Would anyone care to chime in regarding likelihood of my 10 twist Accumark with 24 inch bbl stabilizing the 168s? I know this was discussed a bit in 2015. I guess I won't know if I don't try but thought it would be better to ask first. Trying to work up a great load for elk in CO and I really like the BC of the 168s. BTW, my rig does well with the 160 TSXs but wanted to improve a bit on the BC which we all know helps out a lot past 300. If anyone has a few to sell,let me know.Thanks in advance for any advice!!
Barnes 168 lrxs needed
- Thread starter LaVec
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
loaders_loft
Well-Known Member
It's not going to work, sorry. The 168 lrx needs an 8 twist no less. I spoke with folks at barnes recently, they are huge believers in the 139 LRX..
By the way how is the 24" barrel on your stw? Velocity, muzzle blast etc. Compared to a 26" or better?
By the way how is the 24" barrel on your stw? Velocity, muzzle blast etc. Compared to a 26" or better?
Cinchy
Well-Known Member
I guess somebody needs to tell my Cooper with 1-9 twist it won`t shoot the Barnes 168 lrx? I have tried almost ever brand bullets & it seems to like the Barnes 168 best?
loaders_loft
Well-Known Member
Maybe you're at higher altitude? I'm just above sea level.
Cinchy
Well-Known Member
Nope Kansas is pretty flat to. Everything I have shot is in the 168 gr class , except the Sierra game changers that are 165 gr? Maybe I ought to give some of the lighter Barnes a try, to see how good this gun really shoots?
I'm sorry but have never chrono'd it and don't have another to compare to. As I work up loads, I'll try to share info with you. Thanks
duckhunter175
Well-Known Member
Try the 145gr LRX! I've been shooting them in my 7RUM 1-9" with no problems.
The 168LRX is only .086 longer than the 180gr Berger Hunting VLD but weighs 12gr less. I'm not a scientist but I know my 1-9 will stabilize those 180s so I'm tempted to try the 168LRX!
The 168LRX is only .086 longer than the 180gr Berger Hunting VLD but weighs 12gr less. I'm not a scientist but I know my 1-9 will stabilize those 180s so I'm tempted to try the 168LRX!
I'm debating whether I should bite the bullet(pun intended) and buy a box of the 168s or try to buy a few from someone here and potentially waste a few bucks rather than 37 bucks. I trust everyone's advice against them in my slow twist rifle ,but then there's the" you won't know how they act in your rifle until you try". Thanks again for all the great advice here!!
lancetkenyon
Well-Known Member
The 168 LRXs have stabilized just fine in a few different 1:9" twist 7RMs I have loaded them in.
And my 1:8.5" twist 7RM spins them very well also.
I did not try them in my 1:9" .280AI, but the 145 LRX shoot awesome in it.
And my 1:8.5" twist 7RM spins them very well also.
I did not try them in my 1:9" .280AI, but the 145 LRX shoot awesome in it.
Tried them in 280AI with 1:9 twist and could only stabilize pushing speed and pressure. 280 Cooper would not get enough speed to stabilize. Shot in McWhorter 1:9 7 STW and performed well, but again at upper range of load.
Well, I'm finally back on here and Chase at Barnes was nice enough to send me 10-12 of the 168 LRXs. Will load and send them down range in the next couple weeks. I will report my results. Happy 4th to everyone, especially our military past and present!!
OK, so I tried but no luck. At 100 yds, the 168 LRX hit paper at about a 45 degree angle.I was at the low end of loading but there is no way I'll trust it, even at higher velocity, just because it makes a "round hole".I need great stability for maximum penetration.Looks like it will be 145 LRX. But...has anyone had experience with the terminal performance of the ELDX? Please chime in. I'm hard pressed to leave the known performance of the Barnes for something I have no experience with just because the BC is so good.Thanks in advance for any opinions.
