Bad Hornady ammo 300PRC, 1/2 MOA to 6 MOA based on lot number.

[Ronws]

Generally speaking, yes. There are some exceptions where I don't think I've seen the "commercial" stuff vary any more than the cannister grade but most of what we get is more variable lot-to-lot. I think Jayden went into it on one of our podcast episodes but basically one of the big powder mfgs. we work with makes sizes of kernels and then has burn rate modifiers added. There's a prescription for the burn rate modifiers for certain families of powders but the moral of the story is that they make a bunch of "fast" and "slow" and mix them to match previous test data and if the end result falls within a narrow enough window that becomes "CFE 223" for example. Then everything that wasn't quite CFE223 falls inside a bigger window and that's what big ammo mfgs. get. Not many places are mixing at the ammo factory level but there is some secondary mixing that can be done if necessary if you have the right size/family of powders and most importantly, are able to pressure test what you've done.

I have watched those Hornady podcasts (ep 50 and 52) as well as the mean radius and the one-hole group more than once. I have seen ep 50 and 52 4 times. I learn something new each time. For example, a problem Myles alludes to is while a hunter such as I am, may get a good 3 shot group, I can do that 7 times, as Jayden says, to get a minimum 20 - ish shot grouping. But what if the center of mean radius has shifted each time?

That is, even if you choose the same refined PoA, such as top of the diamond on the lower left on an ST-1 target, might the center of mean radius be different each time, meaning that while you think your rifle is .61 MOA, it is actually 1.25 MOA. The only way to tell is to shoot 3 shot groups from a cold barrel 7 times. Either at the same target as before, or another one, which is more difficult because now you have to find a way to overlay.

As a hunter, I am really concerned about the first two shots. Cold bore needs to be on the head of the nail. Second one can be less than an inch. I doubt there will be a third shot.

Factory ammo is going to vary and I bet dollars to donuts that factory ammo from 6.5 CM varied, as well, but that did not stop guys from growing man-buns and getting a 6.5 CM.

 

[Paul1262]

I've put about 800 rds of the factory 300PRC 225 ELD Match through my AI AXSR. In the beginning I was getting typical ELD Match results - 0.5 MOA, ES mid-40s, SD mid-teens. Not "good", but serviceable. After 2 cases of that lot, the next lot gave me an ES of over 100 in the first 15 rd string. I sent Hornady the rest of that box plus another full box from that lot for testing. In the meantime, I had another case from yet another lot that I began shooting while I waited to hear back from Hornady. It seemed to average anywhere from 60-80 ES, 20-25 SD. It shoots 0.5-0.7 MOA at 100, but terrible at distance because of the ES/SD. When I heard back from Hornady, they agreed to replace the case from the lot I sent them. They said they got an ES of 60 on the rounds I sent them, and anything over 40 was out-of-spec. I said, "Thanks," but laughed at the idea of their ammo maintaining an ES of even 40, as I have shot a ton of it and have never seen it that good (sometimes the 6.5CM 140 ELD will do that, but it's usually mid-40s). Looking at lot numbers and dates, I have noted that anything manufactured up to around early 2021 is "fair", but late 2021-present is awful. I have experienced similar findings with Berger 300NM ammo as well (but not quite as bad as Hornady). My conclusion is that the high demand on manufacturers after Covid finally put too much strain on their QC measures sometime around 2021 and they haven't done anything to fix it. They're just cranking it out to meet demand and not worrying about quality. I also can understand that they may be having trouble sourcing the same quality of materials that they have been able to acquire in the past (reps from both companies have said that). Anyway, the end result is that I have quit buying factory ammo for the time being, and gone back to spending more time at the loading bench.

A continuation of bad results with Hornady 300 PRC ELDM. Recently purchased 200 rounds of same with Lot # date 2022. Went to the range and fired 28 rounds. Velocities: (Using Garmin) Min 2797.1 Avg 2854 Max 2884.5 ES 86.5 SD 21.4. My rifle is a Barrett MRAD with a 26" barrel. I emailed Hornady noting my displeasure with this run. They replied stating that when they fired ammo from this Lot they got 2,797 fps velocity with of ES 23 and SD of 9. Previous Lots that I purchased with 2023 and 2024 dates produced and AVG SD of 15 and ES of 52. I find Hornady's numbers to quite questionable.

 

[supercorndogs]

Factory ammo with an ES of 23.

 

[Paul1262]

Factory ammo with an ES of 23.

I have never been fortunate enough to experience factory ammo in any caliber with an ES of 23.

 

[Rocketmandb]

Factory ammo with an ES SD of 23

Fixed it

 

[tangosierra19]

A continuation of bad results with Hornady 300 PRC ELDM. Recently purchased 200 rounds of same with Lot # date 2022. Went to the range and fired 28 rounds. Velocities: (Using Garmin) Min 2797.1 Avg 2854 Max 2884.5 ES 86.5 SD 21.4. My rifle is a Barrett MRAD with a 26" barrel. I emailed Hornady noting my displeasure with this run. They replied stating that when they fired ammo from this Lot they got 2,797 fps velocity with of ES 23 and SD of 9. Previous Lots that I purchased with 2023 and 2024 dates produced and AVG SD of 15 and ES of 52. I find Hornady's numbers to quite questionable.

Sorry to hear that man, that's pretty much what they told me too. They just rattled off the numbers of what the round did when they tested it and said it was within their specs. I've saved some of the original lot that fired well and still I get half MOA 5 shot groups at 100yds with an SD of 2.5fps. I actually pulled the bullets from the two different lot numbers and this is what I found(pic attached), couldn't believe they would make such a massive change to the powder. It's such a shame that they came up with a great round and let it go to waste because of sloppy manufacturing/components. It's the only reason I started reloading and I'm still trying to work up a good load that matched what they were originally putting out.

 

[JR1200W3]

Hornady talking to the public: "You need to shoot 30rd sample sizes"

Hornady QC'ing their production ammo: "Five rounds is enough"

 

[vh20]

Hornady talking to the public: "You need to shoot 30rd sample sizes"

Hornady QC'ing their production ammo: "Five rounds is enough"

This is exactly what I was going to say - ES of 23 but no mention of how many rounds (probably 3).

 

[Rocketmandb]

This is exactly what I was going to say - ES of 23 but no mention of how many rounds (probably 3).

I was thinking 2

 

[vh20]

I was thinking 2

Yep. Reference my post #13 in this thread. "Anything with ES over 40 is out-of-spec".
I've almost never gotten ES 40 or less out of thousands of rounds of their 6.5 and 300PRC ELD-Match factory ammo.
So, it's ALL out-of-spec?

 

[Paul1262]

Yep. Reference my post #13 in this thread. "Anything with ES over 40 is out-of-spec".
I've almost never gotten ES 40 or less out of thousands of rounds of their 6.5 and 300PRC ELD-Match factory ammo.
So, it's ALL out-of-spec?

Sorry to hear that man, that's pretty much what they told me too. They just rattled off the numbers of what the round did when they tested it and said it was within their specs. I've saved some of the original lot that fired well and still I get half MOA 5 shot groups at 100yds with an SD of 2.5fps. I actually pulled the bullets from the two different lot numbers and this is what I found(pic attached), couldn't believe they would make such a massive change to the powder. It's such a shame that they came up with a great round and let it go to waste because of sloppy manufacturing/components. It's the only reason I started reloading and I'm still trying to work up a good load that matched what they were originally putting out.

Like you, I feel compelled to start reloading. I just can't trust this ammo anymore. Too bad, it was a good product.

 

[Baron23]

Sorry to hear that man, that's pretty much what they told me too. They just rattled off the numbers of what the round did when they tested it and said it was within their specs. I've saved some of the original lot that fired well and still I get half MOA 5 shot groups at 100yds with an SD of 2.5fps. I actually pulled the bullets from the two different lot numbers and this is what I found(pic attached), couldn't believe they would make such a massive change to the powder. It's such a shame that they came up with a great round and let it go to waste because of sloppy manufacturing/components. It's the only reason I started reloading and I'm still trying to work up a good load that matched what they were originally putting out.

I'm guessing the extruded stick powder is the better lot and the spherical is the crap lot?

 

[tangosierra19]

I'm guessing the extruded stick powder is the better lot and the spherical is the crap lot?

Correct, my understanding is the stick powder is extruded and is temperature stable, the ball powder most likely isn't.

 

[vh20]

I'm guessing the extruded stick powder is the better lot and the spherical is the crap lot?

Correct, my understanding is the stick powder is extruded and is temperature stable, the ball powder most likely isn't.

I believe the earlier (stick) powder was almost certainly RL26. It performed about like you'd expect for factory "match" ammo - good, not great. I don't know what the new ball powder is (maybe StaBall HD?). The switch to it seems to coincide with the poor performance it has now. As stated on here by one of their engineers, it happened when they could no longer source their usual powders from Aliant and the Hodgdon Extreme lines (around the beginning of 2021, apparently).