Barnes Reloading Issue

[Rutland lad]

Afternoon all.
I have a 6.5x55 barrel for my Mauser MO3 to complement my .300 Winmag barrel.
Let me start with the Winmag - superbly accurate using 180 grain BARNES TSX.
6.5x55 - superbly accurate using 130 grain SAKO GAMEHEAD PRO.

However using Lapua cases, RS60 powder and 120 grain BARNES TTSX I had a very difficult and frustrating ladder test following Quickload parameters. I ended up with a group of less than 1" at 45.5 grains of powder but it wasn't anything special. Seating depth variations were tried to see if the group would reduce, but it was delivering unpredictable results.
I then tried to see if there was another sweet spot further up towards the top end and tried again up to 47.5 grains (I think) and there was no sweet spot showing. In fact it looked more like a loose collection of rounds rather than a group.

I'd had enough money/time wasted by now so I've stopped for the time being. The Sako factory shoot well so this season it will be with them.

However I do need to go back to the Barnes and revisit.
Now my question is
Do I go 100 grain TTSX/TSX, 120 grain (preferred) or 130 which the barrel seems to like more.
If anyone has experience and can give me some meaningful advice/guidance I'd like to hear from you. Someone has already very kindly given me their 100 grain TTSX recipe but I'd like to be about the 120/130 weight if possible.
If you have a proven recipe that may give me some starting point I'd like to hear from you - not to shortcut doing the hard work but just to help me get near.
If you just want to slag off copper and tell me to stay lead, please save your thoughts for yourself. It's coming - get ahead of it !

Many thanks.
One frustrated reloader.

 

[zambezi]

I have spent significant time trying to find an optimum reload formula that mimics Sako's [expensive] 6.5x55mm 493H ammunition. That factory ammo give sub moa performance throwing a Barnes 120gr ttsx at a chrono'd 2764fps.

I have now found a loading that gives me very similar performance. As ever, this is not a recommendation, just a candid statement of where my reloading, in my rifle, has taken me.

38.5gr N540
Barnes 120gr ttsx [30242]
CBTO = 2.337"
COAL = 2.870"
2 thou neck tension
MV = 2780fps

6.5x55mm using Barnes ttsx 120gr - good development with Viht N540

VO is only one part of the solution to ballistic problem Magnetospeed are pretty accurate - next to my oehler 35 I get the same VO Zero range data must be absolutely accurate to ascertain reliable drop data to “confirm “ VO Altitude Humidity Atmospheric pressure Scope height above bore...

www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk

 

[Yorric]

Rutland, did you chronograph you factory ammo that works shot from your rifle and also your reloads?
If you copy factory both the velocity and the COAL of your reloads, there is a good chance that your rifle will shoot the Barnes bullets with the same accuracy.

Ian

 

[Rutland lad]

No I didn't - I thought because the factory was 130 grain and the TTSX was 120 that this wouldn't help. Perhaps I was wrong.
I also was trying my best to stay with the same powder (RS60) for both loads as it reduced the 'cock up' factor considerably.

 

[Rutland lad]

I have spent significant time trying to find an optimum reload formula that mimics Sako's [expensive] 6.5x55mm 493H ammunition. That factory ammo give sub moa performance throwing a Barnes 120gr ttsx at a chrono'd 2764fps.

I have now found a loading that gives me very similar performance. As ever, this is not a recommendation, just a candid statement of where my reloading, in my rifle, has taken me.

38.5gr N540
Barnes 120gr ttsx [30242]
CBTO = 2.337"
COAL = 2.870"
2 thou neck tension
MV = 2780fps

6.5x55mm using Barnes ttsx 120gr - good development with Viht N540

VO is only one part of the solution to ballistic problem Magnetospeed are pretty accurate - next to my oehler 35 I get the same VO Zero range data must be absolutely accurate to ascertain reliable drop data to “confirm “ VO Altitude Humidity Atmospheric pressure Scope height above bore...

www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk

Thank you for that information.
I take on board your comments re it not being a recommendation, but it's certainly a starting point.

 

[zambezi]

but it's certainly a starting point.

As ever, I would always start lower and work up to any target charge.

"your mileage may vary as they say"

 

[Yorric]

If

No I didn't - I thought because the factory was 130 grain and the TTSX was 120 that this wouldn't help. Perhaps I was wrong.
I also was trying my best to stay with the same powder (RS60) for both loads as it reduced the 'cock up' factor considerably.

I assumed you were trying to copy the factory with identical bullets. Clearly different weight bullets will shoot differently and your barrel likes the 130 gainers. Sooooo why not try 130grain bullets.
Change only one variable not multiples, i, e, bullets and powder.

Ian

 

[MountainStalker2]

46-47 grains of H4350 with the 120grain TSX is a one hole type of group from my R8 in the swede. While you could change your projectile weight, I'd likely change my powder before my projectiles. If you have a chronograph, look at the velocity spread of the RS 60 loads and this may give some clues as to your issues.

 

[andychas]

In developing a load for both my own Sauer 6.5x55 and a Blaser 6.5x 55, we went thru the hoops with N160 and both 100 & 120gn TTSX Switched to RS60 and life immediately became easier. The big difference in both rifles was seating depth, starting off as Barnes recommend at 50thou off the lands, once we were in the right zone, tweaking the seating depth got the groups very tight indeed.

 

[Selous]

In my opinion going to heavier bullet weights makes less sense than reducing bullet weight. The main reason for increased bullet weight is to increase sectional density and therefore penetration which is not a problem with the lighter monometal bullets. I have seen excellent velocity, accuracy and terminal results from the 100g TTSX pushed by RS60/Reloader 17. Charge weights of 47 -48gr give velocities over 3100 in two different rifles

 

[takbok]

@Rutland lad did you load them to the specified OAL in the Barnes data? I've heard a few reports of them not working well when they're loaded long / close to rifling.

Performance and short range trajectory will be better with the 100gr - that's what I'd use.

 

[Rutland lad]

Thanks for the info guys, the more I have the better.
I'd like to stay with the 120's and reading andychas post above using identical powder and bullet weight he's getting what I want so I know it's possible.
I may need to take a deep breath and try again.

 

[Jelen]

Thanks for the info guys, the more I have the better.
I'd like to stay with the 120's and reading andychas post above using identical powder and bullet weight he's getting what I want so I know it's possible.
I may need to take a deep breath and try again.

You're not alone in your frustration. My efforts were equally unsuccessful. Did the ladder test, twice. Tried all the recommended seating depths to no avail, then ran out of bullets and couldn't find any in stock! I've put the project on the backburner. But I wish you well and the advice offered so far should help you get there.

 

[Rutland lad]

I’ve just had 50 120 grain TTSX put behind the counter for me to pick up this week. On the back of the information and advice I’ve been given I’m going to get into it again and see what happens.
Let’s hope this time it’s going to work.
Thanks for all your help.