Lapua l bullets

Thanks for the info. I just might have to give them a try. Mine likes the 123 and 139 so much that I was tempted to see what the 136 would do. Compared to the 139, what is the difference in drop at say, 300 yds ?


At 300, probably nothing. The wee bit of extra velocity of the 136 should negate the purported loss of BC inside 500 (this is a SWAG of course). They should shoot VERY close to each other until the distance gets long. I haven't been able to do an field BC test with the 136 yet, the initial tests in the Snipers Hide thread started with a G1 of .600 although Lapua published data is much lower... which one is it or will it be in the middle somewhere? I don't know but, I DO intend to find out :cool:



t
 
the drop at 600 yds. w/the 136s is very close to the 139s. no technical info but good repeatable head-
shots on steel. i think they are worth a try. good luck, and let me know how you make out. i have some more loads to try. so i will update.
Dave
 
At 300, probably nothing. The wee bit of extra velocity of the 136 should negate the purported loss of BC inside 500 (this is a SWAG of course). They should shoot VERY close to each other until the distance gets long. I haven't been able to do an field BC test with the 136 yet, the initial tests in the Snipers Hide thread started with a G1 of .600 although Lapua published data is much lower... which one is it or will it be in the middle somewhere? I don't know but, I DO intend to find out :cool:



t
Keep me informed and thanks for the effort.
 
I shoot the 136's pretty much exclusively now although I will give the 120's a go this season as well. I find you can push them a fair bit faster then the 139's and they seem to group constantly better. I have no 139's left for a direct comparison, but the added velocity made up for the slightly lower BC.
 
I shoot the 136's pretty much exclusively now although I will give the 120's a go this season as well. I find you can push them a fair bit faster then the 139's and they seem to group constantly better. I have no 139's left for a direct comparison, but the added velocity made up for the slightly lower BC.

What are you loading? Give all details for rifle, powder, and such.
 
In my 260AI I was running them over a charge of H4350-45.3gr, Lapua .260 brass and Fed 210M primer and getting 2950fps out of a 24" barrel. I could push the 139's as fast, but was getting loose primer pockets after a few loadings so slowed them down to 2850.

I just started playing with the 136's in my new 22" PROOF barreled .260 and haven't had a chance to chrono them. I tossed together a load of 37.7gr of Varget, necked down Norma .308 brass and a Fed 210M primer and it is consistently shooting below 1/2MOA. I am hoping to get out and Chrono that load soon to see if it is quick enough for what I want, but the accuracy is sure there.

I just ordered up another 1000 of the 136's and 200 of the 120's to give a whirl.
 
In my 260AI I was running them over a charge of H4350-45.3gr, Lapua .260 brass and Fed 210M primer and getting 2950fps out of a 24" barrel. I could push the 139's as fast, but was getting loose primer pockets after a few loadings so slowed them down to 2850.

I just started playing with the 136's in my new 22" PROOF barreled .260 and haven't had a chance to chrono them. I tossed together a load of 37.7gr of Varget, necked down Norma .308 brass and a Fed 210M primer and it is consistently shooting below 1/2MOA. I am hoping to get out and Chrono that load soon to see if it is quick enough for what I want, but the accuracy is sure there.

I just ordered up another 1000 of the 136's and 200 of the 120's to give a whirl.
I am thinking I need to try them in my .260. The 139 shoots very well in mine with H-4831sc and the Russian primers. I will place an order shortly. Thanks for the info. ........ LARRY
 
Hey capdog, let me know how that 260 shoots the 120s i have a few and tried em in my 6.5x47s and-
got some good results. didn't have time to test em in the 260s yet. don't have a chrony. good luck!
Dave
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top