-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Sleuthing the Federal Gold Medal match load... Mk 316 Mod 0?
- Thread starter Dan Newberry
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fgmm
It looks like they've just got pretty firm neck tension, but no discernible crimp... not in the stuff I've looked at recently. But maybe others lots in times past may have been taper crimped just a bit... I can't say.
Mr. Newberry--
Thank you so very much for sharing your expertise. I never would have thought of using IMR 4064 without this thread.
I threw together 4 sets of 5 cartridges, based on your recommedations. Target was at 200 yards.
Baseline FGMM 175 grain:
Start load, 41.7 grains 4064:
Last load in range, 42.3 grains 4064:
I'd call that pretty painless load development.
Notes: Brass was Lake City Long Range 07, powder was recent production IMR 4064, bullets were 175 gr Sierra Match King, seated to FGMM OAL (slightly shorter than than OAL in my Sierra manual), temp was hovering around 27 degrees.
Thanks again.
Thank you so very much for sharing your expertise. I never would have thought of using IMR 4064 without this thread.
I threw together 4 sets of 5 cartridges, based on your recommedations. Target was at 200 yards.
Baseline FGMM 175 grain:
Start load, 41.7 grains 4064:
Last load in range, 42.3 grains 4064:
I'd call that pretty painless load development.
Notes: Brass was Lake City Long Range 07, powder was recent production IMR 4064, bullets were 175 gr Sierra Match King, seated to FGMM OAL (slightly shorter than than OAL in my Sierra manual), temp was hovering around 27 degrees.
Thanks again.
Good thread to watch, and now with news to help this one 
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/options-accessories-sale/183787-hide-seek-74.html#post2892034
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/options-accessories-sale/183787-hide-seek-74.html#post2892034
Mr. Newberry--
Thank you so very much for sharing your expertise. I never would have thought of using IMR 4064 without this thread.
I threw together 4 sets of 5 cartridges, based on your recommedations. Target was at 200 yards.
Baseline FGMM 175 grain:
Start load, 41.7 grains 4064:
Last load in range, 42.3 grains 4064:
I'd call that pretty painless load development.
Notes: Brass was Lake City Long Range 07, powder was recent production IMR 4064, bullets were 175 gr Sierra Match King, seated to FGMM OAL (slightly shorter than than OAL in my Sierra manual), temp was hovering around 27 degrees.
Thanks again.
I was thinking that's an "ok" load for 100 yards. Then I realized it was a 200 yard group.
I'd say yeah, you've done quite well!
Great thread and video. Thanks Dan.
I must admit, I was shocked to see such tight tolerances between loaded rounds. Thats crazy.
I wouldnt be so shocked if it were lapua brass, carefully hand measured powder and say, Lapua L Scenars. But for factory stuff thats amazing.
I must admit, I was shocked to see such tight tolerances between loaded rounds. Thats crazy.
I wouldnt be so shocked if it were lapua brass, carefully hand measured powder and say, Lapua L Scenars. But for factory stuff thats amazing.
Tagging for reference. I'm going to try to replicate 168SMK FGMM off of one of the earlier posts.
Thanks for posting this!
Thanks for posting this!
Jumping in on your thread and hope you don't mind.
Did some pull-down measurements and got the following. I was going to pull-down 10 rounds of each but stopped at 4 since it was late.
I will save some time and give you my avg. over those 4 loads
FGMM 175g - Bullet = 183.3g
Powder = 44.4g
Case w/primer = 189.1g
Total weight of round = 416.8
M118LR (2004) - Bullet = 181.8g
Powder = 45g
Case = 189.9
Total weight of round = 416.9
Over the two compared loads the various components varied in weights. I noticed a pattern that when the bullet weight increased the powder load for that round was slightly lower. But the variance between the avg. rounds was 0.1g
The posted build sheet was from 2009. Not sure of the build plans prior to that since mine was 2004. The FGMM I used was purchased last year.
From comparing the powders side by side...I say both "look" like some RL-15 I have. I also have IMR 4064 and the kernels of that powder just seemed a little more longer.
I have been trying to load a long range hunting round with similar or better ballistics than FGMM using Nosler 180g BTs.
I know I could go buy FGMM with 175g Gamekings and probably make a ragged hole but where's the fun in that? FGMM 175's...my rifle loves it! Constantly 1/3 MOA or less at 100yd if I do my part and the wind is in my favor.
So all this makes me think that Federal seems to have a way of measuring each bullet and adjusting powder charge depending on said weight of bullet. Brass is more consistent than bullets and powder from my findings. But between the FGMM and M118LR...the M118LR is more consistent when it comes to the numbers but it just doesn't group like the FGMM.
Almost forgot OAL's
FGMM - 2.8"
M118LR - 2.815"
Did some pull-down measurements and got the following. I was going to pull-down 10 rounds of each but stopped at 4 since it was late.
I will save some time and give you my avg. over those 4 loads
FGMM 175g - Bullet = 183.3g
Powder = 44.4g
Case w/primer = 189.1g
Total weight of round = 416.8
M118LR (2004) - Bullet = 181.8g
Powder = 45g
Case = 189.9
Total weight of round = 416.9
Over the two compared loads the various components varied in weights. I noticed a pattern that when the bullet weight increased the powder load for that round was slightly lower. But the variance between the avg. rounds was 0.1g
The posted build sheet was from 2009. Not sure of the build plans prior to that since mine was 2004. The FGMM I used was purchased last year.
From comparing the powders side by side...I say both "look" like some RL-15 I have. I also have IMR 4064 and the kernels of that powder just seemed a little more longer.
I have been trying to load a long range hunting round with similar or better ballistics than FGMM using Nosler 180g BTs.
I know I could go buy FGMM with 175g Gamekings and probably make a ragged hole but where's the fun in that? FGMM 175's...my rifle loves it! Constantly 1/3 MOA or less at 100yd if I do my part and the wind is in my favor.
So all this makes me think that Federal seems to have a way of measuring each bullet and adjusting powder charge depending on said weight of bullet. Brass is more consistent than bullets and powder from my findings. But between the FGMM and M118LR...the M118LR is more consistent when it comes to the numbers but it just doesn't group like the FGMM.
Almost forgot OAL's
FGMM - 2.8"
M118LR - 2.815"
Last edited:
That probably is RL15... but that's a HEAVY charge of it, I know that when Lake City first started loading the RL15 the initial charges of M118LR were loaded too hot, and they did poorly in the middle east where temps go well above 100 degrees F. Many of us, upon seeing how much RL15 Lake City was using in those M118LR loads opined that they were going to have trouble with them. And they did... later, they dropped the charge to the next lower node, at just over 43 grains.
As to the charge weight you found in that older FGMM, it's heavy too, and would probably render that brass near useless after the initial firing. I had a lot of that stuff at one time, and found exactly that, when I shot it in tight chambered Savage factory rifles.
Dan
As to the charge weight you found in that older FGMM, it's heavy too, and would probably render that brass near useless after the initial firing. I had a lot of that stuff at one time, and found exactly that, when I shot it in tight chambered Savage factory rifles.
Dan
Last edited:
Dan,
I pulled down different lots of LC M118LR cartridges produced after Federal/ATK took over production at LCAAP trying to get a handle on what made the cartridge tick. Looking at my notes, these are a couple charge weights I came up with (below). Don't know how much RL15 Federal/ATK used in earlier production M118LR as I never could find any earlier lots to pull down.
Edit: Thanks for the IMR 4064 data!
LC LR 01 Headstamp (2002 LOT): 43.1gr. RL15/case weight with unfired primer 183.4gr.
LC LR 05 Headstamp (2005 LOT): 43.5gr. RL15/case weight with unfired primer 184.1gr.
I pulled down different lots of LC M118LR cartridges produced after Federal/ATK took over production at LCAAP trying to get a handle on what made the cartridge tick. Looking at my notes, these are a couple charge weights I came up with (below). Don't know how much RL15 Federal/ATK used in earlier production M118LR as I never could find any earlier lots to pull down.
Edit: Thanks for the IMR 4064 data!
LC LR 01 Headstamp (2002 LOT): 43.1gr. RL15/case weight with unfired primer 183.4gr.
LC LR 05 Headstamp (2005 LOT): 43.5gr. RL15/case weight with unfired primer 184.1gr.
Last edited:
Had to jump in with a quick question. Maybe I misunderstood but I thought the 118lr was loaded into lake city brass not federal. Is this correct?
I thought in the FGMM Unlocked thread they posted they found 42.5 gr +/- .2gr. Or was that a different load they switched from?
I've also been doing a lot of digging and it seems about 42.7 gr of IMR 4895 should replicate the 42.7 of IMR4064. At least from factory published data. Seems at the lower scales the IMR 4064 takes more powder to get the numbers just ahead of IMR4895, but when you get to the max charges the IMR4895 is identical pressure and muzzle numbers at the max with 0.5 gr less powder than the 4064. So in the middle charges 42.5 to 43.5 should have identical performance and numbers of 4064 behind the 168 projectile at OAL 2.800.
I'm going to load up a few batches of IMR4895 @ 42.5 to 43.5 and see what numbers and data I get to confirm the data I pulled from the IMR data sheets. And its well below max of both powders so I don't have much to worry about with over pressure at these numbers to need a work up.
Great video. I like seeing that I'm not the only one trying to unlock these powders and get whats behind these factory match magic bullets and be able to unlock the magic in my own testing.
Last edited:
And for those wondering of the process and how FGMM holds such tight and great automated lots Im sure its close if not the same as Black Hills assembly line.. Ill just leave this here
Gun Talk: Inside Black Hills Ammunition - Ep 9, Pt 1 - YouTube
Came across this on my research as dan was doing. But he beat me to it. Actually how I came across this thread and Dans video.
Gun Talk: Inside Black Hills Ammunition - Ep 9, Pt 1 - YouTube
Came across this on my research as dan was doing. But he beat me to it. Actually how I came across this thread and Dans video.
That's what I was thinking. I think the most I have ever seen was +- .4 grains from what they were supposed to be.
Interesting comment:
"So all this makes me think that Federal seems to have a way of measuring each bullet and adjusting powder charge depending on said weight of bullet. Brass is more consistent than bullets and powder from my findings. But between the FGMM and M118LR...the M118LR is more consistent when it comes to the numbers but it just doesn't group like the FGMM." (gaowensjr)
Have read many times that weighing cases is a waste of time, but have not considered any sort of linear formula that would compensate the weight of the cartridge brass by varying the amount of propellant. What most people attempt to do is group brass by weight, (if they do it at all) and load an exact amount of propellant.
I suppose somebody could write a program for each powder and meter the weight of powder for each case. They have high speed "check weighers" in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries which accept a target weight and reject high and low weights. I have seen these machines in operation, but they always dump an identical amount of powder, (theoretically) at least. edit: done with an electronic timer and a spin plate
It's just possible Federal is doing something like this, custom loading every case, in effect? BB
"So all this makes me think that Federal seems to have a way of measuring each bullet and adjusting powder charge depending on said weight of bullet. Brass is more consistent than bullets and powder from my findings. But between the FGMM and M118LR...the M118LR is more consistent when it comes to the numbers but it just doesn't group like the FGMM." (gaowensjr)
Have read many times that weighing cases is a waste of time, but have not considered any sort of linear formula that would compensate the weight of the cartridge brass by varying the amount of propellant. What most people attempt to do is group brass by weight, (if they do it at all) and load an exact amount of propellant.
I suppose somebody could write a program for each powder and meter the weight of powder for each case. They have high speed "check weighers" in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries which accept a target weight and reject high and low weights. I have seen these machines in operation, but they always dump an identical amount of powder, (theoretically) at least. edit: done with an electronic timer and a spin plate
It's just possible Federal is doing something like this, custom loading every case, in effect? BB
Last edited:
Bradu... should be about 2.800" or very close to that. It will vary due to bullet variations a bit... but average of 2.800 is what you'll find.
I just bought some of these componets to see how they do against FGMM. In my 308's the FGMM shoots very well so when I hand load I want to duplicate it. Then I can swap to and from with no zero or dope changes.
Is the 308 and 7.62x51 FGMM the same other than crimped brass?
But now I have bought a few thousand of SWA 175 and ML188LR to see how they compare. The SWA ammo I bought before seemed to be loaded about the same as the Federal.
Dan, any chance of you sleuthing Hornady 168 AMAX ammo? Those are my 2 main loads
Is the 308 and 7.62x51 FGMM the same other than crimped brass?
But now I have bought a few thousand of SWA 175 and ML188LR to see how they compare. The SWA ammo I bought before seemed to be loaded about the same as the Federal.
Dan, any chance of you sleuthing Hornady 168 AMAX ammo? Those are my 2 main loads
Hornady will often come right out and tell you what powder they're using... give them a call and if you get the right tech, he will probably tell you how to duplicate the Hornady factory load. I've yet to have any of the Hornady techs claim the "proprietary powder" thing...
The Federal GMM is not crimped as best I can tell. It's got strong neck tension, but not crimped. Keeping the neck tension consistent is very important to good accuracy, and will of course be important to duplicating Federal's factory ammo performance.
The Federal GMM is not crimped as best I can tell. It's got strong neck tension, but not crimped. Keeping the neck tension consistent is very important to good accuracy, and will of course be important to duplicating Federal's factory ammo performance.
The .308 line of match ammo including the AMAX bullets uses Varget in the cases. I have talked to many a tech over there and even pulled a few apart, the powder has always looked like Varget. Unless something has changed over the last year, which I doubt use Varget for cloning a Hornady load.
Thanks for putting this together Dan! What would you say the temperature sensitivity of this load would be? Do you think it would vary as much as the RL-15 load where I *think I read somewhere it was around 1 fps per 1 degree F?
I'll do you one better. I have 1 old Hornady 155 bullet I found in my ammo can from like 5 years ago. I'll pull that and weigh the charge. Anyone have a 168gr Varget load they have preforms the same as Hornady in their rifle they would gladly post to compare?
I have both 168 Amax's and Varget but have not tried that combo or worked a load as of yet. Nor do I have any Hornady match to compare it to. Stop buying since I stat reloading.
Last edited:
Broke apart the Hornady Match round I had. Came out to 44.0 grains exactly. This is a 155gr bullet.
Again its a 155 H-Match round measuring at 44.0gr of what looks almost identical to Varget. Anyone have a 168 and 175 H-Match they can break apart and weigh out?
Again its a 155 H-Match round measuring at 44.0gr of what looks almost identical to Varget. Anyone have a 168 and 175 H-Match they can break apart and weigh out?
Last edited:
CK... that is probably something faster than Varget, but that's just a guess. It may be H4895, or could even be something faster still.
It's a good idea to do comparative volume tests between the unknown powder and the powder you suspect it to be. Dip equal amounts of the powder into a Lee dipper (or just an empty 9mm case, for instance) and see if equal volumes tend to weigh the same. That's a indication whether you can continue to theorize that the powder is "X" powder or not...
What you'd expect from a given amount of the suspect powder is another clue. I think that Varget would not give more than 2650 fps or so from most 308's with 155's in Hornady brass. It might... but I kinda doubt it. The high node would be above 47 grains, the next node down (which they'd probably use) would be just over 46 grains (again, with Varget)... so 44 grains is too slow, I'd say.
But with H4895 you'd come closer to duplicating their load.
If we suspect that H4895 is the powder, the next step is to check book published data, and work up the load. Be sure that 44 grains of H4895 is safe by checking published data, and work up from the published starting loads. This keeps everything safe, and the self-appointed-mall-cops of the internet at bay.
Dan
It's a good idea to do comparative volume tests between the unknown powder and the powder you suspect it to be. Dip equal amounts of the powder into a Lee dipper (or just an empty 9mm case, for instance) and see if equal volumes tend to weigh the same. That's a indication whether you can continue to theorize that the powder is "X" powder or not...
What you'd expect from a given amount of the suspect powder is another clue. I think that Varget would not give more than 2650 fps or so from most 308's with 155's in Hornady brass. It might... but I kinda doubt it. The high node would be above 47 grains, the next node down (which they'd probably use) would be just over 46 grains (again, with Varget)... so 44 grains is too slow, I'd say.
But with H4895 you'd come closer to duplicating their load.
If we suspect that H4895 is the powder, the next step is to check book published data, and work up the load. Be sure that 44 grains of H4895 is safe by checking published data, and work up from the published starting loads. This keeps everything safe, and the self-appointed-mall-cops of the internet at bay.
Dan
Not sure if you saw my video of the powders I'll re post it. I took it down because I found it to be irrelevant..
You say H4895 I know IMR is Hogdon but IIRC those are not the same powders. But similar..
Video -
Hornady uses Varget? - YouTube
Both Hornady's pulled 155gr powder, and Varget.
I'll run the scoop weight test and measure a few grains diameter and length wise when I get home and post back with the results.
You say H4895 I know IMR is Hogdon but IIRC those are not the same powders. But similar..
Video -
Hornady uses Varget? - YouTube
Both Hornady's pulled 155gr powder, and Varget.
I'll run the scoop weight test and measure a few grains diameter and length wise when I get home and post back with the results.
Last edited:
Sounds good... it may be Varget, but that would probably be a slow moving 155 grain load, I would think.
AA4064 is very close to the IMR... it'll work. Maybe just a .2 grain tweak one way or the other, at most.
AA4064 is very close to the IMR... it'll work. Maybe just a .2 grain tweak one way or the other, at most.
That's why I'm hoping someone with a 168 or 175 can pop in and weigh one out. This is a precision forum I'm sure here has to be a ton of guys with at least 1 round of one or the other they can open up.
Give us a better look at what Hornady works with.
Also Hornady's site advertises it's a 2775 FPS bullet...
Last edited:
2775... I really would say that's H4895, but again (I've been wrong before). H4895 and Varget are really hard to tell apart...
H4895 and Varget are really hard to tell apart...
A pet load of mine in my 22" GAP 10 308 using a Nosler 155 CC bullet / 44.0 of H-4895 in a Federal GMM case / Tula primer / gives me an AVG. speed of 2819 FPS.
I have a bunch of 168 AMAX TAP Factory ammunition, but I'm not near my reloading equipment to get a weight on the powder. It will be some time before I can get there.
I shoot a good amount of hand loads using the Hornady 168 A MAX bullet. I've made very accurate loads using: 43.5 Reloader 15 / 43.0 IMR 8208XBR / 43.0 IMR 4064 / 45.0 Varget and 41.0 Alliant AR Comp.
I have a bunch of 168 AMAX TAP Factory ammunition, but I'm not near my reloading equipment to get a weight on the powder. It will be some time before I can get there.
I shoot a good amount of hand loads using the Hornady 168 A MAX bullet. I've made very accurate loads using: 43.5 Reloader 15 / 43.0 IMR 8208XBR / 43.0 IMR 4064 / 45.0 Varget and 41.0 Alliant AR Comp.
2775... I really would say that's H4895, but again (I've been wrong before).
Well that didnt go well...........
Pulled the Hornady bullet again, of course on the swing the cap came off and the bullet came out and the powder flew all over my work bench.. So there goes that. I have all of 15.4gr left of the 44.0 gr charge.. So no more comparing from my end.
All you need is 5 or 6 grains of the powder... fill a 380 shell casing... or 9mm... top it off and weigh the charge several times. Then do the same with Varget, and see how they compare...
Just tried your 9mm case idea and with about 5% case space left with the Hornady stuff came out to 11.5gr.
Varget had about 10% case space to weigh 11.5gr. 5% space was around 12.0 to 12.5gr
IMR4895 with about 5% case left came out to 11.5 exactly as did the Hornady.
But.. The Hornady powder has a little bit of a yellow color to it like my Varget, where my IMR is a flat grey... But my Varget and that Hornady case are both 4+ years old.
The IMR4895 jug I pulled down was no more than a year old, so that could be with the color.
But the 4895 did measure out to the same weight. Varget seemed to be slightly heavier than both the other powders.
We'd be suspecting H4895--not IMR... as you mention, IMR 4895 is dark grey... the H4895 looks much like the Varget.
Along the same lines as the FGMM 175 .308 load, anyone have any idea what the specs on the FGMM 77 gr .223 load are?
FWIW - for recent lots of Varget and H4895, the H4895 is just slightly more gray (less greenish) than the Varget. A kernel of Varget averages between 1.2 and 1.4 mg, whereas a kernel of H4895 averages between 1.0 and 1.2 mg.
FWIW - for recent lots of Varget and H4895, the H4895 is just slightly more gray (less greenish) than the Varget. A kernel of Varget averages between 1.2 and 1.4 mg, whereas a kernel of H4895 averages between 1.0 and 1.2 mg.
Last edited:
