i have been using the 115 grain sierra bthp bullet, part no. 1815, in my 6.8mm remington spc to good effect for some time, and like it sufficiently to have loaded a goodly number of rounds with that bullet.
recently another bullet has caught my eye, that being the 110 grain hornady, part no. 27200, and i have determined that i can load it to significantly higher velocity than the 115 grain sierra, with no apparent increase in pressure.
and, the hornady is obviously a bit "sleeker" than the sierra, and despite being 5 grains lighter is a bit longer and "pointier," which suggests very good flight characteristics, as well.
hey, what's not to like about that?
what i cannot do, much to my disappointment, is make the hornady bullet shoot as accurately as the sierra bullet. this day i load the rifle and ammo in a day pack, hiked out to the range, and had a bit of a shoot off between the "contending" bullets. now, keep in mind, there is nothing definitive about any of this, and your rifle may shoot the hornady bullet better than the sierra, and you may be able to take advantage of the added velocity from the hornady.
but, i was not so lucky.
i arrived at the range, and it was cold, cloudy, blustery and intermittently wet, ... , not at all a great day for testing the accuracy of bullets. and, of necessity since i hiked out carrying my things in a day pack, i was not loaded down with a lot of shooting accessories: as a matter of fact, i pulled the rifle from a double shotgun case, put it together, put the case over a couple pieces of concrete block, and the rifle over that, and shot.
there were no pads, shooting rests, or other mechanical aids involved in the shooting.
i shot for group the hornady bullet in front of 29.4 grains of h-322 powder first. i fired a fouling shot first, then five bullets into a group, with another bullet in the magazine to make sure the five fired rounds all chambered the same way: sometimes the last bullet in a magazine will shoot to a different point of impact. don't ask me why, they just do.
that first group measured 2.335" from center to center of the most widely dispersed two bullet holes in the group.
next, i fired five rounds of the sierra bullet in front of 28.2 grains of h-322, from a magazine that has been lying around the house for a couple weeks, and from a lot of rounds in which my notes indicate that the cases had been used in "multiple" loads. the sierra rounds clustered in a group measuring 1.138" from the most widely dispersed bullet holes. two shots were somewhat low, while the other three were in a nice little triangle measuring app. .520": of the two lower shots, one was a "called" flyer, in that i knew the shot was errant as soon as i pulled the trigger. in other words, it was my fault, and not the bullet's.
to conclude the test, i fired five more shots using the hornady bullet, but loaded a bit hotter at 29.7 grains. that group measured 2.14" from the most widely dispersed shots, but four of those bullet holes were within 1.355" from each other, measured center to center of the bullet holes. in addition, and perhaps significantly, they were within .5" approximately vertically, but were strung out horizontally 1.335" apart. while shooting that group, i detected no physical movement or aiming error on my part that would explain the shot that expanded the group so much, which was high and to the left of the other shots. i can offer no explanation for why it got where it got, in other words.
so, i am going to try yet once again with the hornady's, and i will up the powder charge a 10th or two 10th's of a grain or so, to see if i can close the gap between the bullets a bit. the group i shot with the sierra's was pretty typical, but, i expected better with the hornady's.
if i cannot get it to shoot a little better with the h-322, i will try some 4198 just on the off chance it might shoot a little better. we'll see. but, for right now, the sierra's are looking pretty good. goodness, i would love to be able to take advantage of the added velocity of the hornady bullet, and the superior ballistic co-efficient it promises, but that means little at range if i cannot close the groups a bit.
john jay @ 06.18.2011
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.