Barnes LRX 175gn .308 load data
- Thread starter Utectok
- Start date
I would start with the Barnes load data COAL, and the Viht N140 charges for the 180gr TTSX.
I'm sure it will shoot fine but I can't see any advantage to using this bullet over the 130 TTSX or similar.
I'm sure it will shoot fine but I can't see any advantage to using this bullet over the 130 TTSX or similar.
Utectok
Well-Known Member
I'm looking for a bit more MV than the Vhit data for 180gn which is 2400fps ish. The 130gn ttsx is a fine bullet for 90% of the deer I shoot between 10m and 250m. About 10% are between 300m and 400m and I'm looking for a load that will efficiently maintain speed and expand hopefully to 350m at least. Also I'm a bloody minded guy and like to see what works that's different from everyone else
I wouldn't be too concerned by the velocities in the Viht data. Start low and work up with a chronograph until you get the desired velocity or get excess pressure.I'm looking for a bit more MV than the Vhit data for 180gn which is 2400fps ish. The 130gn ttsx is a fine bullet for 90% of the deer I shoot between 10m and 250m. About 10% are between 300m and 400m and I'm looking for a load that will efficiently maintain speed and expand hopefully to 350m at least. Also I'm a bloody minded guy and like to see what works that's different from everyone else
How are the 130gr TTSX's failing past 300m? Are you just assuming that they won't work from what you read on here?
Utectok
Well-Known Member
Thanks @takbok I have not used ttsx at 300-400m and I'm still shooting lead on those sorts of distances. Your right 130gn ttsx may well kill deer brilliantly at 400m and I don't really know but a well placed bullet would sting a bit I'm sure! however it occurs to me the heavier bullet will need less of a wind call to which would be nice! I realise this is all speculation but reloading is sort of a hobby in itself? It seems there is very little data out there in terms of the LRX compared to the TTsx
so i might add to the hive mind? Anyway you make some good points buddy but no harm in trying something different? It looks like the speeds Im after are achievable?
so i might add to the hive mind? Anyway you make some good points buddy but no harm in trying something different? It looks like the speeds Im after are achievable?
Attachments
I think the 175gr terminal velocity at 300-400m will be lower than the 130 TTSX's so less expansion as the bullet construction is the same. Also longer time of flight than the 130's so probably worse in the wind up to those ranges I expect.
It will be interesting to see how you get on. As you say, everyone is different and it's best to find out for yourself ultimately.
It will be interesting to see how you get on. As you say, everyone is different and it's best to find out for yourself ultimately.
Utectok
Well-Known Member
theoretically the ttsx at 130gn will be traveling at 1827fps from an actual start (chronographed) mv of 2950fps and lrx 175gn starting at the mv of 2600fps if i can achieve it will be at 1870fps at the same distance so pretty similar speeds however the lrx is supposed to expand at slower speeds (barnes suggests 1600fps lrx and 1800fps ttsx). Most here seem to say north of 2000fps for ttsx so possibly the lrx might expand properly at 1900fps? lots of speculation here I appreciate! the BC of the lrx is .508 and the ttsx is .350 so that means there should be less wind drift. Theoretically with a 10mph crosswind at 400m the drift is 1millrad (40cm at target) and 1.3 milrad (52cm at target) with the ttsx
But the L in LRX, representing 'Long Range' must mean more-better-super-accuracy-sniper-tactical, right?
Time to man up and buy a 300 WM for these pills @Utectok , bring some bin bags if you actually plan to use them on deer
Are you sure?
Same material maybe, but depth and diameter of pocket and state of anneal would make a significant difference to the velocity required to open up the petals, let alone any pre-scored split lines.
Some difference in design is what I presumed made for the difference in naming.
Alan
PS... Just looked it up on the Barnes website and they say the LRX has a longer nose profile, so that alone reduces the resistance to opening up if the nose cavity is the same diameter and depth as the TTSX...even more so if the depth of the nose cavity is similar relative to the ogive of the shorter nose bullets.
FAQ - Barnes Bullets
www.barnesbullets.com
Last edited:
Utectok
Well-Known Member
just having fun buddy who know where it will end? no doubt with no more deer and a thinner walletBut the L in LRX, representing 'Long Range' must mean more-better-super-accuracy-sniper-tactical, right?
Time to man up and buy a 300 WM for these pills @Utectok , bring some bin bags if you actually plan to use them on deer
That's comparing apples with oranges, a hot load for the 175gr (if you can even achieve 2600) vs a mild load for the 130gr.
Yes, all well and good if gong ringing but going against experience, advice and conventional wisdom when it comes to projectile selection for live game isn't all fun and games.
Utectok
Well-Known Member
Absolutely but plenty of testing before I push it out to anything stupid. I am only trying to get a viable deer load that works 50-100m further than ttsx apparently is functional to and the wisdom seems to be thats good to 250m ish with my calibre of rifle. Some may dispute that but I have had dead deer to 200m and not tried it further than that. Lead works for me and I’m confident if conditions are good to upto 400m with a 150gn load it delivers good performance and dead deer from experience. I’m sure many will have different experience but that’s mine. Mind you of the last 40 deer I have shot only 4 have been over 300m but they were all memorable and satisfying moments were everything came together nicely and it would be sad to go to copper and leave out those moments.
Last edited:
Utectok
Well-Known Member
This is interesting from another forum....
"Yeah, I don't have any 200-grain Tipped .30's of either "brand" on hand, so can't testify if there's any dimensional difference. But there are definite dimensional differences in other similar-weight TTSX's and LRX's, which is what I cited, partly from the measured drawings in the 3rd edition of Bryan Litz's fine book BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE OF RIFLE BULLETS.
The annealing information came from two sources, the first a person with the present Barnes company who stated the LRX's are designed to open at lower impact velocities, so do tend to lose petals more often than TSX's and TTSX's. The other source was Randy Brooks himself, who as I've noted elsewhere, told me 15 years ago on a mule deer hunt that his original X-Bullets tended to lose petals, partly because of the annealing process. He thought this probably enhanced "killing power," and knew it helped expansion, but hunters started complaining when X-Bullets lost petals, mostly because it reduced retained weight. This wasn't too long after far more hunters became aware of retained weight in big game bullets, largely because of Bob Hagel's book, and they started believing more retained weight enhanced killing power.
So Randy started annealing X's differently to retain petals, at least most of the time. (I haven't found any version of the X immune to losing petals, sometimes all four.) He did this to please customers, because any smart businessman knows pleased customers buy more stuff."
"Yeah, I don't have any 200-grain Tipped .30's of either "brand" on hand, so can't testify if there's any dimensional difference. But there are definite dimensional differences in other similar-weight TTSX's and LRX's, which is what I cited, partly from the measured drawings in the 3rd edition of Bryan Litz's fine book BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE OF RIFLE BULLETS.
The annealing information came from two sources, the first a person with the present Barnes company who stated the LRX's are designed to open at lower impact velocities, so do tend to lose petals more often than TSX's and TTSX's. The other source was Randy Brooks himself, who as I've noted elsewhere, told me 15 years ago on a mule deer hunt that his original X-Bullets tended to lose petals, partly because of the annealing process. He thought this probably enhanced "killing power," and knew it helped expansion, but hunters started complaining when X-Bullets lost petals, mostly because it reduced retained weight. This wasn't too long after far more hunters became aware of retained weight in big game bullets, largely because of Bob Hagel's book, and they started believing more retained weight enhanced killing power.
So Randy started annealing X's differently to retain petals, at least most of the time. (I haven't found any version of the X immune to losing petals, sometimes all four.) He did this to please customers, because any smart businessman knows pleased customers buy more stuff."
Similar threads
