Heavy Weight 22's

[NOSLER]

What weight are people shooting in the .22 cal arena?

Is there a reason to shoot heavier than 77 & 80 grains? Let us know.

 

[Asa Yam]

For 300-600 yards, 77 grain HPBTs work fine for magazine length projectiles.
For 300 to 900 yards, 80 grain HPBTs work. Even at 1000, it is possible to get accuracy, despite the projectiles being subsonic.

The 90s from JLK and Sierra need special twists (7 for the Sierra - not so bad. JLKs need 6.5" twists), different powders (RE15, N540 and 550)and lots of brass (loads get pretty warm - cases may be tossed after one firing) for performance at 1000 yards. On the other hand, a warmish 90 grain load will remain supersonic @ 1000 yards, whereas anything short of a really hot 80 grain load won't.

If you plan on building an 80+ grain projectile, the following criteria must apply:

• Thick jacket. A standard J4 jacket for .22 projectiles is too thin (and to short). Projectiles will fail in flight. Jimmy Knox (JLK) uses a 6mm jacket on his 90s for this reason;
• Projectile performance must be consistent between batches. Nothing kills your reputation faster than a bad batch of bullets, or an inconsistent product;
• Good accuracy. Don't bother selling projectiles to competitors if they don't group consistently within a production lot. Or between batches. Longer (heavier) projectiles are more difficult to get to shoot properly because the aerodynamic and mass centers are further apart;
• Explicitly state the twist rate needed to stabilize the projectile. As mentioned faster twists are needed with the longer projectile.
• Due to the proliferation of chamber profiles available, if you produce the projectile, you also must specify chamber/throat dimensions with the load data. 90 Grain loads generally need to be seated longer to maximize powder capacity, and to avoid damage to the projectile base on firing. Most .223 reamers will not allow a 90 to be loaded and still shoot accurately.

Extra mass alone is not sufficient to improve projectile performance (it helps some). Projectile form may also be different. Depending on aerodynamics, a secant nose profile may be a better choice than a tangent one. And BC values alone do not tell the whole story behind projectile behavior. A high BC may be impressive, but it doesn't do beans if the projectile simply refuses to group well because of inherent design deficiencies.

 

[kjd]

For 300-600 yards, 77 grain HPBTs work fine for magazine length projectiles.
For 300 to 900 yards, 80 grain HPBTs work. Even at 1000, it is possible to get accuracy, despite the projectiles being subsonic.

The 90s from JLK and Sierra need special twists (7 for the Sierra - not so bad. JLKs need 6.5" twists), different powders (RE15, N540 and 550)and lots of brass (loads get pretty warm - cases may be tossed after one firing) for performance at 1000 yards. On the other hand, a warmish 90 grain load will remain supersonic @ 1000 yards, whereas anything short of a really hot 80 grain load won't.

If you plan on building an 80+ grain projectile, the following criteria must apply:

• Thick jacket. A standard J4 jacket for .22 projectiles is too thin (and to short). Projectiles will fail in flight. Jimmy Knox (JLK) uses a 6mm jacket on his 90s for this reason;
• Projectile performance must be consistent between batches. Nothing kills your reputation faster than a bad batch of bullets, or an inconsistent product;
• Good accuracy. Don't bother selling projectiles to competitors if they don't group consistently within a production lot. Or between batches. Longer (heavier) projectiles are more difficult to get to shoot properly because the aerodynamic and mass centers are further apart;
• Explicitly state the twist rate needed to stabilize the projectile. As mentioned faster twists are needed with the longer projectile.
• Due to the proliferation of chamber profiles available, if you produce the projectile, you also must specify chamber/throat dimensions with the load data. 90 Grain loads generally need to be seated longer to maximize powder capacity, and to avoid damage to the projectile base on firing. Most .223 reamers will not allow a 90 to be loaded and still shoot accurately.

Extra mass alone is not sufficient to improve projectile performance (it helps some). Projectile form may also be different. Depending on aerodynamics, a secant nose profile may be a better choice than a tangent one. And BC values alone do not tell the whole story behind projectile behavior. A high BC may be impressive, but it doesn't do beans if the projectile simply refuses to group well because of inherent design deficiencies.

And here I was thinking that Nosler were the experts LoL...

Actually your post is very specific to 223 shooters.. I know someone who shoots F class with a 22-250 AI and uses 80grain projectiles which are well and truely still supersonic at 1000m. I am sure he is not the only one that shoots long range with a 22 other then a 223.

 

[Asa Yam]

Actually your post is very specific to 223 shooters.. I know someone who shoots F class with a 22-250 AI and uses 80grain projectiles which are well and truely still supersonic at 1000m. I am sure he is not the only one that shoots long range with a 22 other then a 223.

KJD,
Note that I mentioned that fact in the header of my first post. And there is good reason for making this discussion lean towards the .223. Worldwide, the overwhelming majority of heavy .224 caliber projectiles are fired from rifles chambered in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO. I've met people shooting F-Class with .22-250s, and even .22-240 Weatherbys. For every one of them, there are at least ten competitors using a .223. Some ranges are even caliber restricted - the performance envelope (range resulting from the combination of BC & velocity) of certain combinations exceeds the size of the impact area. With 80-90 grain projectiles, a .22-250AI (or even a regular .22-250) will exceed the safety fan of most of these restricted ranges, while a .223 will not.

In fact, ALL 60+ grain .224 caliber match projectiles were originally developed to improved performance from the .223 Remington cartridge. Sierra introduced the 69 grain projectile around 1998-1990, and the 80 around 1996. And they weren't the first - they followed innovators like Jimmy Knox and Walt Berger, both of whom were about 2-5 years ahead.

Problem is that specialty bullet makers can't manufacture in sufficient quantity to meet the demand. And because of the relative lack of product, they also can't drive demand, short of having a competitor producing a similar product. Jimmy Knox's 90s were originally developed for .223 shooters for 1000 yard work, because standard combinations of powder/brass/bullet were not capable of maintaining Mach 1 at the target without resorting to over pressure loads. (Even 90 grain loads for 1000 yards are fairly stout.) Knox was (and still is) unable to meet all the demand for 90s, and few shooters are willing to use a product that is:

• Difficult to find.
• Still relatively untried after 5-6 years. There have been a few successes using 90s, a slightly larger number of experiments, and a few users have sworn them off entirely due to "accuracy issues" or "can't get them to shoot consistently".
• Requires a faster than normal twist barrel (also relatively difficult to find - there are currently two manufacturers of 6.5" twist, .224 caliber barrels in the US that I'm aware of).
• Requires a different throat reamer. The reamer used for 90 grain projectiles is longer than most used for projectiles weighing 80 grains and less. There are concerns with reduced accuracy life due to excessive bullet jump.
• Almost requires the use of certain propellants. Best reported results usually specify Alliant Reloader 15, or Vhitavouri N540/550. All three of these powders are temperature sensitive. Remember, I mentioned that many 1000 yard loads using 90s are borderline for pressure? A temperature sensitive powder can put you over the edge on a warm day.

Re: Nosler's question

Is there a reason to shoot heavier than 77 & 80 grains?

The reason to go to a 90 is very cartridge and distance specific. Beyond 900 yards, a .223 Remington with 80s cannot reliably keep the projectile supersonic with loads that do not exceed SAAMI maximums, especially when using 20" long AR15 barrels. Going to a heavier projectile gives you an increased BC which (hopefully) delays the subsonic transistion beyond 1000 yards. It also gives you less wind drift. However, going to a 90 requires a large number of compromises, which many shooters are currently unwilling to make. Part of this is due to a limited knowledge base on how to build a suitable package of rifle and ammunition. Part of this is a lack of ranges, or the unwillingness of shooters to shoot at longer ranges. A very large reason is because "nobody else is using them" - this is because the bullets currently just aren't available.

 

[NOSLER]

That was our thought. We are always curious to hear what other shooters are thinking and since we can't be at the range with you, what trends are becoming popular.

 

[Sharpsman]

Couldn't help but sit here and shake my head while reading about the .223 round being seriously considered by some for shooting at 1000 yds.! I've cussed the folks that came up with this as a Service Rifle/Cartridge since the friggin thing first came out and a lot of the info I'm getting from guys in Iraq/Afghanistan is that they've learned to hate it more than I do.....and that's going some!! Frankly...IMO....it makes a good rifle/cartridge for shooting turtles off of logs and for a Service Rifle/Cartridge.....it SUCKS BIGTIME!!

My friend Carlos Hathcock (deceased) had it pretty much RIGHT ON when he made the statement that "there aren't enough men in the upper echelon of the military today that know enough about marksmanship to make up a baseball team".....and IMO.....that goes for the DUMB-ASSES within the DOD that came up with a recommendation to adopt the M-16 as a Service Rifle!! :evil: :evil:

 

[Asa Yam]

Couldn't help but sit here and shake my head while reading about the .223 round being seriously considered by some for shooting at 1000 yds.!...

Your lack of participation in NRA 1000 yard highpower matches is evident. AR-15s and M16s have been successfully used for 1000 yard competition for many years. While doing so obviously places the shooter at a slight disadvantage (compared to a shooter using a cartridge and rifle giving better ballistic performance), it's still the skill of the shooter that makes a significant difference.

I've shot a .223 in competition at 1000 yards, and have finished quite high in the fiinal standings. Did I have to work harder than the competition? Yes. But the difference in windage wasn't much, compared to a 155 grain .30 caliber projectile, traveling at 2950 FPS.

 

[Sharpsman]

Couldn't help but sit here and shake my head while reading about the .223 round being seriously considered by some for shooting at 1000 yds.!...

Your lack of participation in NRA 1000 yard highpower matches is evident. AR-15s and M16s have been successfully used for 1000 yard competition for many years. While doing so obviously places the shooter at a slight disadvantage (compared to a shooter using a cartridge and rifle giving better ballistic performance), it's still the skill of the shooter that makes a significant difference.

I've shot a .223 in competition at 1000 yards, and have finished quite high in the fiinal standings. Did I have to work harder than the competition? Yes. But the difference in windage wasn't much, compared to a 155 grain .30 caliber projectile, traveling at 2950 FPS.

Asa Yam

I'm very aware of all that! And to make it somewhat 'competitive'.....the friggin thing has to be loaded to the point whereby the cases are JUNK.....after a one time firing! And....there's a vast world of difference in the accuracy potential of a 'worked over' M-16 and the rifle that's issued to the frontline troops!! IMO....it's still a piece of JUNK for a Service Rifle and the ONLY REASON it's been somewhat successful in competition is because IT IS THE CURRENT SERVICE RIFLE and the Service Teams are REQUIRED to shoot it!! :evil: :evil:

 

[Asa Yam]

And....there's a vast world of difference in the accuracy potential of a 'worked over' M-16 and the rifle that's issued to the frontline troops!!

I don't fully agree with this assessment.

• Standard service rifle - Yes. Issued rifles are getting better. Some now sport free floated handguards, though triggers still suck, and sights don't have adjustments as fine as their match tuned brethern.
  
• DMR versions of M16s or M4s - NO. US Army Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR) versions of the M16 and M4 are match grade upgrades of issued rifles.

IMO....it's still a piece of JUNK for a Service Rifle...

I, and many others, DO NOT SHARE your opinion.

• I've shot thousands of rounds through service and match grade versions of both the M14 and the M16 (and/or civilian versions of all four). I've had more failures to feed and broken parts when using M14s than I ever had with M16s.
  
• The Army Marksmanship Unit (AMU) drew a "like new" example of an M14 for use as a control during a test of DMR rifles. When fed M80 ball ammo (147 grain FMJBT service ammunition @ 2800 FPS), the control rifle shot 7 MOA groups at 100 yards. Even with bad lots of M855 (62 grain FMJBT @ 3000 FPS), an M16A2 can be expected to shoot 3.5 MOA groups @ 100 yards.
  
• The US Army conducted surveys of troops in Iraq circa 2003 re: their equipment. 80% Of replies indicated confidence in thier M4 carbines. A similar survey by the US Marine Corps showed a similar overwhelming majority of Marines had faith in their M16A2s and M16A4s.

...and the ONLY REASON it's been somewhat successful in competition...

Somewhat successful? Really?

• EVERY US Service Rifle Championship since at least 1998 has been won using the M16 or clones. 9+ Straight wins is one heck of a fluke.
  
• Virtually ALL new records set by service members since 1997 (with the exception of 1000 yard "match" or "any rifle" events, and the current sitting rapid fire record) have been set using M16 type rifles.
  
• The first score of 500 fired by an INDIVIDUAL (i.e., not part of a team match) was set by a shooter using an AR-15 Match Rifle (i.e., not a Service Rifle configuration). The shooter's score was 500-30x, out of a 500-50x possible.

...is because IT IS THE CURRENT SERVICE RIFLE and the Service Teams are REQUIRED to shoot it!!

• AMU is required to use the M16 for Service Rifle matches. Given the choice between an M14 and M16, I'd think most members would choose to use the M16 out to 1000.
  
• The US Marine Corps Rifle Team issues M16s for matches out to 600 yards. I believe they still have M14s available for 1000 yard matches. Some accurized M14s remain in use by post and station teams - most have switched to the M16 due to cost and logistics issues.
  
• The US Navy Rifle Team has both M14s and M16s. It is the shooter's discretion as to which rifle to draw from the armorer's van. Given the choice, most opting to draw a rifle for matches out to 600 yards choose the M16. Since the Navy Team doesn't load special ammunition for use out to 1000 yards (they use Mk 262 Mod 1 - 77 grain Sierra @ 2800 FPS - or an equivalent thereof in accurized M16s), the M14 with M118LR (175 grain Sierra @ 2600 FPS) is the preferred combination for long range.

FACTS About The M16:

• It is cheaper and easier to produce a rack grade AR type rifle, compared to an M1 or M14. And much less manpower intensive to assemble one.
  
• It is far easier to build an accurized M16, compared to accurizing an M1 or M14. Sub-MOA ARs can be assembled using off-the-shelf parts - little or no fitting required. Similar achievements in accuracy with off-the-shelf components and an M1 or M14 type rifle is unlikely.
  
• For civilians, an M16 type rifle costs 1/2 to 2/3 of what a similar grade M14 does. The cost to accurize an M16 rifle is lower than for an M1 or M14. The cost to operate and maintain an M16 type rifle is about HALF that of an M1 or M14.
  
• As mentioned above, an M16 breaks fewer parts over a given number of rounds.
  
• The average score for earning awards in "Excellence in Competition" matches has INCREASED since widespread adoption of the M16 (and clones) around 1996.

And finally....

• Following adoption of the M16 rifle, the US Army was forced to change the course of fire for qualifying with a rifle. Why? Because TOO MANY troops (>40% in more than one case) qualified as "Expert" when shooting M16s on the qual course of fire used with the M14.

 

[Sharpsman]

Asa Yam

You have your opinions.....I HAVE MINE!

You won't change MY OPINION.....that the M16 is still A PIECE OF JUNK!!

It's also quite obvious......that you haven't read any reports/critiques from frontline troops whom 'lamblast' the performance of the rifle.....and the cartridge from some "Gunnys"....one in particular from a Sgt. Major within the USMC!! This report/critique was so unique that it found it's way to the Commandant of the USMC! If I had saved that documnet I'd post it here but save it I didn't!

I'm real proud you love this rifle! What I'm wondering is.....how well you'd like/love it....if your boots were on the ground in Iraq/Afghanistan maybe trying to put some rounds through a cinder-block wall....which is by reports a totally useless effort.....while you would be watching insurgents putting their rounds from an AK-47 through the same type wall as if it were 'hot butter'!! :roll: :roll:

There's a helluva lot of difference between a competitive rifle match where everything is nice and clean and a combat zone that's filled with smoke, grim, crud galore, and not knowing whether your 'piss ant' rifle is going to operate when needed....or not!!

The M16 is JUNK.....has been JUNK since it's birth.....and will continue to be JUNK! :evil: :evil:

At best....is that we can only agree to DISAGREE on this subject!! :shock:

 

[Asa Yam]

Asa Yam

You have your opinions.....I HAVE MINE!

You won't change MY OPINION.....that the M16 is still A PIECE OF JUNK!!

It's also quite obvious......that you haven't read any reports/critiques from frontline troops whom 'lamblast' the performance of the rifle.....and the cartridge from some "Gunnys"....one in particular from a Sgt. Major within the USMC!! This report/critique was so unique that it found it's way to the Commandant of the USMC! If I had saved that documnet I'd post it here but save it I didn't!

Oh, I've read the reports.

The M-16 rifle: The USMC seems to think the 5.56mm is sufficiently lethal. See http://www.elementconcepts.com/reference/USMCOIFDB.pdf , page 6. (NOTE: Link no longer works. The link was to a copy of the US Marine Corps Lessons Learned from OIF.)

5.56mm “definitely answered the mail” and “as long as the shots were in the head or chest they went down” were typical quotes from several Marines; many who were previously very skeptical of 5.56mm ammunition. (Emphasis mine - Asa.) Most of the interviewed Marines who reported targets not going down and/or could still fight were referencing non-lethal shots to the extremities. There were reports of targets receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories need not be described, but are of the rare superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round." (Emphasis mine.)

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ns_peo.doc (Operation Iraqi Freedom PEO Soldier Lessons Learned), Page 2:

M4: Soldiers were very satisfied with this weapon. It performed well in a demanding environment (Emphasis mine)especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics. As one Brigade Commander said “The M4 with PEQ and PAC provided overmatch over our threat equipped with AK47s and RPGs.” The general consensus is that every rifleman wants the M4 vice the M16A2.

From http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm (PROJECT MANAGER SOLDIER WEAPONS, SOLDIER WEAPONS ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT 6-03, OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, 31 July 2003)

Section I. M16 Series of Assault Weapons, 5.56mm Ammunition, and Accessories
General discussion:

The US Army executed OIF with three variants of the M16 series of assault weapons: the M16A2, the M16A4, and the M4 Carbine (hereafter referred to as M16 series). The latter two were configured as Modular Weapon Systems in units so equipped. A fourth version, the M4A1, was used by Special Operations Forces but was not encountered by the assessment team.

The M16 series received widespread praise for its durability and reliability. (Emphasis mine.) A few soldiers expressed a desire to be able to fire the weapon after pulling it out of the dirt (“like you can do with the AK” was the perception), but there were no trends of poor reliability. This may be attributed in part to the ease of maintenance reported by the soldiers. While keeping the weapons clean in this environment was a continuous requirement it was not considered to be a difficult one.

Most soldiers considered The M16 series to be very accurate regardless of the version used or the sighting system employed. One sniper team spotter employed his M16A4 (equipped with a high powered scope) against targets at 600 and 800 meters with first round hits in each case. (Emphasis mine.)

Those units equipped with the Rail Adapter System (RAS) were very happy with its modularity and flexibility of employment. Most units allowed soldiers to place accessories on the Modular Weapon System where they best suited the individual. Some units prescribed weapon configuration in their standard operating procedures. Many soldiers stated that the RAS should be an integral part of the weapon rather than an adapter kit.

In the discussion with field units there were no quality issues with ammunition from the production facility. Consensus of the troops is that this weapon/ammunition is effective for its intended purposes. Ammunition was correctly marked and packaged and there were no incidents of defective materials, damaged or dented rounds etc.

And

Operational Suitability:

The Iraqi desert was very challenging and harsh, but the current weapons, ammunition and accessories the soldiers took to battle functioned, withstood the elements and were lethal. The weapons that stood-out were the M2 HMG, M240B MMG and the M4 MWS. The M2 HMG and M240B MMG were praised mostly for their ruggedness and reliability. The weapon’s reliability was most important to the soldiers. (Emphasis mine.) The M4 MWS’ modularity, size and weight was well received by soldiers issued this weapon system. It enabled soldiers to conduct clearing operations in urban terrain and easily transition from day to night operations.

Although the M4 MWS was reliable, the team observed light primer indentation occurrences in the M16 series rifles: M4s and M16s. As soldiers locked, loaded and cleared weapons prior to and after operations or as directed, the primer was indented. Upon return to CONUS discussions with weapons engineers revealed that each time a cartridge is chambered in an M16 Series Rifle or M4 Series Carbine, a slight indentation is made on the primer. This is caused by contact of the free-floating firing pin against the cartridge primer as the bolt closes. This is a function associated with normal operation of the weapon. The Army conducted tests to investigate the effects of multiple detents on 5.56mm ammunition. No slam fire, or accidental discharges occurred.

However, cartridges are not intended to be repeatedly re-chambered as this may de-sensitize the primer and/or deform the body of the cartridge case sufficiently to cause misfires. The potential for a misfire may occur in as few as 10 to 20 lock and load cycles of the same cartridge. No misfire occurrences were directly observed from indentations but soldiers relayed some occurrences of accidental discharges when going through the clearing procedures and one soldier experienced a misfire – from a round cycled through the chamber numerous times. Further testing is planned to more accurately quantify these conditions and establish the need of a Maintenance Advisory Message (MAM).

As stated above, soldiers rank reliability and durability as key weapon characteristics and are not willing to trade them for anything – to include weight. Similarly, soldiers do not consider the weapon as part of their load, but rather as an enabler. They are willing to carry the weight if the weapon or device increases his lethality. This is best illustrated by soldiers purchasing their own magnified optics and the strong desire to carry an additional sidearm or shotgun for defensive and offensive purposes. Lethality is more important to the soldier than any other consideration or factor.

And finally...

Lethality:

It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact, but there were some exceptions. The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced or desired “better knock-down power” or a larger caliber bullet did not have actual close engagements. (Emphasis mine.) Those that had close engagements and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) – controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue. Most that had to engage a target repeatedly remarked that they hit the target in non-vital areas such as the extremities. Some targets were reportedly hit in the chest numerous times, but required at least one shot to the head to defeat it. No lethality issues were voiced with targets engaged at 200 meters and beyond. It is apparent that with proper shot placement and marksmanship training, the M855 ammunition is lethal in close and long range.

What I'm wondering is.....how well you'd like/love it....if your boots were on the ground in Iraq/Afghanistan...

From http://www.odcmp.org/new_forum/topic.as ... hichpage=3

The last time I faced bad guys was in 2003 on an airfield in western Iraq, armed with an M4. I would much rather have had a full-length M16 to go with the 400 rounds of 5.56 I was carrying, to dominate everything i could see out to 500. I could NOT have carried that equivalent load in 7.62 for the weight. I have full confidence in my ability to kill a target to 500 yards with a base iron sight M16.

The author of the above is a Green Beret LTC. Who also happens to be an avid rifle competitor (he's Distinguished), and the former Commanding Officer of the AMU.

...maybe trying to put some rounds through a cinder-block wall....which is by reports a totally useless effort.....while you would be watching insurgents putting their rounds from an AK-47 through the same type wall as if it were 'hot butter'!!

Yeah, right. Appendix C of "Weapons Effects and Employment in an Urban Environment, by Tactics Group, The Basic School (USMC), MCCDC, Quantico, Va." ( http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ppendc.htm ) has this to say about 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO performance against a 12 inch cinder block, filled with sand:

• 5.56 NATO: Penetration is unlikely with the first round, but subsequent ones are likely to cause a breach. Creating a firing loophole through one of these requires about 35 rounds.
• 7.62 NATO: Penetration on the first round. Creating a loophole requires 18 rounds.

There's a helluva lot of difference between a competitive rifle match where everything is nice and clean and a combat zone that's filled with smoke, grim, crud galore, and not knowing whether your 'piss ant' rifle is going to operate when needed....or not!!

As shown above, troops currently in the field largely agree the M16 is both reliable and lethal. And if you are familiar with operating the rifle on the range, running one on the battlefield becomes less of a challenge.

 

[dsp763]

Thanks for Your plethora of well referenced information on the m16/ar15 rifle. I went out and bought one 2 weeks ago.

My rifle:
New built colt hbar sporter, very rare Kart 20" fluted barrel 8.2 twist, wonderful single stage trigger, short extension between buttstock and rifle, NM sights, floated hand guard, etc.) built by Otto Matyska (OTTOCOMP) in St. Louis Mo.

Bullets to try:
magazine length - 77 gr nosler, 77gr berger
single feed - 75 hornady AMAX, 80gr sierra

I plan on using rx15 for bullet testing (have n140, h4895, varget for later)

Stoney Point tool gives me the following oal for ogive to toch lands in my barrel :
Sierra 80 - 2.445
Hornady 75 AMAX - 2.441
Berger 77 match - 2.326
Nosler 77 CC - 2.271 (2.266 will feed and looks good on paper)

Questions :

1. What sizing die do You recomend ?

2. What bullet seating die do You recomend ?

3. Opinion on Bob Jones lenses for NM sights ? (I have 59 yr old bad eyes)

4. Bullet jump ?

5. Velocity ? (I have a chronograph)

6. Single round firing procedure ?

7. Using mutiple uppers on my colt lower ? (i think i want an extra toy/varmint upper in 204 ruger)

8. single stage vs. two stage trigger

Thanks again for helping educate and inform this old prejudiced shooter to accept the fact that the AR15/M16 is now the best in the world.