280 grain Barnes LRX BC #s?

barnesuser28

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
2,820
Location
ND
Has anyone done some bc testing with this bullet yet? I am hopefully going shooting tomorrow so i can try to figure out what the BC is but i will most likely adjust MV rather than BC. Thanks for any help!
 
I know Barnes says its .667 but just looking at its form and it weight it has got to be in the mid-low .7's
 
ICANHITHIMMAN i think he tested the 265 grain. Based on our drops from shooting tonight, if i left the MV alone at 2582 fps the bc would be .770, but i adjusted my MV to 2640 fps and kept the original .667 BC.
 
They shot great! Shooting them out of a Savage 338 Lapua at .100 of the lands with 82.4 grain of Retumbo, Lapua brass, and federal 215 magnum match primers.

At 680 yards i pulled 2 out of the 3 shots but the group still measured 4.980" or .699 MOA, if i wouldnt have pulled the shots the group would be less than an inch.

At 806 yards they shot about 4" high and a 3.5" group.

On a side note my 10 year old brother shot it and dislocated his shoulder. :rolleyes:
 
ICANHITHIMMAN i think he tested the 265 grain. Based on our drops from shooting tonight, if i left the MV alone at 2582 fps the bc would be .770, but i adjusted my MV to 2640 fps and kept the original .667 BC.
Im so sorry i hade a typo. It was .730 not .770
 
i know this thread is 2 months old, but i forgot to mention that we found a bullet in the hillside behind the target, i am not sure if it was from a 680 yard shot or 800 yard shot but if it was from 680 yards the aprox. impact velocity would have been around 1800 fps and if it was from 800 yards it would have been around 1650-1700 fps, here is a pic next to a (also 280 grain LRX) bullet i recovered from testing in wet newspaper at an impact velocity of 2650 fps. The bullet from newspaper on the left for comparison. This tells me that any velocity above around 1800-1900 fps the bullet will have full expansion all the way down to the end of the expansion chamber.

Riley
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4208.JPG
    IMG_4208.JPG
    56.5 KB · Views: 171
  • IMG_4209.JPG
    IMG_4209.JPG
    59.3 KB · Views: 157
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top