164 grain APEX Afterburner - load results

WVELK

WKR
Joined
Jul 2, 2020
Messages
455
You may have seen this on other forums. If so scroll onward and upward. I am a sucker for trying something new so earlier this year I decided to try the 164 grain Afterburner in a new 7 SAUM build. In general, I really like Berger bullets and know them well. However, Barnes were “okay” when I wanted a mono copper bullet. I was hopeful the Afterburner would shoot.

When I started, to be candid I was not sure if they would. The thing that stood out first was a low ES regardless of how I loaded them. Unfortunately, they were giving me some concern until I stopped using a large rifle magnum primer and dropped to a CCI 200 with H4831sc powder. I will let you know what worked for me in case you give them a try. For me, they are a proven shooter at this point.

1. Seating depth: for me they were good in the .080 to .085 off range with .083 best. Above .085 the wheels came off - bad.
2. H4831sc was the best powder in my 7 SAUM consistently. Tried several.
3. Powder charge: They grouped at 1/2 MOA at 600 yards consistently in the 58.8 to 59.3 range. After what I will call a lot of shooting at distance (600 yards) in a method similar to a OCW test it was clear 58.9,59 and 59.1 provided nearly identical groups consistently. Therefore, I went with 59 grains.
4. I was still only getting 1/2 MOA at all ranges and decided to play with neck tension which often results in tighter groups for me in 7 calibers.
5. My loaded rounds measured .314. Therefore, I loaded rounds with a .312, .311, .310 and .309 busing followed by an assortment of mandrel sizes. The .309 bushing followed by a .2810 mandrel was the best combination and provided for just at .004 in neck tension. With this combo the Federal 210 primer and the CCI 200 provided essentially the same groups. Here are the results. Hope this helps if you try the Afterburners.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6963.jpeg
    IMG_6963.jpeg
    537.1 KB · Views: 3
  • IMG_6959.jpeg
    IMG_6959.jpeg
    648.9 KB · Views: 3
  • IMG_6962.jpeg
    IMG_6962.jpeg
    538.7 KB · Views: 3
Back
Top