Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles 90 gr. E-Tip/243 Load Work up

I just got done doing a quick load work up for my son's Ruger 243 with the 90 gr. Nosler E-tips and thought I'd post my experience for those interested.
From the little info. I read Nosler recommends .05-.1 off the lands and mid range loads for conventional bullets as being max for the E-tips.
I started at .05 off the lands and worked up to 3150 fps over my chronograph with Ramshot Hunter. Accuracy was dismal with 2 1/2" 3 shot groups from a rifle that usually shoots under an inch.
I loaded up a few more batches, one at .1 off the lands and then a batch kissing with RS Hunter and another batch loaded with Big Game.
To make a long story short the batch loaded .1 off the lands opened up close to three inches. The Hunter load kissing put three shots into an inch. The Big Game load put three into a bit under 3/4".
I haven't loaded for 90 grain bullets in his 243 before but will say I had to use every bit of conventional bullet max loads to get velocity.
I loaded a few up with VV N-560 and H4831. It immediately became apparent they were on the slow side and it would take some serious powder crunching to get enough in to reach pressure.
Things I learned from my example of one. I didn't see the E-Tips construction necessitating lower charges compared to conventional bullets.
Seating as close to without being into (kissing) the lands was the place to be.
I ended up at 3150 fps and a COAL of 2.735. FWIW.

My experience with E-Tips is that they seem to use pretty much standard loads with no pressure problems. I haven't used them all yet, but have tried the 90 6mm in the 6mm Remington and .240 Weatherby, and the 150 and 180 .30's in various rounds from the .308 up to the .300 Weatherby.

My experience with the Etip mirrors JB's. I have only loaded them for a friend's .30-06 and with usual loading data was able to get 3000fps and <1 MOA with 150g offerings.

Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but I am in the process of working up my first set of loads for the 90 grain .243 E-Tip as well (in a Rem M7 .243). So far my limited results support the above opinions that pressures are in line with conventional bullets at the same charge levels.
I wanted to specifically ask if, in the decade since this thread began, many others have found that their E-Tip loads like to be seated close to the lands too, or if this may have been just a fluke in the FVA's rifle. I've seen another post of Mule Deer's where he mentions seating depth being critical to E-Tip accuracy in general, but he never gave any specifics, leading me to conclude no particular trends arose from his extensive testing of many calibers with these bullets.
Also please post any winning "recipes."
Thanks,
Rex

When I did the load work for the 243 E-tip. I found my Remington model 7 liked .030 jump to lands. The bullet did build pressure. Loads topped out 2-3 grains below a 90gr bt. H414/w760 was the fastest for velocity. Of the powders I tried.

Have a couple hundred blems, but have yet to strike gold, just okay hunting accuracy. Next time I start in, I'll follow the advice Barnes gave me and determine best seating-depth first at starting charge level, then play with charges.

I have seen the E-Tips, The GMXs and the Barnes all exhibit marked sensitivity to seating depth. Individual rifles have their preference for each brand, and they are not the same normally even though they can be. If anything, my feeling is they tend toward being capable of taking a little more powder than lead core bullets (they produce a little better velocity), but the difference is pretty small and not something I trust as a rule of thumb.

I do not know as searching for seating depth before getting close to pressure is reliable. The inaccuracy from the low powder charge is certainly enough in some rifles to swamp out the seating depth accuracy change with rifles that are less sensitive to seating depth change. I have rifles that powder charges causes 1.5 inch or more accuracy change and seating depth produces <an inch. Finding seating depth optimum when the variance is 1/2 inch can be difficult when powder charge alone is causing 2-3 inch groups. Obviously, seating depth can cause 2-4 inch groups by itself pretty easily also. I find that I get a better feel for powder charge accuracy as I approach maximum charge than I do for seating depth accuracy, so my practice is to find where the powder takes me and then go to work on seating depth which is often much more difficult to nail down.

In light of the above noted relative differences: I have seen in some specific cases that max loads with certain powders have been dropped to below where rifles typically like to shoot. .243 Winchester Particularly bothers me. When I started loading modern monos with Varget, 38.5 grains was the max load for 85 grain TSXs. I have solved 6-8 rifles for Varget and the 85 grain. Out of all of those rifles, every single one found the best accuracy between 37.5 and 38.5 grains of Varget. The current on line listed max load for that combination on the Hodgdon site is 36.5. I have used older powder from 8 pounders bought before the changes to the on line load data, and newer 1 pound bottles and cannot see a difference across the Chrony that might make the changes make sense. The obvious places to look for a rationale for the change downward in max charge all seem to lie within Hodgdon. The test barrel, the test pressure equipment, the test conditions and the lawyers would seem to be places to look for an explanation. I am not seeing an increase in velocity that might indicate a change in the powder, and the rifles were not changed. Varget with the TSX/TTSX bullets is a very nice combination, and it would really be nice to know what the devil is going on there.

Thanks, I'll add that load to my workups, as the three bullets I am "courting" right now for this fall in the .243 are the 95 Partition, the 85 TSX, and the 90 E-Tip. So far I have been using Hunter and IMR4350 with the TSX, and have noted my rifle develops top speeds at a grain or two below published max with the TSX.

Thanks for that very specific data. I've been working about .060 off the lands so far and wondering which direction to move. I'll try "toward the lands" and let you all know what happens. But I have still not yet found the powder I think is best with the 90 E-Tip in my M7.
Cheers,
Rex

I wore my "grey matter" down tot he white meat trying to get Mod 7 pencil barrels to shoot well. I found (for me, I grant you) was to rebarrel them to a longer, heavier contour. I wouldn't be surprised if 2- 2.5" is the "average" best accuracy of Mod 7s in use. Its OK because its a hunting rifle, normally used in the woods. One that will shoot "less" than that is 'already accurate".

What I saw across the chrony with those rifles and Varget was 3100-3200 FPS. That is notably below what can be obtained otherwise. But, it was very accurate and kills deer quite well. If you want to chase speed, 4451 gave me another couple hundred FPS without sacrificing accuracy. Both Varget and 4451 are relatively unaffected by temperature changes which is important in Minnesota.

The tendency to hit best accuracy a grain or so below max load is pretty common and something I look for when working up loads. Best velocity I have not observed to be a reliable indicator of getting near max load. In point of fact, Varget is pretty linear and I would not even look for velocity flattening out with either Varget or 4451.

I should have mentioned my two M7s (a .223 and a .243) are the "Predator" model, fully camo'ed with 22" fluted barrels. The .223 is .650" at the muzzle and the .243 is .660". So these aren't at all thin like some M7s. I've glass bedded and free-floated (beyond the first 3" of the barrel) them both and they are shooting sub-MOA already in my work-ups. The .243 is doing sub-MOA with both the Barnes 85 TSX and the 95 Partition, but I am not there yet with the 90 E-Tip. The E-Tip is new to me; thus my original questions about folks' experience with seating depth for this pill, as well as useful recipes. IMO, these M7 Predators are great values at under $400 wholesale. These are the only factory new centerfire rifles I've ever bought, but I could not resist. I've always used Mauser, Springfield, or M70s only for my centerfire rifles but many years ago I scored an old Remington 722 in .257 Roberts, and have enjoyed hunting with it so much the last decade I decided I could break down and own a couple more Remington push-feed actions, LOL.
Thanks again for the information - keep it coming!
Cheers,
Rex

I got good results with 101 grain Shooters Pro Shop oddball E-Tips with a max charge of R26 and I am about .03" off the lands in one rifle and touching in another.They both shoot fine. Have not checked the velocity yet but should be close to 3100 fps according to Alliant data. I may drop back one grain per Noslers recommendation and to assure I don't have hot weather pressure issues.

Jim Knight - The model 7 rifles are frequently an example of that light weight barrels often shoot better with a pressure point. I would be tempted to also try neutral bedding but much easier to test a pressure point and see how it shoots.

I worked up a load with Shooters Pro Shop oddball 86gr E-tip. They have a crimp groove cut in the bullet.
H1000 and seated to the crimp groove shot just under an inch from a Vanguard 243.
I didn't check to see how far off the lands I was. I used the COAL from the Nosler load data site and it worked fine.

I always had my gunsmith open up/rethread and replace the skinny rear action screw on a Mod 7 with one for the standard Model 700. Along with pillar bedding and heavier barrels, they were great shooters! It sounds like the Predator model is about right, though I used 24" ( I'm tall and the only carbines I like are leverguns and M4 clones.)

The 90 grain E-Tip continues to confound me. I tried a few groups with RE-22, which was performing well with the 95 grain Partition, with strange results. 44 grains gave a 111 FPS extreme spread. 45 grains gave a 15 FPS ES, and 46 grains gave a 158 FPS ES. Groups were 0.99", 1.91". and 1.78" respectively - these were loaded .060 off the lands.
I went back through my records to find the charge that had given the most consistent velocity (42.5 gr H4350, .030 off the lands, SD of 3) but it gave a 2.47" group at 3078 FPS. I decided to try seating it out to the lands as an experiment, as I have heard a few folks find that worked for the E-Tip. Same load, velocity bumped up to 3156 FPS (makes sense) but the group was dismal at 3.1".
So maybe I'll try moving back in the other direction on OAL, up to maybe .100" off the lands.

Today I shot two groups with the previously tried 90 E-Tip, 42.5/H4350 load, but a new seating depth. This is the load that produces pretty consistent velocities, but shot 2" when 0.030 off the lands, and 3" kissing the lands. I shot a different load about .060" off the lands and it did a little better. Today, I took the same 42.5/H4350 to the range seated .100" off the lands, and shot two 3-shot strings. First = 1.19" group, 3110 FPS, SD of 15. Second 0.97", 3102 FPS, SD of 13. Looks like getting way back off the lands is the key to this pill [EDIT - at least in my rifle. Others have had the opposite experience]. I may back out a little more and try it again.
This bullet looks like it's going the speed of light just sitting still, and I really want to hunt with it this fall. Looks like I may finally be cracking the code on how to get it to shoot in my rifle.

Cheers,
Rex