H322 vs. H335 For .223/5.56 - Can Anyone Compare/Contrast The Two Powders?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I've used H322 for .223/5.56 reloading since the 1980's and still have 4 or 5 lbs. stashed away. However, I have not even seen H322 listed for months and it's been longer since I've seen it 'in stock' locally.

However, I have seen H335 not only listed, but in stock. It's supposed to be less expensive than H322; but, without having used it...???

This would be for, primarily, AR's and 'plinking' with 55 gr. FMJ's, with a very few soft-points thrown in. (I might even use it for .30-30; but, I tend to rely on 4064 for that caliber.)

I know many manuals tend to list loads for the H335 and not mention H322; but, I've been using H322 for over 40 years and never got around to playing with H335.

Can anyone compare/contrast the two powders, their effectiveness, and how they load? Any 'pet loads' you'd care to share?

[tabascoz28]

I have only used h335 for 556 and m80 308. Varget for accurate loading. I use it mainly because it meters great and was always available. Accurate enough for blasting around, I'm sure with the right component and equipment it also performs. It's the go to for a lot of people.

[Cowboy T]

H335 is the better powder for .223/5.56 NATO. Here's a bit of the history behind it.

Originally, there was the Ball, Type C (BL-C) powder. Remember that military powders are unblended lots. The slower lots went to the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge. The faster lots went to the 5.56 NATO cartridge.

Naturally, Hodgdon wanted to sell this powder to reloaders as well. So, they blended the powder lots to get consistent burn rates for the canister-grade (that is, "for sale to civilians" grade) sales. The slower lots got called Ball, Type C, Version 2, or "BL-C(2)". The faster lots got called H335.

So, H335 actually is the original military powder for the 5.56/.223 round, just blended to keep a fairly consistent burn rate for us out here.

H322 apparently is very popular in 6mm PPC. I use it for reduced, cast bullet rifle loads in .308 Win and 7.62x54R, and in that role, it likewise is quite good. If you're looking for a reduced load or a lower velocity load, nothing wrong with H322.

So, why don't we see H322 in the .223/5.56 role in reloading books anymore? That's very likely because of the increasing popularity of AR-15 rifles and pistols throughout the United States. H335 is a bit slower-burning than H322. You've got to be able to cycle the action, and H335 is better for that than H322 in the AR-15 style action. Bolt action, doesn't matter.

[tabascoz28]

As always, go by the book and do your own testing

[Spyder]

I use 322 for my varmint loads. Best load I've got in 223 is 40g varmageddons over 322 pushed to ludicrous speed out of my 24" M70 Heavy Varmint.

335 seems to have the best fireball for short barrel noise makers when pushed to edge of the limit and wanting to be obnoxious. Not as good as the old Norinco stuff for that, but it works. I typically use 335 for all of my bulk loads in blasting ammo just because it works, is consistent, is consistently available, and meters very well in the auto powder throw.

Both also work great for 45-70.

[Sailormilan2]

I have only used H322 recently, since I was unable to find my preferred H335. It's a very finely cut extruded stick/rod shaped powder. Very short cut, and meters very well. Almost as well as a ball powder. It also has a quicker burn rate than H335(#82 vs #88 according to Hodgdon). However, when used with some 77 gr bullets in my AR, H322 seemed to do quite well. Probably do better if I got down and really started working on the load. I seem to get a bit better accuracy stick/rod powders than ball powders.

H335 is essentially the Military's WC844. But WC844 will vary lot to lot, while commercial powders are blended to within 3%. WC844 came from use in Vietnam . The original 5.56 load was with a stick powder, but the military wanted a hotter load. So, the powder was changed to WC846(essentially Bl-C(2)). However, the deterrent coating used to slow down the burn rate(IIRC, CaCO3) plugged the gas system when used with the high volumes of fire the troops were using, as well as the, "You don't need to clean your M16s" idea.
So, the det coating was reduced, which quickened the burn rate and resulted in WC844. Burn rate of H335 vs Bl-C(2) is 88 vs 113, according to Hodgdon.

[ar15barrels]

Can anyone compare/contrast the two powders, their effectiveness, and how they load? Any 'pet loads' you'd care to share?

Here is what quickload has to say:

Cartridge          : .223 Rem. (SAAMI)
Bullet             : .224, 55, Hornady FMJ-BT w/c 2267
Useable Case Capaci: 26.528 grain H2O = 1.722 cm?
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.260 inch = 57.40 mm
Barrel Length      : 16.0 inch = 406.4 mm
Powder             : Hodgdon H335

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 0.388% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-03.9   93    24.80   2882    1014   48717  10838     93.7    0.813  ! Near Maximum !
-03.5   93    24.90   2895    1023   49365  10886     93.9    0.808  ! Near Maximum !
-03.1   94    25.00   2907    1032   50024  10933     94.1    0.804  ! Near Maximum !
-02.7   94    25.10   2919    1041   50693  10980     94.3    0.799  ! Near Maximum !
-02.3   94    25.20   2932    1050   51371  11026     94.5    0.794  ! Near Maximum !
-01.9   95    25.30   2944    1059   52058  11072     94.7    0.789  ! Near Maximum !
-01.6   95    25.40   2957    1068   52756  11117     94.9    0.784  ! Near Maximum !
-01.2   96    25.50   2969    1077   53463  11162     95.1    0.780  ! Near Maximum !
-00.8   96    25.60   2982    1086   54183  11206     95.3    0.775  ! Near Maximum !
-00.4   96    25.70   2994    1095   54913  11250     95.5    0.770  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+00.0   97    25.80   3007    1104   55653  11293     95.7    0.766  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+00.4   97    25.90   3019    1113   56405  11335     95.8    0.761  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+00.8   97    26.00   3032    1123   57167  11377     96.0    0.757  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+01.2   98    26.10   3044    1132   57939  11418     96.2    0.752  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+01.6   98    26.20   3057    1141   58721  11458     96.3    0.748  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+01.9   99    26.30   3069    1151   59513  11498     96.5    0.743  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ? 3% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 3% relative to nominal value:
+Ba     97    25.80   3060    1144   58999  11381     97.2    0.747  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 3% relative to nominal value:
-Ba     97    25.80   2949    1062   52351  11154     93.7    0.786  ! Near Maximum !

Cartridge          : .223 Rem. (SAAMI)
Bullet             : .224, 55, Hornady FMJ-BT w/c 2267
Useable Case Capaci: 26.528 grain H2O = 1.722 cm?
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 2.260 inch = 57.40 mm
Barrel Length      : 16.0 inch = 406.4 mm
Powder             : Hodgdon H322

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 0.41% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
 %       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-04.1   99    23.40   2897    1025   48813  10786     95.1    0.807  ! Near Maximum !
-03.7   99    23.50   2910    1034   49479  10833     95.3    0.802  ! Near Maximum !
-03.3   99    23.60   2922    1043   50153  10880     95.5    0.797  ! Near Maximum !
-02.9  100    23.70   2935    1052   50839  10926     95.7    0.792  ! Near Maximum !
-02.5  100    23.80   2948    1061   51534  10971     95.9    0.787  ! Near Maximum !
-02.0  101    23.90   2961    1071   52239  11015     96.0    0.782  ! Near Maximum !
-01.6  101    24.00   2974    1080   52955  11059     96.2    0.777  ! Near Maximum !
-01.2  102    24.10   2986    1089   53680  11103     96.4    0.773  ! Near Maximum !
-00.8  102    24.20   2999    1099   54418  11145     96.6    0.768  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
-00.4  102    24.30   3012    1108   55161  11187     96.7    0.763  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+00.0  103    24.40   3025    1117   55925  11228     96.9    0.759  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+00.4  103    24.50   3038    1127   56695  11269     97.0    0.754  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+00.8  104    24.60   3050    1136   57477  11309     97.2    0.749  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+01.2  104    24.70   3063    1146   58272  11348     97.3    0.745  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+01.6  105    24.80   3076    1156   59076  11386     97.5    0.740  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
+02.0  105    24.90   3089    1165   59895  11424     97.6    0.736  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!

Results caused by ? 3% powder lot-to-lot burning rate variation using nominal charge
Data for burning rate increased by 3% relative to nominal value:
+Ba    103    24.40   3076    1155   59252  11277     98.2    0.740  !DANGEROUS LOAD-DO NOT USE!
Data for burning rate decreased by 3% relative to nominal value:
-Ba    103    24.40   2970    1077   52721  11128     95.2    0.778  ! Near Maximum !

322 is a little too bulky for top performance loads with a 55gr FMJ if you look at the case fill percentages.

[hundy]

I have used H355 for quite a while for 5.56mm reloads, I don't think you will have any negative issues. I started buying it when COVID hit and powder was hard to get. I actually like it and prefer it over my other powders used in the past. I think you will find it to work great for your loads.

Good Luck,

Jay

[hambam105]

Excellent powder for 55 grain fmj with 223 Remington.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Alright. You convinced me (something I'd already been in the process of doing to myself). I picked up the last pound of H335 yesterday when I was in a Sportsman's Warehouse and I'll give it a try.

Of course, my 'sunny' personality tells me that it will work, meaning, as with H322, H335 will likely now also become problematic to obtain and will be hideously expensive when/if it is available.

I already think it is 'too expensive;' but it's decidedly better priced than H322 and, has been, notably more available for awhile. I always assume just under "300 rounds" to a pound of powder, meaning that at $40 a pound ($38 plus tax), it works out to roughly 14 cents a round for just the powder. Now add 15 cents a bullet along with 3 cents a primer (yep, I've still got several thousand from the good times) and don't count my time loading. It still works out to roughly $1 for every 3 - 4 rounds.

Now... That's decidedly better than factory at $2 - $3 for every 3 - 4 rounds, but still...

Let's just say I'm glad I don't got no kids waiting to inherit the 'family fortune.'

[Cowboy T]

Yes, it is, and for any rounds with jacketed or all-copper bullets, that's about the right ratio for cost savings with reloading, including handgun rounds. It's usually about a third of the cost per round.

[anyracoon]

H335 is my go to plinking load powder, 25gr for a 55gr FMJBT. I bought several jugs of Surplus WC844 several years back for 79.99 a 8# jug. Worked out to 25.2gr to match velocity of H335.

[joelogic]

I found H322 to be an excellent powder. Good consistency lot to lot. Temp stable. I loaded it for gaming so only about 2800fps out of a 14.5. H335, I can see why its better for semi autos. It does seem gasser at similar velocities.

But I am in the same boat. H322 is too expensive now and will be turning my eye in another direction. CFE223 maybe.

[Sailormilan2]

Currently, Powder Valley has H335 priced at $229.24 for 8#. Not counting S&H and Hazmat.

[BrassCase]

I was told that you can use H335 instead of water to measure case volume as it has the specific gravity as water does.