rooster721
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 212
Thought it be wise to start a thread with specifics for the CX bullet Hornady has now, that's supposed to compete in todays solids category.
For 15 years or so, the 168-grain Barnes LRX has been my bullet of choice in 7mm, and I haven't a single complaint on them to speak of, besides the fact that Barnes doesn't seem to be producing them anymore. It's been **** near 5 years since I've seen a box, and it used to be a walk in and grab anytime you need type of bullet. Frankly, there doesn't seem to be much promise to ever see them again, so instead of hoping for a miracle and choke holding my breath, I decided development was warranted with these Hornady CX's that (at the moment at least) are surprisingly easy to find. My rifle for the job, was the big-7 of yesterday, from the time before Ultras, LRM's or noslers who burn the market-barrels of today.. lol-- I shoot a 7.21 Lazzeroni Firebird, and have since the 90's. It's become a favourite, and with the time I've put into it, I've learnt that chambering inside out.
Comparison of the CX vs LRX; bearing surfaces, seating depths, and integral rings for copper displacement & pressures
Of coarse, no data exists for the Firebird and these CX bullets, so I based my starting points off already established LRX data that I developed years and years ago... I used Retumbo exclusively for its temperature-stability as I hunt in WIDE, varying temperature swings regularly, plus too to get the best burn, as cool as possible for such an overbore loading. The velocity I wound up with before primers started to flatten was a dead even 3200fps shooting the CX 150. I jumped it 50-thou and have it printing in the realm of 1.25" @200-yards/0.6-ish @100 ... I shot that data in ordinary brass, only annealed and trimmed, with flash-holes uniformed. I absolutely do believe that neck-turning would cut those groups measurably smaller yet. I have a batch of once-fired already turned and ready to go, specifically to find that out.
Hornady says that the integral rings they settled on along the CX's length (for reducing pressures) was optimal, but I beg to differ that statement. As seen in my picture, the LRX has one more ring than the CX, it too has a slightly longer bearing surface, and seats notably deeper yet than what the CX does, (taking case capacity away at that same time), but the LRX even-still runs cooler than the CX, it fully equals the CX's 3200fps speed, and it does so with 18grains heavier a bullet. In theory, things should be the other way around!
For comparison, my personal LRX load shoots in the 0.3's (in inches) through neck-turned full prep brass, and it's accounted for game as small as beavers and game as big as moose routinely, without a hiccup. It's an outstanding bullet and a very (very) high confidence load for me. These CX's do seem to be shooting on the LRX's heels, and I think show pretty good promise for a backup if LRX does fall off the face of the planet one day. The CX too, seems to be worth mentioning in the same sentence so far, but I'd sure like to see some changes to really set it out as top tier...
A bit higher BC for an extra couple hundred yards of useable range would be appreciated, and a bit more weight for the class would too. Another pressure & displacement ring would be worth their ballisticians time as well, in my own opinion.
Hope something in the thread helps somebody, somewhere to also get the bullet shooting in their rifles if they're stuck for data on jump or anything else here that I've touched on...
Seat them 50-thou off lands, start on the low side of similar weight Barnes' data, and go send 'em... trust the chronograph, and watch pressure signs inbetween. Overall, it isn't a difficult bullet to get printing..
Good shootin' guys
For 15 years or so, the 168-grain Barnes LRX has been my bullet of choice in 7mm, and I haven't a single complaint on them to speak of, besides the fact that Barnes doesn't seem to be producing them anymore. It's been **** near 5 years since I've seen a box, and it used to be a walk in and grab anytime you need type of bullet. Frankly, there doesn't seem to be much promise to ever see them again, so instead of hoping for a miracle and choke holding my breath, I decided development was warranted with these Hornady CX's that (at the moment at least) are surprisingly easy to find. My rifle for the job, was the big-7 of yesterday, from the time before Ultras, LRM's or noslers who burn the market-barrels of today.. lol-- I shoot a 7.21 Lazzeroni Firebird, and have since the 90's. It's become a favourite, and with the time I've put into it, I've learnt that chambering inside out.
Comparison of the CX vs LRX; bearing surfaces, seating depths, and integral rings for copper displacement & pressures
Of coarse, no data exists for the Firebird and these CX bullets, so I based my starting points off already established LRX data that I developed years and years ago... I used Retumbo exclusively for its temperature-stability as I hunt in WIDE, varying temperature swings regularly, plus too to get the best burn, as cool as possible for such an overbore loading. The velocity I wound up with before primers started to flatten was a dead even 3200fps shooting the CX 150. I jumped it 50-thou and have it printing in the realm of 1.25" @200-yards/0.6-ish @100 ... I shot that data in ordinary brass, only annealed and trimmed, with flash-holes uniformed. I absolutely do believe that neck-turning would cut those groups measurably smaller yet. I have a batch of once-fired already turned and ready to go, specifically to find that out.
Hornady says that the integral rings they settled on along the CX's length (for reducing pressures) was optimal, but I beg to differ that statement. As seen in my picture, the LRX has one more ring than the CX, it too has a slightly longer bearing surface, and seats notably deeper yet than what the CX does, (taking case capacity away at that same time), but the LRX even-still runs cooler than the CX, it fully equals the CX's 3200fps speed, and it does so with 18grains heavier a bullet. In theory, things should be the other way around!
For comparison, my personal LRX load shoots in the 0.3's (in inches) through neck-turned full prep brass, and it's accounted for game as small as beavers and game as big as moose routinely, without a hiccup. It's an outstanding bullet and a very (very) high confidence load for me. These CX's do seem to be shooting on the LRX's heels, and I think show pretty good promise for a backup if LRX does fall off the face of the planet one day. The CX too, seems to be worth mentioning in the same sentence so far, but I'd sure like to see some changes to really set it out as top tier...
A bit higher BC for an extra couple hundred yards of useable range would be appreciated, and a bit more weight for the class would too. Another pressure & displacement ring would be worth their ballisticians time as well, in my own opinion.
Hope something in the thread helps somebody, somewhere to also get the bullet shooting in their rifles if they're stuck for data on jump or anything else here that I've touched on...
Seat them 50-thou off lands, start on the low side of similar weight Barnes' data, and go send 'em... trust the chronograph, and watch pressure signs inbetween. Overall, it isn't a difficult bullet to get printing..
Good shootin' guys
Last edited:
