Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Barnes Bullets, Are they missing the LR hunting boat?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bruce_ventura" data-source="post: 920723" data-attributes="member: 34084"><p>I have to agree, for now.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bruce_ventura, post: 920723, member: 34084"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Barnes Bullets, Are they missing the LR hunting boat?
Top