil, long barrel life, powder frugality, availability of decent factory ammo) the 223 is in the lead for me in contemplating a first build.

It seems that the shorter the range, the lighter the optimal bullet, within reason and all else equal. Does this comport with your experiences?

What bullets would you reccomend for 100, 200 and 300 yards for a 223-based project?

John
 
1/9 tw for me. Let you use lighter bulllets for shortest range and heavies (73/75 grains) for 200/300 in windy days. IMO
 
Before this thread goes much further.....tell us what you plan to do with this rifle.
 
If target shooting is what you plan on doing, and I'm guessing from your yardage goals that's what you have in mind, then consider a 1:8 or 1:7 twist. While 52 ~ 55 grain bullets may be OK at 100 yards, the wind will play with the unmercifully at 200 and 300 yards. Heavier bullets will do better at those ranges. Even at 100 yards, the wind can push the lighter bullets around.

The range I shoot on in bench rest competition has some of the worst wind currents you're likely to encounter anywhere. I practice out to 300 yards with a .223 and trying to dope the wind is often frustrating. My 1:12 twist limits my bullets to lighter weights and my targets show it.
 
not all 75's will stabilize in a 1/9...which is why 1/8 works so well out to 600 yards.
we have not heard what the rifle is so all of this may be wasted.


remember it is shooter, rifle/optics and ammo....not just ammo.

Liseo said:
1/9 tw for me. Let you use lighter bulllets for shortest range and heavies (73/75 grains) for 200/300 in windy days. IMO
Click to expand...
 
I am looking to spec out an accurate 223 rifle for ranges up to 300 yards.

It was my understanding that the intended range would help define the optimal bullet which would help define the optimal twist.
 
but what size target?
what discipline ?
a bone stock ar15(m4 clone) will shoot 300 yards.
an off the shelf bbl ??
a bolt gun or an ar ?
iron sights or scope ? is there a power limit for the scope ?
there are few simple answers in competitive shooting.
 
CMaier said:
but what size target?
what discipline ?
a bone stock ar15(m4 clone) will shoot 300 yards.
an off the shelf bbl ??
a bolt gun or an ar ?
iron sights or scope ? is there a power limit for the scope ?
there are few simple answers in competitive shooting.
Click to expand...
It would be a bolt gun.

Can I ask how the answers to most of your questions would affect the answer to the ammunition question?

For example, how would any of target size, barrel maker, or scope/irons change the physics of optimal bullet weight for an accurate 223 rifle for ranges of 100 to 300 yards?
 
a large target requires less accuracy.
simple example is high power vs benchrest shooting.
a 2 moa 10 ring on a high power target. and a benchrest
score target is aprox 1/2 moa (i believe), a 4x difference in accuracy requirement.

SmallBoreBuyer said:
It would be a bolt gun.

Can I ask how the answers to most of your questions would affect the answer to the ammunition question?

For example, how would any of target size, barrel maker, or scope/irons change the physics of optimal bullet weight for an accurate 223 rifle for ranges of 100 to 300 yards?
Click to expand...
 
CMaier said:
a large target requires less accuracy.
simple example is high power vs benchrest shooting.
a 2 moa 10 ring on a high power target. and a benchrest
score target is aprox 1/2 moa (i believe), a 4x difference in accuracy requirement.
Click to expand...
It is obvious that hitting something large requires less accuracy that hitting something small, all else equal.

I don't think that one could then logically conclude, however, that a less accurate rifle has an equal likelihood of winning as a more accurate rifle simply because a target is bigger in a particular discipline.

All else equal, the more accurate rifle is always more likely to win, is it not?

I get that there are more factors at play. I have not suggested that optimizing any particular factor is sufficient for success.
 
With a bit of question about 300 yards...14 twist works pretty darn good out to 200. In fact, if you were shooting just to 200, that would be the twist. Additionally, if you plan to shoot something heavier than 52 or so grain bullets you'll need more twist. That's all I know - I'm a group shooter....

Came back to add:
Not many folks do well shooting groups with a .223. Just sayin'....
 
Last edited:
no, the target is big. guys 'clean" the target all the time
with iron sights.200/20x. having a more accurate rifle just gets you
a tie, as 200/20x is it..there is no group measuring.
so again answer the questions and maybe we can help.

SmallBoreBuyer said:
It is obvious that hitting something large requires less accuracy that hitting something small, all else equal.

I don't think that one could then logically conclude, however, that a less accurate rifle has an equal likelihood of winning as a more accurate rifle simply because a target is bigger in a particular discipline.

All else equal, the more accurate rifle is always more likely to win, is it not?

I get that there are more factors at play. I have not suggested that optimizing any particular factor is sufficient for success.
Click to expand...
 
CMaier said:
no, the target is big. guys 'clean" the target all the time
with iron sights.200/20x. having a more accurate rifle just gets you
a tie, as 200/20x is it..there is no group measuring.
so again answer the questions and maybe we can help.
Click to expand...
Others have helped, as you can see above. Thank you to all of them.

If having a more accurate rifle gets you into a tie, doesn't having a less accurate rifle mean you lose? Do high power shooters carefully consider bullet mass, barrel twist, etc., or do they just pick projectiles and barrels at random because of the sheer enormity of their targets?

Again, having a more accurate rifle is always better than having a less accurate one, isn't it?

I get that, at the limit, benchrest has a higher optimal level of investment in accuracy than other disciplines.

My question was much simpler and more general and would apply sensibly to any discipline, with a scope or open sights, etc., etc.

I believe this thread has run out of useful input.

Again, thanks to all who contributed.

John
 
I think what CMaier is trying to say is there are multitudes of answers to you question depending on what discipline you decide to shoot. It's not as simple as one might think. For example, I stated that the .223 hasn't done well in group shooting but I don't know that the next nationals won't be won with a .223. I do know that there's some really good shooting .223s out there but not many in group shooting and certainly none that are shooting factory ammo. Decide what you're gonna shoot with this rifle and tell us. I think that's all CMaier is asking. Alternatively, if you just want a good shooting .223 that's not built specific to any competition "standard" say that as well. We want you to do well and building a prone rifle to shoot Benchrest doesn't accomplish that end.
 
SmallBoreBuyer said:
Again, having a more accurate rifle is always better than having a less accurate one, isn't it?

I get that, at the limit, benchrest has a higher optimal level of investment in accuracy than other disciplines.

My question was much simpler and more general and would apply sensibly to any discipline, with a scope or open sights, etc., etc.

I believe this thread has run out of useful input.

Again, thanks to all who contributed.

John
Click to expand...

John, y'er gettin' all teste when the real problem here is that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW.

F'rinstance

Again, having a more accurate rifle is always better than having a less accurate one, isn't it?
Click to expand...

The answer to this question is 'NO'

Here you are at the beach of an ocean as broad as all creation and so deep you'll never plumb the bottom and you're "running out of useful input" with your toe in the water......
 
I'm pretty sure John knows what he wants to build. What he doesn't want is folks like me trying to nail him down for the sake of discussion. The point is, if you're gonna compete (and we don't know what John has on his mind) you need the right stuff. John may or may not know what that "stuff" is.
 
Hello Wilbur,

It seems that I should have asked a different question.

I am moving to a property that will accommodate shooting of 0-300 yards.

I will acquire a 223 bolt action rifle for this shooting.

I will use a scope.

I want a rifle under 15 pounds.

I assumed that because the forces operating on a projectile of a given mass and shape are independent of the rifle once it leaves the muzzle on a particular path, at a particular velocity and spin rate, that ammunition specifications would be independent of things such as iron versus glass sights, etc., and that these latter choices were not relevant to the ammunition specification decisions. The decision set seemed rather constrained, to me, ie., something somewhat smaller than “an ocean as broad as all creation and so deep you'll never plumb the bottom...”

Some of the responses suggest that this was an incorrect assumption. No specifics were given, however, such as, for discipline A you want to use a 53 grain bullet, however for discipline B, a 65 grain bullet is best. No logic guidelines or decision rules were given. I didn’t ask for any and perhaps should have.

A parting question for Alinwa. You said that inaccurate guns are better than more accurate guns, at times.

When?

John
 
I think I understand. You don't intend to shoot competitively, but you would like a really good shooting rifle in .223. Would I be too forward to ask if you have any limits on this rifle? Cost or anything specific....?
 
Wilbur - I may shoot competitively at some point but that would be down the road.

I don't want to be too limited to start. I could go custom or trued 700. Budget is a bit fluid but I don't want to blow my brains out on a build. Haven't thought too much more about the gun. I started thinking from the ammo end, because I thought that would be easier to set up some of the rifle constraints from a ballistics perspective. Best laid plans...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top