Anyone out there had any experience with both these bullets? I'm getting ready to start load development for a 280ai and would like to hear some thoughts. 139 to 145 doesn't seem like a big spread so I was wondering what Barnes made 2 so close together for. Seems like the 145 has more availability. Does anyone know if there is any performance difference?
Barnes LRX 7mm 139 vs 145
- Thread starter 2rjshort
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
I tried the 145 in my 280ai and in the end I just didnt see a need for it and went with the 120 for deer hunting. Ive hunted with Barnes in a number of calibers for decades and found that for me, the lighter bullets always did what I needed. Ive taken countless deer and in every instance the Barnes stopped them and I got full penetration no matter the angle of attack. Ive done this with 6mm 85 gr, 257 80 gr, 7mm 120 gr, and 185 gr 338. Since changing to hammers, Ive had the same experiences. At long ranges, the LRX is a great option but still there is the 1800 fps minimum impact velocity for expansion. I always pushed them hard as I do the Hammers
I agree with you on going lighter. I run the 168s in my 300 win and don't see any reason to go heavier. I was planning on potentially using this rifle for elk this year thus the reason looking for a 140ish bullet. How did the 145s perform in your ai?
Just checked my records. I tested 14 powders with it and all except 2 shot under 1". 6 powders shot .6" or better. H-4831SC could do no wrong. I should add that I left Barnes because they became almost impossible to find.
Thanks for the info! I was hoping 4831sc would do the trick since I just got lucky and scored 8lbs. I left Nosler for the same reason. Was wanting to shoot 160 accubonds but couldn't find them which lead me to the LRX which I found a few box's of. I have had great luck with the regular TTSX though
Tex LR
Well-Known Member
I have shot both in a couple different 280 AI's. The 145's shot better groups for me in both rifles with several different powder / windowing lots. With that said, the 139's were not bad at all. The 145's just consistently grouped tighter in my rifles. I settled on IMR 4350 but also had good results with H4831SC.
Last edited:
I stopped using the tipped barnes. I noticed a large number had tips wobbling when rolled on table. Maybe I got a bad batch in 2 different calibers. I went with TSX and glad I did as they shot better in my rifles.
Often wondered myself why Barnes went with 2 bullets so close together in weight. I use the 145 in my 7mm Weatherby and find it great for all game I would hunt with it. Leaving the muzzle at 3327 ft/sec with .75 MOA is all I will ever need of this rifle. JME
john k
Well-Known Member
I've had similar results with the 2 powders you mentioned. I also settled on IMR 4350. It also performed well in my 7mm-08 using 140 AB's. In my .280 AI I also use RL26 pushing 160AB's. Little more speed than IMR4350 but almost identical accuracy. Nosler AB's are very hard to find, so will probably switch to Hammers next hunting season.
PA Plumber
Well-Known Member
Subscribing....
In this very LRX predicament myself. Have a few boxes of 145's here and a few boxes of 139's on back order.
In this very LRX predicament myself. Have a few boxes of 145's here and a few boxes of 139's on back order.
My experience with both has been great. As far as function I would say the 139 is better. Infact most at Barnes agree the 139 LRX may be the best functioning LRX they have. I have killed elk, antelope and deer with the 139 from a 7 rem mag. My cousin killed a huge bull moose in UT with his 280AI and a 145 with one shot. So both are very great bullets.
sndmn11
Well-Known Member
The 139gr has a lower minimum expansion velocity by 200fps. Take "minimum expansion" in your own meaning, but that and a little BC are the differences.
sndmn11
Well-Known Member
I found the email when I got home.
"
As for the expansion, there is no max velocity or too fast to expand. You can push them as fast as you want. All they need is to impact the animal at the minimum velocity needed or faster.
So, the minimum IMPACT velocity needed for reliable expansion on both soft tissue or direct bone is as follows-
.264"/6.5mm 127 gr LRX- 1600 fps
.284"/7mm 139 gr LRX- 1400 fps
.284"/7mm 145 gr LRX- 1600 fps
.308" 175 gr LRX- 1600 fps
.308" 190 gr LRX- 1500 fps
.308" 168 gr TTSX- 1500 fps
.308" 180 gr TTSX- 1500 fps
.308 165 gr TTSX- 1800 fps
In the 300 WSM due to case capacity of that cartridge and the length of a copper bullet, I recommend the 175 gr LRX or 168 gr TTSX. Or the 165 gr TTSX if you have to. I have taken quite a few elk and deer with both the 168 gr TTSX and 175 gr LRX, as well as other Barnes Bullets. My favorite for my 300 Win Mags is the 175 gr LRX. From 15 yards to over 800 yards they have been awesome on elk. Deer have been a 60 yard shot to 760 yards furthest. In my bothers and cousins 300 WSM's I load them the 175 gr LRX or 168 gr TTSX. One 300 WSM we have has such a short magazine we have to use the 165 gr TTSX ( has a shorter ogive than the 168 gr TTSX or LRX's). But if your mag has enough room I recommend the 168 gr TTSX or 175 gr LRX.
I've used the 190 gr LRX on elk and deer as well but it doesn't do really anything better than the 175 gr LRX. It would just eat up way too much case capacity in the WSM unless you had a long magazine somehow.
Chase Young
| Consumer Technical Support |
Barnes Bullets
38 North Frontage Road | PO Box 620 Mona UT 84645
Phone 435-856-1000 | Fax 435-856-1040
[email protected] "
"
