But for my twin applications of accuracy on the range and full expansion of monometal projectiles at 450m+, it is perfect.
Well you did ask for opinions - you might get some you don’t like!
- You’re over-complicating it with all the burn rate comparisons etc etc. You rarely get what’s listed in the modelling apps anyway. Just do a simple linear process, it’s an easy cartridge to load for and acceptable results with available data are not hard to come by.
- Rather than use a powder that isn’t listed in tested load data, use one that is.
- The difference between individual barrels makes comparisons to other shooters’ outcomes fun to talk about, but not particularly useful.
- Aim for as close to a 100% case fill as possible within sensible pressure limits.
- With the PRC case, the slower powders are proving to be the best performers. I went straight to the Hornady data and nailed it in one session with RL26. So did everyone else in our community (the cartridge is already common in new rifle sales here).
Now for the one I’m not happy about, assuming I understand your comment correctly. If I have misunderstood you about wanting to shoot game at 450m+ with this Barnes bullet then I apologise for what I am about to say, and you can explain what you actually meant.
If you intend to use the Barnes bullet for a 450m+ deer hunting bullet, it is very far from perfect. The lighter Barnes bullets are proven to be highly unreliable at slow impact velocity such as what you’d be getting at 450m+. (That’s <2100fps and dropping 100fps every 50m.) If you are planning to shoot game at 450m+ with the 120gr, then it’s a bad choice, period. We have heaps of direct hands-on evidence of lung shots with Barnes 120gr in 6.5mm and 129gr in .277” that have resulted in very long runners, slow deaths, hard retrieves, and lost deer. And that’s from cartridges producing comfortably faster muzzle velocity than your test results to date. Anything behind the rear line of the foreleg and the difference in outcome and visible wound cavity between the light Barnes and a heavy for calibre, weight shedding lead bullet is immediately obvious.
This is the pointy end of the whole monometal bullet problem that you fellas have imposed upon yourselves, and despite this being discussed very openly by experienced people on here and elsewhere, I guess some guys will go find this out the hard way for themselves. There’s only so many times you can say, well our hard won experience says the outcome will be ABC, and then have posters that don’t have the experience, or do what we do, argue that it will be XYZ, in theory.
The Hornady 6.5 PRC was designed to use bullets in the 140gr+ range with a staunch load producing MV of ~3,000fps. That equates to a 300fps+ increase in terminal velocity at 450m, more like 350-400fps with the hot but safe load I have here. Terminal energy is in a different
league with the 143gr and 147gr Hornady bullets.
450m+ is the domain of high BC, soft bullets. The Barnes 120gr is neither of those prerequisites. If you must use the Barnes bullet for hunting then you should be significantly reducing your expectations of bankable effective range.
whether I use CCI200 or magnum primers.
Steve.
