25-45 sharps

[J E Custom]

25-45 Sharps

I was sent this report and though I would share with the membership.

https://web.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=314620&part=2.2

It looks like a good round for an AR. I like the simplicity of the modification from 223 to 25-45
and the performance is good. But once again, stats are not truthful when it comes to reporting other cartridges.

I don't know much about the 6.5 Grendel as far as velocity and energy. but the report on the 6.8 SPC is way off. the chart shows the velocity and energy of one brand of ammo for the 6.8 to be 2550 ft/sec and 1588 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. The actual 6.8 performance of the 6.8 using Remington ammo is 2800 ft/sec and 2002 ft/lbs of muzzle energy.

I understand the motive behind wanting to make a new round look good, and the 25-45 does. But
reporting lower performance on another cartridge only cast doubts on the cartridge that is previewed.

I have seen this many times and it is one reason I don't believe anything I read on line any more.
If someone reviews something, I wish they would be truthful about the other referenced products.

In my opinion if someone is honest in the reviews, the product will sell its self if it is a good one.
The 25-45 looks like it should have a following because it should be a good step up from the 223
for some types of hunting. But like everything else, there is always a cartridge that will be faster or have more energy than others.

I enjoyed the article and learning more about the 25-45 but wished the author had not picked the worst ammo for the competitive cartridges to make the 25-45 look good. it looks good without down playing other cartridges.

Just my opinion, as usual

J E CUSTOM

 

[Trickymissfit]

25-45 Sharps

I was sent this report and though I would share with the membership.

https://web.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=314620&part=2.2

It looks like a good round for an AR. I like the simplicity of the modification from 223 to 25-45
and the performance is good. But once again, stats are not truthful when it comes to reporting other cartridges.

I don't know much about the 6.5 Grendel as far as velocity and energy. but the report on the 6.8 SPC is way off. the chart shows the velocity and energy of one brand of ammo for the 6.8 to be 2550 ft/sec and 1588 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. The actual 6.8 performance of the 6.8 using Remington ammo is 2800 ft/sec and 2002 ft/lbs of muzzle energy.

I understand the motive behind wanting to make a new round look good, and the 25-45 does. But
reporting lower performance on another cartridge only cast doubts on the cartridge that is previewed.

I have seen this many times and it is one reason I don't believe anything I read on line any more.
If someone reviews something, I wish they would be truthful about the other referenced products.

In my opinion if someone is honest in the reviews, the product will sell its self if it is a good one.
The 25-45 looks like it should have a following because it should be a good step up from the 223
for some types of hunting. But like everything else, there is always a cartridge that will be faster or have more energy than others.

I enjoyed the article and learning more about the 25-45 but wished the author had not picked the worst ammo for the competitive cartridges to make the 25-45 look good. it looks good without down playing other cartridges.

Just my opinion, as usual

J E CUSTOM

what's the difference between the Sharps and the older Copperhead?

I know for a fact that the Army played around with a 6mm/45 using an 85 grain bullet close to 2800fps (there were all sorts of claims, and at least one was as high as 3100fps). As early as the Spring of 1968, there were well placed rumors of a .270 round under development. We always assumed it was off the .223 case. I have shot the 6mm/45 out of an AR using 80 and 85 grain bullets. Never checked velocity, but seemed to work very well.
gary

 

[.30US]

I just received my .25x45 barrel from BHW last week from their sale. I had been wanting a .223-based wildcat for hunting with my AR for a while, and really liked the .20 Practical...except I don't hunt anything it would be ideal for or have any other .204" bullets around, already. I picked up a .257 JDJ Contender barrel late last year with a lot of 85 and 100gr bullets, so I thought I would give the .25x45 a try. My AR upper and handguard just arrived and my dies are in transit. The nice folks at Sharps Rifle Co. did provide the following reloading data:

(If necking up once-fired military 5.56 brass, reduce charges by 10 percent and work up)
THESE ARE MAXIMUM LOADS! APPROACH WITH CAUTION!
Load #1 - CCI 400 small rifle primer and Sierra 70 grain Blitzking .257 bullet, Powder H335 - Maximum load 27.5 grains - expected velocity of 3100 fps (needs a powder drop tube)
Load #2 - CCI small rifle primer and Sierra 70 grain Blitzking .257 bullet, Powder A2200 - Maximum load 27 grains - expected velocity 3100 fps
Load #3 - CCI 400 small rifle primer and Sierra 75 grain Hollow Pnt .257 bullet, Ramshot X-terminator - Maximum load 27.5.0 grains - expected velocity of 3100 fps (needs a powder drop tube)
Load #4 - CCI 400 small rifle primer and Speer HotCor 87 grain .257 bullet, Powder H322 - Maximum load 26.0 grains - expected velocity of 2850 fps
Load #5 - CCI 400 small rifle primer and Speer HotCor 87 grain .257 bullet, Powder H335 - Maximum load 28.0 grains - expected velocity of 2900 fps
Load #6 - CCI 400 small rifle primer and Speer HotCor 87 grain .257 bullet, Powder Ramshot X-terminator - Maximum load 27.5 grains - expected velocity of 2950 fps
Load #7 - CCI 400 small rifle primer and Speer HotCor 87 grain .257 bullet, Powder A2200 - Maximum load 25 grains - expected velocity 2900 fps
The Ramshot X-Terminator powder comes the closest of all of the commercial powders we've tested to the velocities achieved with our factory loadings in which we use factory OEM powders.
Ramshot X-Terminator and Accurate 2230 are the same powder.

With a 20" barrel, 2970 fps velocity with 1704 ft. lbs. of energy.
18" barrel, 2890 fps, 1613 ft. lbs.
16" barrel, 2790 fps, 1504 ft. lbs.

The OAL cartridge length is 2.245". The case length should be 1.760". Trim to length 1.750".

​

I chronographed my .257 JDJ with 85gr Nosler BTs at an average of 2855fps from a 14" barrel, so I'm thinking this should be comparable in a 20" AR for coyotes and hogs. I picked up a pound of Accurate 2200 this weekend, too. I have read that some folks that did a lot of testing on the .25x45 described SRC's reloading data as "optimistic," but we'll see.

 

[J E Custom]

what's the difference between the Sharps and the older Copperhead?

I know for a fact that the Army played around with a 6mm/45 using an 85 grain bullet close to 2800fps (there were all sorts of claims, and at least one was as high as 3100fps). As early as the Spring of 1968, there were well placed rumors of a .270 round under development. We always assumed it was off the .223 case. I have shot the 6mm/45 out of an AR using 80 and 85 grain bullets. Never checked velocity, but seemed to work very well.
gary

From what I can tell without the reamer drawings, they are about the same.

The 6.8 SPC is a 270 cal but they used a different case And even though the 6.8 has its own magazines, they will work in the 223 mags but don't hold as many rounds.

There is also another great round that is a 223 necked up to 7mm called the 7 TCU.

J E CUSTOM

 

[sable tireur]

The .25 Copperhead by John Wooters uses the .222 Remington case instead of the .223 Remington case. So essentially it is a .25 x 43mm as compared to the .25 x 45mm or the .25 x 47 which would be the .222 Remington magnum case. The one suggestion though is to check the internal magazine length of your action to be sure it will hold the .222 Mag length + the bullet length when it's seated correctly.

Case lengths:

.222 Rem. = 1.700" (43mm)

.223 Rem. = 1.760" (45mm)

.222 Rem. Mag. = 1.850" (47mm)

Regards.

 

[StumpGrinder]

25-45 Sharps

I was sent this report and though I would share with the membership.

https://web.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=314620&part=2.2

It looks like a good round for an AR. I like the simplicity of the modification from 223 to 25-45
and the performance is good. But once again, stats are not truthful when it comes to reporting other cartridges.

I don't know much about the 6.5 Grendel as far as velocity and energy. but the report on the 6.8 SPC is way off. the chart shows the velocity and energy of one brand of ammo for the 6.8 to be 2550 ft/sec and 1588 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. The actual 6.8 performance of the 6.8 using Remington ammo is 2800 ft/sec and 2002 ft/lbs of muzzle energy.

I understand the motive behind wanting to make a new round look good, and the 25-45 does. But
reporting lower performance on another cartridge only cast doubts on the cartridge that is previewed.

I have seen this many times and it is one reason I don't believe anything I read on line any more.
If someone reviews something, I wish they would be truthful about the other referenced products.

In my opinion if someone is honest in the reviews, the product will sell its self if it is a good one.
The 25-45 looks like it should have a following because it should be a good step up from the 223
for some types of hunting. But like everything else, there is always a cartridge that will be faster or have more energy than others.

I enjoyed the article and learning more about the 25-45 but wished the author had not picked the worst ammo for the competitive cartridges to make the 25-45 look good. it looks good without down playing other cartridges.

Just my opinion, as usual

J E CUSTOM

I have both and have loaded and chronographed 5 bullet weights in the 25-45 Sharps and 2 factory loading in the Grendel. In my experience they are balistic twins up to 130 grains which I did not test. The added benefit of the Sharps is the availablity of 5.56/223 brass which can readily be made into Sharps with out extra dies. And the full strength 5.56 bolt face in the AR 15 platform as opposed to the milled out Grendel one.