>Has anyone gotten good results with H335 or AA2230?
I’m having good results with X-terminator, which shares load data with AA2230. I have 8lb of AA2230 that I plan to use next. From what I’ve read, X-terminator and AA2230 were different powders years ago (prior to 2007? – don’t recall the year). Then, they became the same exact powder. For a time they were the same exact thing in different containers with different labels. Then, a few years ago a representative from Ramshot said they had diverged but still share the same burn rate and load data. He said AA2230 is supposed to be more temperature stable, while X-terminator has additives to reduce copper fouling. That’s what I’ve gathered anyway from researching online. One thing for sure is that they share the same load data.
I’m using a 16″ AR Performance barrel. My particular barrel runs a bit fast, about 40-50 FPS faster than a friend’s same model.
Wolf Gold brass
CCI 450
CBTO ~2.250″
X-terminator
LabRadar 72 degrees
5 shot average:
22.3 grains 2649 FPS
22.9 grains 2712 FPS
Both work well for me. 5 shot groups are generally around .8″ at 100 yards if I’m not screwing things up. This is from prone with a bipod and rear bag. I guarantee there is some shooter error involved.
Lately I’ve been working with TAC. I need to do more testing, but so far, the best charge weights are ones that produce similar velocity to my X-terminator loads.
Wolf Gold brass
CCI 450
CBTO ~2.250″
TAC
LabRadar 91 degrees F
5 shot average:
23.2 grains 2671 FPS
23.6 grains 2730 FPS
With TAC, my buddy is getting the same velocities using .4 grains more powder than I am. That’s in both his 16″ ARP barrel and 5 rounds he chrono’d with a 16″ PSA. My barrel seems to be the oddball. After considerable testing, he had settled on 24.0 grains of TAC (for 2730ish FPS depending on temperature). He then did a seating depth test by firing 5 shot groups at 50 yards. COALs were from 2.240″ to 2.260″ in .005″ increments. Surprisingly, they all shot about the same, with group sizes ranging from .40″ to .46″. These bullets seem to be tolerant of different seating depths, at least in his barrel. I gave him 5 of my 22.3 grain X-terminator loads during that test, and my load in his rifle was his second best group of the batch even though it clocked 40 FPS slower than I get in my rifle (his avg was 2611 FPS with air temp of 74 F).
I fired a 5 round group on paper with 23.6 grains of TAC at 500 yards (prone, bipod, rear bag, 1-6x scope). Vertical spread was 3.8″ and about double that sideways due to varying wind. My friend also fired a 5 round group using the same charge with his rifle at 500 yards with vertical measuring a touch under 5″. So, these loads hold up at distance.
Overall, I think these are great bullets for the price. I have one nitpick that I haven’t seen anyone mention. The bases are sharp instead of rounded where the boattail transitions into full diameter. This isn’t the case with any other bullets I’ve used. The sharp edge tends to scrape the insides of the case necks, and I think is also responsible for the higher runout I get with these bullets than any others I load. Some seat quite crooked. I’m using a Forster 3-in-1 trimmer, which provides a VLD angle chamfer, but I think the sharp base still tends to snag and cause bullets to tip as the seating die begins to press them into neck. I’ve tried several different seating stems, all of which fit the 69 RMRs fairly well, without any difference in runout. I think they’d seat straighter without the unusual sharp bottom edge.
