Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

Grand

Grand

Chief - Slappahoe Tribe
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 19, 2005
1,439
97
Kern County, CA
#1
I'm working on a LR load for my AR. From my survey, it appears that the 77g SMK is the overwhelming favorite for LR loads. I wondering why? Based on published information, the Hornady 68g BTHP has a higher B.C. than the 69g SMK, nearly as high as the 77g SMK. With the added velocity, the Hornady shoots flatter with less drift.

69g SMK .305
68g Hornandy .355
77g SMK .362

With a 10 mph cross-wind at 500 yards here is how the numbers stack up:

Bullet Velocity Drop Drift
68g Horn 2750 64.0" 28.8"
68g Horn 2800 61.3" 28.0"
77g SMK 2700 66.3" 28.9"
 
#3
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

I could be wrong but I believe the bullet profile is different between the two. I think the Horn bullet has less surface contact. Sierra bellets are pretty tolerent to jumping them into the lands where some bullet profiles might like to be seated closer. I haven't loaded to much 223 but I have had great results with either in 308.
 
#4
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

I'm not in my reloading room at the momment to see what the differences is.or to take a looksee.but from what I have been able to see by just looking and not really paying to much attention to the difference is the tip.I have noticed that Hornady squares off the tip or it appears to look like its been squared off.when Sierra's tip is smaller with a small meplat.but they both shoot good and the Hornady is cheaper.even the Nosler cc shoots good.I think its just what the mind and pocket wants to shoot.but hey its JMO.
 
#9
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

+1 to NineHotel. If you want to stay loyal to Hornady, step up to their 75gr. BTHP, not the A-Max. Loads mag length like the Sierra 77 and shoots almost as well. Plus it comes 600 to a box vs. 500 Sierras for the same money. No need to get too jumped up over short-line bullets, anyway, as the 68-77 grainers all will do the job out to 300.

AG in NC
 
#10
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: NineHotel</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Buy some, do some testing, and report back. You'll understand after that. </div></div>


That's my usual MO, but with so many projects in the works, I was hoping to draw on the collective wisdom of the board and save myself some work.
 
#12
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: beretta989</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another one to look at is the Nosler 69gr. match it has 4 bc better than the Hornaday 68s. But then again what is just 4 bc really gonna add up 2. </div></div>

Where are you looking. Nosler site lists 69g with B.C. of only .305.
 
#13
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

There is no need to test it. Put anyones match 68 or 69 over 25grs. Varget loaded mag length and shoot it. Put anyones 75-77 grainer over 24.5grs Varget loaded mag length and shoot it. Rinse, repeat.

AG
 
#14
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

I just bought some of the hornady 77gn Match bullets. For my new AR. Hopefully try 'em soon.

Anybody tried these guys yet?
 
#15
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

Let me put it this way - I took a scoped benched NM AR rifle that during load development shot between 1/2" and 3/8" groups using the 69 SMK at 100 yds. I then substituted the 68 Hornady on top of the same loads and it shot 1" to 1 1/4" groups. That to me is unacceptable, that the window of difference between the two was so large.
 
#16
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

Nine: Thank you and Asbestosglove and the other members. I looking for the pros and the cons. With that information, I'll try the loads suggested and make the call.

Can you tell me how much neck tension is suggested for the AR with no crimp?
 
#17
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Can you tell me how much neck tension is suggested for the AR with no crimp?

</div></div>

The amount a $15 die puts on them. Don't work your brain too hard on this stuff. load it and shoot it.
 
#19
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grand</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm working on a LR load for my AR. From my survey, it appears that the 77g SMK is the overwhelming favorite for LR loads. I wondering why? Based on published information, the Hornady 68g BTHP has a higher B.C. than the 69g SMK, nearly as high as the 77g SMK. With the added velocity, the Hornady shoots flatter with less drift.

69g SMK .305
68g Hornandy .355
77g SMK .362

With a 10 mph cross-wind at 500 yards here is how the numbers stack up:

Bullet Velocity Drop Drift
68g Horn 2750 64.0" 28.8"
68g Horn 2800 61.3" 28.0"
77g SMK 2700 66.3" 28.9"
</div></div>

Because Sierra uses a shorter tangent ogive and pays a lot of attention to bullets concentricity. So, their design tends to 'jump' to the lands better from many seating depths.

Hornady uses the longer secant ogive. Which, is more aerodynamic. But, also harder to get the bullet to 'jump' into the lands and shoot correctly. They work great out of bolt guns because you can fiddle with seating depth.

My new 16" carbine has had Sierra 77 gr., 69 gr. Nosler 69 gr. and Hornady 68 gr. and 75 gr. BTHPs fired through it. The 68 and 69 were loaded on top of 26 gr. of RE-15 for a velocity of 2765 avg. and the 75 and 77 gr. were loaded on top of 25.5 gr. of RE-15. for avg. velocities of 2695. I've never used RE-15 for AR's before but I thought I'd try it for pushing heavier bullets out. The best bullets were the Hornady 75 gr. and they avg'd .4 Followed by Sie 69, Nos 69 Hrn 68 and Sie 77's. Accuracy isn't as applicable here as I have a straight 5.56 NATO chamber, not a match chamber. I was able to fine tune Hrn 80 A-max's into one very nice .2 group. But being single fed they don't count. And what really sucks is I can't shoot them through my bolt gun because it's only a 1-9" twist and won't stabilize them.
 
#20
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

So, along this line of 5.56/.223 reloading. I notice when I pick up once-fired mil ammo that the primers are pretty flat. Do you see that when firing mil-spec out of your mil-chambered rifles. I know when I'm reloading (again) for my AR I don't take it to the point I'm flattening primers. But I ran 40 M193 through my rifle and the primers were considerably more flattened than my loads. My loads chrono'd 2914 and M193 chrono'd about 3010. Do you take your pressures that high?
 
#21
Re: Why Not the Hornady .224 68g BTHP ?????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, along this line of 5.56/.223 reloading. I notice when I pick up once-fired mil ammo that the primers are pretty flat. Do you see that when firing mil-spec out of your mil-chambered rifles. I know when I'm reloading (again) for my AR I don't take it to the point I'm flattening primers. But I ran 40 M193 through my rifle and the primers were considerably more flattened than my loads. My loads chrono'd 2914 and M193 chrono'd about 3010. Do you take your pressures that high? </div></div>

It's good to have a safety margin built in to accommodate changes that may raise pressure.
I personally like to see a good margin in the weakest link, which is often the primer.
There should be a healthy radius left on the primer IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts