Starting up reloading

[AzMaN 0]

my god this ammo is expensive, over £1 a shot for a .223 i think i will definatly be re-loading, just need to save up for the gear and away we go

[andyf 144]

My My, us reloaders?

Either we are 'chuck it together' and fire it like the Alamo, or we are 'anal' anoraks cranking on about pressure curves, and neck turning?

Look you've just got your .223 and want to reload, that's good, reloaded ammo is good/cheap and gets you to understand how firearms perform.

For now you don't know if your a 'chuck it together' or an 'Anal'. Hunters tend to be less 'Anal' because live quarry doesn't always stand sideways on at EXACTLY 100 yards away, and then have the patience to wait while you faff about with bipods, breath control and concentration. Paper punchers however have all day to 'punch paper' and all night to load their ammo.

The 'Lee' kit you menton is fine, not the best but perfectly good for hunting ammo, if you are a paper puncher then more exotic gear is going to be needed to make that finite difference.

It's horses for courses, by reloading you are taking your shooting to another level and that is always good for the sport.

Good luck!

Andy F.

[SNAP SHOT 194]

those are well chosen words andy, and wise ones, but as a hunter i like to know what the bullet will do, and tend to strive a little futher with accuracy...

 

As you say the lee will do but you can achieve better with spending a little more.....

 

slightly anal Snap...

[rjimmer 4]

my god this ammo is expensive, over £1 a shot for a .223 i think i will definatly be re-loading, just need to save up for the gear and away we go

 

I bought 500 Samson .223 this week at 40p a round.

I'm hoping to get 5-6 reloads out of each case. I'm told I should be able to.

[JonathanL 4]

For a .223 reloading might not be the cheaper option !

 

Reloading is more to tune ammo to your rifle than cheap. If you want cheap then mil surplus might be the cheapest option followed by brands like ppu and american eagle.

 

 

You really do talk rubbish sometimes, are you trying to kill the guy!

 

There is little or no .223 Mil surplus, it is 5.56 which will fit but is over pressure for .223, unless of course you can find some original shit 5.56 mil spec. But you are unlikely to know so don't **** about and don't use it!!

 

Best zip it when you don't know what you are talking about!

 

This isn't true of modern rifles. Yes, .223 and 5.56mm are not the same but one isn't dangerous in the other in 99% of rifles. If you are shooting a 30 year old M-16 then there might be point. Even then, all you will do it wear it out quicker. It isn't going to blow up.

[rjimmer 4]

http://www.thegunzone.com/556v223.html

[HUnter_zero 58]

 

This isn't true of modern rifles. Yes, .223 and 5.56mm are not the same but one isn't dangerous in the other in 99% of rifles. If you are shooting a 30 year old M-16 then there might be point. Even then, all you will do it wear it out quicker. It isn't going to blow up.

 

The business of .223 & 5.56 was a bit of a shock to me. I've been reloading for well in to 15 years, my first CF rifle was a .223. I started reloading right from the word go, Litt's gave me 100 rounds of Lapua with the rifle, and my mate gave me 100 rounds of Mil ammo. Shot them all in my M77 with no issues at all. I was then lucky to find an advert in the free-ads for a complete reloading set up, the chap lived miles away so I called him and did the deal by post. I was armed with a complete RCBS reloading set-up, most of which I still use now. I don't have a .223 anymore and haven't shot one for many years but after posting on here about Mil spec 5.56 I was pointed in the direction of several articles suggesting it unsafe to shoot 5.56 in a .223 chambered rifle. The cost of reloading seems to increase daily around these parts. I normally stock up on reloading bits as a present to myself for all the hard work & s.h.1.t I put up with in work, this year I stayed away from reloading and purchased some Black Gold cartridges as a cheaper option. I think anyone getting in to the business of centre fire rifles is in for a shock, there is not real cheap option anymore, PPU ammo is cheap and in any of my rifles shoots like cow pats flung from a catapult, reloading costs have gone up and up but still (just) cheaper than factory fodder. The world has gone cost mad! Merry Xmas & Happy new year to you all!

 

John

Edited December 25, 2009 by HUnter_zero

[RicW 67]

Just for the record dudes and dudettes the advisory body for the American civilian small arms industry is the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute who may be thought to have some idea of what they are saying. Under "unsafe arms and ammunition" they state that use of ammunition for which a gun is not stamped as proofed can result in death or injury to the shooter or bystanders as well as severe damage to the gun. They give a list of chamberings, with rounds which should not be used although they will chamber. They state that guns chambered for ".223 Rem. should NOT BE USED with 5.56 military."

 

If there is a sign on a frozen lake saying "Danger thin ice" you can still go skating. Me, I wouldn't risk it. You're a long time dead.

 

My link

Edited December 25, 2009 by RicW

[rjimmer 4]

Just for the record dudes and dudettes the advisory body for the American civilian small arms industry is the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute who may be thought to have some idea of what they are saying. Under "unsafe arms and ammunition" they state that use of ammunition for which a gun is not stamped as proofed can result in death or injury to the shooter or bystanders as well as severe damage to the gun. They give a list of chamberings, with rounds which should not be used although they will chamber. They state that guns chambered for ".223 Rem. should NOT BE USED with 5.56 military."

 

If there is a sign on a frozen lake saying "Danger thin ice" you can still go skating. Me, I wouldn't risk it. You're a long time dead.

 

My link

 

That just about sums up my thoughts.

There is a lot of information/advice on the web. It's up to the us who we take notice of.

Experience is an efficient tutor, fools choose experience. Far better to learn, if you can, from other peoples' experiences, but be careful with who you listen to.

[JonathanL 4]

Just for the record dudes and dudettes the advisory body for the American civilian small arms industry is the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute who may be thought to have some idea of what they are saying. Under "unsafe arms and ammunition" they state that use of ammunition for which a gun is not stamped as proofed can result in death or injury to the shooter or bystanders as well as severe damage to the gun. They give a list of chamberings, with rounds which should not be used although they will chamber. They state that guns chambered for ".223 Rem. should NOT BE USED with 5.56 military."

 

If there is a sign on a frozen lake saying "Danger thin ice" you can still go skating. Me, I wouldn't risk it. You're a long time dead.

 

My link

 

I know what SAAMI say but you have to balance this against the fact that the US is the most litigous place on earth and lots of people make lots of money from suing other people.

 

Like I say, the two chamberings are not the same but the chances of a gun blowing up are vanishingly small. I mean, how many times have you ever heard of it happening? You have to produce very, very hgh pressures to damage a modern rifle, let alone blow it up. The round may produce 60,000CUP but this isn't anything special. Proof ammo will develop 100,000 and not damage a gun. Also, remeber that the SAAMI guidance is its self 30 years old and the specs for .223 are not the same now. For instance, barrels are .224" these days (or even slightly larger) which redused pressures.

 

Bottom line is that if it was likely to cause a problem then you would see warnings all over the place and dealers wouldn't be selling rifles on the basis that you can use cheap military ammo for fear of getting sued out of business. Another thing to remember is that modern military ammo is not the same as it was 30 years ago.

 

J.

[rjimmer 4]

 

My link

 

I know what SAAMI say but you have to balance this against the fact that the US is the most litigous place on earth and lots of people make lots of money from suing other people.

 

Like I say, the two chamberings are not the same but the chances of a gun blowing up are vanishingly small. I mean, how many times have you ever heard of it happening? You have to produce very, very hgh pressures to damage a modern rifle, let alone blow it up. The round may produce 60,000CUP but this isn't anything special. Proof ammo will develop 100,000 and not damage a gun. Also, remeber that the SAAMI guidance is its self 30 years old and the specs for .223 are not the same now. For instance, barrels are .224" these days (or even slightly larger) which redused pressures.

 

Bottom line is that if it was likely to cause a problem then you would see warnings all over the place and dealers wouldn't be selling rifles on the basis that you can use cheap military ammo for fear of getting sued out of business. Another thing to remember is that modern military ammo is not the same as it was 30 years ago.

 

J.

 

So why don't you tell SAAMI your opinion?

 

As for warnings about using weapons of suitable calibre, it's on every box of cartridges I've ever bought.

[JonathanL 4]

 

My link

 

I know what SAAMI say but you have to balance this against the fact that the US is the most litigous place on earth and lots of people make lots of money from suing other people.

 

Like I say, the two chamberings are not the same but the chances of a gun blowing up are vanishingly small. I mean, how many times have you ever heard of it happening? You have to produce very, very hgh pressures to damage a modern rifle, let alone blow it up. The round may produce 60,000CUP but this isn't anything special. Proof ammo will develop 100,000 and not damage a gun. Also, remeber that the SAAMI guidance is its self 30 years old and the specs for .223 are not the same now. For instance, barrels are .224" these days (or even slightly larger) which redused pressures.

 

Bottom line is that if it was likely to cause a problem then you would see warnings all over the place and dealers wouldn't be selling rifles on the basis that you can use cheap military ammo for fear of getting sued out of business. Another thing to remember is that modern military ammo is not the same as it was 30 years ago.

 

J.

 

So why don't you tell SAAMI your opinion?

 

As for warnings about using weapons of suitable calibre, it's on every box of cartridges I've ever bought.

 

My opinion isn't much different from most other shooters. SAAMI know the score. The thing is that if anything does happen it's an easy win for a lawyer whicvh is why they put the warning out. Yes it's on every box of cartridges but it's there for @rse covering puirposes a lot of the time. For instance, this warning is also applied to guns chambered for .357 Magnum but no one would expect to be taken seriously if they said that you can't use .38 Special ammo in it for safety reasons.

 

When you actuslly dig into these things you often end up with a story which isn't exactly the same as what you first heard. The real problem with .223/5.56 is that in the early days one or two guns exploded but because of the fact that the throat was shorter in .223 rifles, the bore was slightly tighter, and bullets got stuck in the rifling and when another round got shoved in behind things weant pear shaped. It wasn't just a case of 5.56 ammo producing slightly higer pressures. This isn't likely to happen today. And, like I said, modern military ammo is not the same as it was 30-40 years ago.

[RicW 67]

1.) SAAMI are required by US law to update their figures every 5 years

2.) 5.56 mil spec ammo is indeed not the same as it was 30 years ago. It's a bloody sight more powerful. If you are dumb enough to use mil.surp 5.56 in your .223, go ahead, feel free. When you get your stupid head blown off, that is just EVOLUTION IN ACTION. Why are we arguing anyway? The savings are negligible and the risk is winding up dead to save a few pence. No brainer.

 

Ric

[rjimmer 4]

If you are dumb enough to use mil.surp 5.56 in your .223, go ahead, feel free. Ric

 

It's even more dumb to tell a reloading novice to ignore advice that is from well estabished sources.

[waidmann 105]

johnathan l. the case here is more one of putting .357 ammo in a .38 special weapon (which is not advisable and will not chamber).

as anyone who has had any formal training with firearms will tell you" if its not stamped on the barrel you don't shoot it".

everyone is entitled to an opinion here and may do as they please.

if someone has no regard for their or my safety i would not wish to shoot anywhere near them.

 

some of the chaps here have clearly alot more knowledge of reloading than me,the point they are making is in my eyes blindingly obvious.