Barnes Bullets, Are they missing the LR hunting boat?

[Michael Courtney]

One thing many forget is that a lot of long range hunting occurs at elevations btw 8000 and 14000 ft. In the thinner air, a bullet with a BC of 0.400 or so retains velocity as well as a bullet with BC of 0.600 at sea level.

Super high BCs are really only needed by hunters at sea level or those mountain hunters really pushing the ranges out F A R.

The elk load my son carried last year was a Barnes X bullet with BC somewhere between .400 and .500 and muzzle velocity of 3200 fps. Above 10,000 ft, this load retained plenty of energy and velocity of 2200 fps to 600 yards and was still above 1800 fps (the advertised expansion threshold) at 900 yards.

My daughter's skills are more realistic with respect to 1000+ yard shots, and she carried a load with a BC of 0.600 and a muzzle velocity of 2900 fps (a jacketed lead bullet).

Barnes bullets are great in their niche, but that niche just isn't 1000+ yards. Frankly, I do not think the 1000+ yard niche can be filled with lead free bullets.

 

[bruce_ventura]

...Barnes bullets are great in their niche, but that niche just isn't 1000+ yards. Frankly, I do not think the 1000+ yard niche can be filled with lead free bullets.

I have to agree, for now.

I've worked with the ballisticians at Barnes and have a huge respect for their capabilities. They have one of the best small arms ballistics labs in the country. Barnes hasn't missed many tricks with monolithic bullets.

Barnes has high standards for bullet performance. They know that increasing BC is only half the story. The bullet has to be accurate as well. Accuracy (low dispersion) improves when the center of gravity (CG) is close to the back of the bullet. To minimize spin rate, the center of pressure (CP) should be close to the CG.

High density materials like lead allow for relatively short bullets with the CG and CP toward the rear. To achieve the same BC using lower density copper or brass, the bullets have to be longer, which pushes the CG and CP in the wrong direction. That reduces accuracy and increases spin rate. Beyond a certain point, the increase in dispersion becomes unacceptable. I think that the LRX bullets represent the best compromise between BC and dispersion that Barnes has found so far. If there is a breakthrough in affordable monolithic bullet performance, there is a good chance that Barnes will bring it to us.

Cannelures (grooves) definitely increase drag (reduce BC). But they have to be there to avoid pressure spikes. Barnes learned that a long time ago. Other companies have had to re-learn that lesson after they introduced their lead-free bullets when the Barnes patents expired a few years ago.

The MRX was a good idea, but proved a difficult design to make reproducibly. As I recall the problem was getting the bullets balanced properly. The low yield of well balanced bullets increased dispersion. Maybe a breakthrough in manufacturing technology will bring that design back to life.

In California, we don't really have a choice. We have to make monolithic bullets work for long range because a third of the state is now lead-free for big game hunting, and the rest of it will be within a few years. Hopefully the combination of liberal politics and bad science that fostered those laws stays confined to the left coast.

 

[Varberger757]

About the only to options that are being ostracized and ignored in the LR community are the .257's and 8mm (.323) calibers.

I would love to see more LR capable bullets for those 2 calibers.

Thanks a lot! You made my day, because I'm badly missing LR opportunities for my 8mm favorites. Imagine a 8x68S, 8x68S AI or the great American 8mm RM with suitable LR - bullets ...
Lead - free producers like Barnes and others will come under (big) pressure since the development of lead -free bullets for the exclusive purpose of LR has already made big steps forward.
The Lutz Moeller Company in Germany has developed two different kinds of LR - bullets for the 408 Cheytac made of brass. Chey Tac 1021 with a 26g/401gr bullet weight and the 1022 with 30g/463gr ...!! Both hold a velocity of stunning 549m/s or 1801ft/s at 1200m/1312 yards. You'll find loading data on his web sites also for American powders like RL 22, H 4350, H 4831 and IMR 7828.
Under a project called G-6 (Gewehr 6/ rifle 6) Moeller develops a special LR - round LM -101 (100% brass) for a... .323 round, the brandnew 8 x 70! In addition the G-6 gets an interchangeable barrel for 338LM. This barrel in 338LM is thought for "low cost" training sessions. Looks like that thinks are getting better.

BC1000 for the Cheytac 1021= 0,95 and BC1000 for the Cheytac 1022 = 1,069

 

[Michael Courtney]

I have to agree, for now.

I've worked with the ballisticians at Barnes and have a huge respect for their capabilities. They have one of the best small arms ballistics labs in the country. Barnes hasn't missed many tricks with monolithic bullets.

Barnes has high standards for bullet performance. They know that increasing BC is only half the story. The bullet has to be accurate as well. Accuracy (low dispersion) improves when the center of gravity (CG) is close to the back of the bullet. To minimize spin rate, the center of pressure (CP) should be close to the CG.

High density materials like lead allow for relatively short bullets with the CG and CP toward the rear. To achieve the same BC using lower density copper or brass, the bullets have to be longer, which pushes the CG and CP in the wrong direction. That reduces accuracy and increases spin rate. Beyond a certain point, the increase in dispersion becomes unacceptable. I think that the LRX bullets represent the best compromise between BC and dispersion that Barnes has found so far. If there is a breakthrough in affordable monolithic bullet performance, there is a good chance that Barnes will bring it to us.

Cannelures (grooves) definitely increase drag (reduce BC). But they have to be there to avoid pressure spikes. Barnes learned that a long time ago. Other companies have had to re-learn that lesson after they introduced their lead-free bullets when the Barnes patents expired a few years ago.

The MRX was a good idea, but proved a difficult design to make reproducibly. As I recall the problem was getting the bullets balanced properly. The low yield of well balanced bullets increased dispersion. Maybe a breakthrough in manufacturing technology will bring that design back to life.

In California, we don't really have a choice. We have to make monolithic bullets work for long range because a third of the state is now lead-free for big game hunting, and the rest of it will be within a few years. Hopefully the combination of liberal politics and bad science that fostered those laws stays confined to the left coast.

California is disadvantaging their hunters and citizens. The military has gone to lead free bullets for standard infantry loads, but I truly hope they do not follow suit for loads intended for use beyond 500m. All the same factors discussed above make designing longer range lead free loads challenging, with the added challenge of the required JAG approval related to the Hague Convention. Even if Barnes solves the problem for long range hunters, it probably won't help long range military users.

Other than the jacketed lead bullet, composite bullets have a long history of failing to achieve the accuracy needed for long range work. The technical challenges of mass producing bullets where the center of gravity is on the axis is one challenge. There are others.

It is a fantasy to believe that "modern technology" can replace lead, even moreso when operational requirements dictate that replacement technologies be comparable with the cost of lead. Even allowing replacement technologies to be 2x the cost of lead, performance is still far behind, not only for projectiles but for lead free primers also.

Our nation has foolishly followed California's lead in many areas. Hopefully mandating lead free bullets won't be next.

 

[feelinducky]

I like Barnes. Everything that I've shot has died with very little meat loss and no tracking issues, no shots have been over 450 yds, with most under 200. However a couple of years ago they changed the .277 130g TSX bullet. The old style had a bc of .431, and they shot great out of my .270. They changed the design of the bullet and lowered the bc to its new bc of .374. I was preparing for an antelope hunt in Wyoming and had to buy some more bullets. When I got home and started to reload I noticed that they changed the ogive. I called Barnes Barnes said it had been changed "awhile back". This was about 6 months to a year before the release of the LRX 129g.
After the LRX came out I decided to buy a couple of boxes and try them out in my 270wsm. I couldn't get them to shoot, they are longer(129g LRX 1.3440") than a 140g Berger VLD (1.267") hunting. I can't get them seated out further due to magazine length restrictions and in the 270 WSM most of the bullet is seated into the case.
My frustration with Barnes is, if the original 130g tsx worked great with no problems why would a company change bullet design to lower the bc? I think it was for marketing of their new LRX129g with a bc of .463 to make it look better and nothing else. Only my opinion.

 

[.30US]

Do the Match Burners have a deficiency for LR hunting? I bought some for a 6.5 rifle I will finish in a few months and was impressed with both the claimed BC and the price. There isn't much information on them, so I was happy to follow this thread about Barnes.

 

[Jluck]

I wonder if the Match Burners are made like a VLD?Interesting... Off to GTFI.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Do the Match Burners have a deficiency for LR hunting? I bought some for a 6.5 rifle I will finish in a few months and was impressed with both the claimed BC and the price. There isn't much information on them, so I was happy to follow this thread about Barnes.

Most of the open tipped match bullets can be iffy on game. They are not designed for game, and some versions expand more readily than others. The AMAX will expand reliably on game over a range of velocities due to the plastic tip, but open tipped match bullets sometimes expand and sometimes the tip collapses and they do not expand.

 

[RustyRick]

Quote
I suspect that the grooves in the Barnes bullets don't help the BC one bit, just like similar grooves and bumps don't help the airflow of your car at speed. So, they probably start with a bit of a disadvantage.

Being an old pilot and golfer, the reason that golf balls have dimples is to create "LOW PRESSURE" zones around the ball. That makes the fly faster and farther.

I have wondered why more bullets don't have the groves and believe that they would make for flatter faster shooting bullets is canaled.

GS Custom Bullets of South Africa may be in the grove on that?

 

[Michael Courtney]

Quote
I suspect that the grooves in the Barnes bullets don't help the BC one bit, just like similar grooves and bumps don't help the airflow of your car at speed. So, they probably start with a bit of a disadvantage.

Being an old pilot and golfer, the reason that golf balls have dimples is to create "LOW PRESSURE" zones around the ball. That makes the fly faster and farther.

I have wondered why more bullets don't have the groves and believe that they would make for flatter faster shooting bullets is canaled.

GS Custom Bullets of South Africa may be in the grove on that?

The important difference is between subsonic and supersonic flight. In supersonic flight, each groove gives rise to a shock wave that propagates outward from the source. These shock waves rob energy and increase the drag.

 

[RustyRick]

OH OK, that's out of my league.

Or ru saying my golf balls don't fly that fast.

 

[LoneTraveler]

Measuring the groves on 30. Cal bullets, Both 150 and 180 I get a grove diameter of .294 with full diameter of .308. When run through a 30 cal. Barrel with the metal moved by the rifling not going to be much groves left. Barnes had trouble of pressure with people using NON-BARNES loading data. Plus less drag for better muzzle speed.

I seen some ammo which was bought in California and brought to a Maine Bear Camp where I hunted in September. It was Remington Ammo with BARNES BULLETS. I have heard an Unverified Rumor that REMINGTON has bought BARNES to allow them to compete for ammunition sales in California. Barnes , Hornady GMX and Nosler E-Tip are about the only Large U.S.A. Manufacture Bullets that will meet California Law requirements. Has anyone heard anything about a buy out of Barnes?????

 

[bruce_ventura]

...Has anyone heard anything about a buy out of Barnes?????

Yes. That happened in January 2010. Freedom Group, owned by Cerberus Capital, bought Barnes Bullets. Freedom Group also owns Remington, Marlin, DPMS, and Bushmaster, to name a few.

 

[Gerard Schultz]

In supersonic flight, each groove gives rise to a shock wave that propagates outward from the source. These shock waves rob energy and increase the drag.

Completely correct if the groove continues all the way around the circumference of the bullet.

With GSC bullets, once it has been engraved by the rifling, there is no groove but a series of buttons that are buried in the boundary layer of air that flows over the bullet. This does not raise a secondary shock wave and does not affect drag.