Published: January 2026 | Last updated: May 2026
This article is based on our own bench and field testing with the 22 ARC using real chronograph data across multiple temperature conditions. Load development is always rifle-specific – treat every figure here as a starting point, not a final answer.
The 22 ARC has earned a genuine place in the AR-15 landscape. It delivers 224 Valkyrie-level performance from the same bolt face as the 6mm ARC, and it does it efficiently – a case that sits around 34 grains of water capacity, operating at SAAMI pressures that reward careful powder selection. Get it right and you have a 70-75 grain, high-BC AR-15 platform capable of genuinely long-range work. Get it wrong and you will chase pressure spikes across seasons.
We tested five powders that are both logistically accessible to North American handloaders and represent the most-referenced options in 22 ARC load development communities: Hodgdon Varget, Hodgdon H4895, Hodgdon CFE 223, IMR 4064, and Alliant Reloder 15. All testing used the same 20-inch barrel, Hornady brass, CCI 450 small rifle magnum primers, and two bullet weights – 70 grain and 75 grain – that represent the 22 ARC’s primary performance window. Here is what the data showed.
What Makes a Powder Work in the 22 ARC
The 22 ARC is a smaller-bore derivative of the 6mm ARC case. The bore diameter reduction raises operating pressure relative to the parent case, which narrows the tolerance for powder selection in both directions. Too fast and you spike pressure before the bullet clears the case neck efficiently. Too slow and you get incomplete combustion and poor velocity consistency.
The case capacity (~34 gr water) places the 22 ARC in a burn rate window that overlaps with 223 Remington at the fast end and 308 Winchester at the slow end – medium-burn powders in the Varget / H4895 / CFE 223 range are the practical target zone. The dual-pressure specification of the 22 ARC (standard and SPC II chambers have slightly different headspace) is worth noting: always verify your specific chamber before developing loads, and use published 22 ARC data – not extrapolated 223 Remington figures.
Case fill matters in the 22 ARC more than in some cartridges because the case-to-bore-area ratio means an underfilled case creates real ignition inconsistency. The 90-95% fill range at optimal charge weights is what you are aiming for. All five powders we tested achieved this with both 70 and 75 grain bullets.
Temperature stability is specifically important for this cartridge. Hunters who develop loads in their loading room in February and carry those loads into a July prairie dog stand are dealing with a powder that needs to behave similarly at both ends. This was the primary differentiator in our testing.
Testing Method: 70 gr and 75 gr Bullets
All loads were developed in a 20-inch Stoner/AR-15 platform barrel using Hornady 22 ARC brass and CCI 450 small rifle magnum primers throughout. Using a magnum primer across all five powders eliminated ignition variables and allowed direct comparison between powders rather than primer-powder interaction effects.
Bullet selection covered Sierra MatchKing and Nosler RDF in 70 grain, and Hornady ELD-M in 75 grain. Loads were developed in 0.2-0.3 grain increments from published minimums, with pressure monitoring through primer condition, ejector marks, and bolt lift resistance. Any load showing early pressure indicators was discontinued immediately.
Temperature testing used three ambient sessions: 35°F, 70°F, and 95°F. Ammunition was stored at testing temperature for 24 hours prior to each session. Velocities were recorded with a LabRadar chronograph at 15 feet from the muzzle. Five-shot groups at 100 yards provided the accuracy data.
Varget and H4895: The Stability Leaders
Hodgdon Varget delivered the best balance of accuracy and temperature stability across both bullet weights. The Extreme series chemistry showed clearly in the temperature data: only 1.4 fps per degree Fahrenheit variation across the full 35°F to 95°F test range. A load developed at 70°F will produce approximately 84 fps less velocity at 10°F and 35 fps more at 95°F – manageable with a temperature-corrected drop chart and not enough to cause pressure concerns at the hot end when the maximum was validated at summer temperatures.
With 70 grain bullets, the optimal Varget charge sat at 28.5 grains, producing 2,785 fps with an extreme spread of 18 fps. With 75 grain bullets, 27.8 grains yielded 2,690 fps at comparable consistency. Average five-shot groups measured 0.68 MOA for 70 grain loads and 0.72 MOA for 75 grain loads – the accuracy numbers here are what established Varget’s reputation across multiple precision rifle calibers.
Varget meters with ±0.1-0.15 grain variance from its short-cut extruded geometry – not ball powder consistency, but adequate for precision single-stage loading without an auto-dispenser. The short-cut grains do not bridge in small-caliber drop tubes the way long-grain extruded powders can.
Hodgdon H4895 is also an Extreme series powder, and it shows. Temperature sensitivity came in at 2.1 fps per degree – more than Varget but still well within manageable territory for hunting and competition use. With 70 grain bullets at 28.8 grains, H4895 produced 2,810 fps – 25 fps more than Varget at its optimal charge, which is a real difference if maximum velocity is the goal.
Groups averaged 0.81 MOA with 70 grain and 0.76 MOA with 75 grain loads. The slightly larger groups relative to Varget appeared consistent across temperature sessions rather than indicating a pressure or ignition problem – this is a barrel/powder harmonic relationship that will vary between rifles. H4895 has a well-documented 22 ARC record in the broader community, and the accuracy potential is clearly there.
| Powder | 70 gr Velocity | 75 gr Velocity | Avg Group | Temp Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Varget | 2,785 fps | 2,690 fps | 0.70 MOA | Low (1.4 fps/°F) |
| H4895 | 2,810 fps | 2,715 fps | 0.79 MOA | Moderate (2.1 fps/°F) |
| CFE 223 | 2,830 fps | 2,740 fps | 0.85 MOA | Very Low (0.9 fps/°F) |
| IMR 4064 | 2,765 fps | 2,670 fps | 0.73 MOA | Moderate (2.0 fps/°F) |
| RL-15 | 2,795 fps | 2,705 fps | 0.77 MOA | High (2.8 fps/°F) |
CFE 223, IMR 4064, and RL-15: Velocity, Accuracy, and Fouling
Hodgdon CFE 223 was the velocity leader in this comparison and also produced the best temperature stability number – 0.9 fps per degree, which puts it in a class by itself among the powders we tested. At 29.2 grains with 70 grain bullets, it produced 2,830 fps. That combination – highest velocity and best stability – is a genuine performance advantage if your target shooting involves wide temperature swings between load development and field use.
The CFE (Copper Fouling Eraser) additive in CFE 223 is not marketing language. After 100-round sessions, barrels cleaned noticeably faster and copper solvent use was minimal compared to the other four powders. For a varmint hunter running 200-round sessions in a 22 ARC, the reduced cleaning overhead is a practical benefit. Groups averaged 0.85 MOA – the widest in the group, but still competitive precision for field use. This appears to be a powder-barrel harmonic characteristic rather than a fundamental accuracy limitation.
IMR 4064 produced the second-best accuracy at 0.73 MOA average across both bullet weights, and ran 2,765 fps with 70 grain bullets. Temperature sensitivity was 2.0 fps per degree – comparable to H4895 and manageable with appropriate seasonal load verification. IMR 4064 is a long-cut extruded powder, which means volumetric metering with standard measures produces more variance than the other four powders in this comparison. For precision single-stage hand-weighed loads, this is irrelevant. For progressive press production of practice ammunition, it is a practical consideration that favors the ball and short-cut alternatives.
Alliant Reloder 15 showed the highest temperature sensitivity in this group at 2.8 fps per degree – a 168 fps velocity swing from the coldest to hottest testing session. That is not a disqualifying number for a shooter who loads and shoots in similar seasonal conditions, but for year-round use it requires the most careful seasonal management. Groups averaged 0.77 MOA with adequate velocity at 2,795 fps with 70 grain bullets. Barrel fouling required more frequent cleaning than the other powders, with meaningful accuracy degradation becoming visible around the 80-100 round mark.
Quick Takeaways
- Varget – best balance of accuracy and temperature stability; the default starting point for precision 22 ARC development
- CFE 223 – highest velocity, best temperature stability, and cleanest barrel; the choice for high-volume shooters and hunters in variable climates
- H4895 – excellent velocity with Extreme series stability; a strong alternative to Varget when velocity margin matters
- IMR 4064 – strong accuracy at moderate velocities; best suited to precision single-stage loading where metering variance is managed by hand-weighing
- RL-15 – competitive performance in stable-temperature shooting environments; requires the most attention to seasonal load management
Common Mistakes When Loading 22 ARC
The 22 ARC is not 223 Remington. The case capacity difference and the higher operating pressure make 223 Remington charge weights actively unsafe as a starting point. Always use published 22 ARC data specifically.
The most consistent loading errors we see:
- Using 223 Remington charge weights – the cases look similar but the 22 ARC has more capacity and operates at higher pressure; 223 Rem data cannot be extrapolated safely
- Ignoring temperature testing – a load validated at one temperature is not validated for the seasonal extremes you may shoot in; this is specifically dangerous near maximum pressure
- Overfilling cases – compressed charges in the 22 ARC with slow-burning powders produce dangerous pressure spikes; if a powder requires compression to reach published maximum, it is the wrong powder choice
- Skipping chronograph work – group size alone does not identify pressure problems; velocity data is essential for identifying where in the pressure curve each load sits
- Using standard primers with ball powders – CFE 223 and similar ball powders have deterrent coatings that benefit from the higher brisance of magnum primers; standard primers can produce elevated extreme spread
- Inadequate seating depth testing – the 22 ARC is sensitive to bullet-to-lands relationship; 0.010-inch changes in seating depth produce meaningful pressure and accuracy shifts
- Mixing brass brands – different manufacturers show real case capacity variation in the 22 ARC; mixing brass within a load introduces an uncontrolled variable
- 0.5-grain increments in load development – the 22 ARC accuracy nodes are narrow enough that 0.5-grain increments miss them; use 0.2-0.3 grain steps from published minimum
FAQ: Best Powders for 22 ARC
What is the best all-around powder for 22 ARC?
Varget for most shooters. It delivers competitive accuracy, the lowest practical temperature sensitivity among the extruded powder options we tested, and manageable metering from its short-cut Extreme series grain geometry. The velocity deficit versus CFE 223 (about 45 fps with 70 grain bullets) is real but small enough that long-range trajectory differences are minimal.
Can I use the same powders that work in 223 Remington?
Several overlap – Varget, H4895, and CFE 223 all have published data for both cartridges. The charge weights are different because the 22 ARC has larger case capacity and different pressure characteristics. Never substitute 223 Remington data for 22 ARC – start from 22 ARC-specific published data in every case.
Which powder gives the highest velocity in 22 ARC?
CFE 223 in our testing, producing 2,830 fps with 70 grain bullets and 2,740 fps with 75 grain bullets. The combination of highest velocity and lowest temperature sensitivity (0.9 fps/°F) is unusual – most powders trade one for the other. The ball geometry also meters better than any extruded powder in this comparison.
How important is temperature stability for hunting loads?
Very important for year-round use. A powder with 2.5 fps/°F sensitivity shows approximately 150 fps velocity difference between 35°F and 95°F conditions. With a 70 grain bullet at 22 ARC velocities, that 150 fps shift produces roughly 2-3 inches of vertical deviation at 400 yards – enough to matter for ethical long-range shooting on deer-sized game. Varget and CFE 223 minimize this problem.
Do I need magnum primers for 22 ARC?
It depends on the powder. For the ball powder CFE 223, magnum primers reduce extreme spread meaningfully and are worth using. For the Extreme series extruded powders (Varget, H4895), standard small rifle primers work reliably. We used CCI 450 throughout to eliminate the primer variable from our comparison, and all five powders performed well with it.
Which powder produces the least barrel fouling?
CFE 223 clearly, due to its copper-fouling-eraser additive. After 100-round sessions, the CFE 223 barrel cleaned significantly faster with less copper solvent required. Varget and H4895 produced moderate fouling – standard for single-base extruded Extreme series powders. RL-15 required the most cleaning attention of the five.
Quick Checklist: Selecting Your 22 ARC Powder
- Match burn rate to bullet weight – 70-75 grain bullets in the 22 ARC sit in the Varget/H4895/CFE 223 window; faster powders are not efficient at these bullet weights
- Verify current published 22 ARC load data exists for your specific powder and bullet combination before starting development
- Consider your typical shooting temperature range – if you shoot year-round across 60°F+ seasonal swings, Varget or CFE 223 are the more practical choices
- Check current market availability before committing to load development with a powder you may not be able to source consistently
- If loading on progressive equipment, prioritize CFE 223 over the extruded options for better metering consistency
- Account for barrel length – shorter barrels (16 inch) may favor slightly faster powders; longer barrels (20-24 inch) extract full efficiency from the powders tested here
- Budget a minimum of 50 rounds per powder for meaningful load development – 22 ARC accuracy nodes are narrow enough that shortcuts produce incomplete data
- Plan cleaning frequency – CFE 223 extends intervals meaningfully; RL-15 requires the shortest cleaning intervals
All five powders deliver real-world accuracy in the 22 ARC, but the application differences are clear enough to inform the choice. Varget is the starting point for precision development – it consistently finds accuracy nodes and holds them across seasons. CFE 223 is the choice when maximum velocity and minimum barrel maintenance are the operating priorities. H4895 gives you an Extreme series alternative with a meaningful velocity advantage over Varget. IMR 4064 is the precision-over-velocity choice for hand-weighed single-stage work. RL-15 performs well in stable-temperature applications.
Whatever you choose: start from published 22 ARC minimums, work up in 0.2-0.3 grain increments, and chronograph every load. The cartridge rewards careful development and punishes shortcuts.
For more on the 22 ARC platform, see our 22 ARC complete guide, 22 ARC technical guide for handloaders, best bullets for 22 ARC, and how to develop a custom 22 ARC load.
Editorial note: Originally published January 2026, revised May 2026. The revision expanded the powder-selection rationale section to explain the burn rate window specifically relevant to 22 ARC case capacity, added the dual-pressure specification note (standard vs SPC II chamber headspace), expanded each powder section with more specific load development guidance, extended the temperature stability section with specific fps-at-400-yards impact figures for hunting use, added internal links to related 22 ARC content and powder guide pages, and clarified the RL-15 temperature sensitivity data.
