Hot is an understatement. You shoot 5 rounds in a minute and you can BBQ a 20 pound brisket on that barrel.
Of course it doesn't help matters that it's a 26 inch tooth pick. But if you get that bear zeroed in good and you can shoot it even 3 shots inside an inch you can kill about anything with it out to 400-500 yards, no problem. The .30-.378 is hotter but it's a real flinch maker. My .300 Mk V with a brake will shoot like a 308 and is sweet to shoot. My grand son has killed deer with it. He killed his first deer with my .30-06 deer with my .30-06 but won't touch it now since he killed one with the .300. He calls it the Cannon! It's a great gun, but it is a real pain to get sighted in.
Yea the 300 isn't a picnic to shoot at the bench. It wasn't as bad when i put the laminate stock, but now its too heavy to hunt with, according to my preference. The 130s though, were real soft on the shoulder, I'd say between a 165 and 180 '06. The 130 in the 06, even in a 7lbs rifle, were less then a 308 recoil wise. Looking at data though I won't be using the 130/06 combo again, but will for a 308. Difference is maybe 100fps.
I still have some 180gr TTSX I never tried in the 300....may have to.
I'll look at the book when i get home. But those would be the perfect weights for those cartridges! 225 MAYBE in the win mag, but with a TSX 338 I'd be looking at a 340 or RUM for anything heavier
I'll look at the book when i get home. But those would be the perfect weights for those cartridges! 225 MAYBE in the win mag, but with a TSX 338 I'd be looking at a 340 or RUM for anything heavier
Those are just the Barnes bullets I've acquired over the years from folks who didn't like/didn't use them. The boxes are full or slightly less than. I've never done anything with them. Yet.
"To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
Remember, gotta jump em to get the best accuracy. Barnes suggests starting at .050 off the lands and varying .030-.060 once the best load is found. Most people run them at or very near max for best accuracy.
And if you end up using them on game, put them in the shoulder! The vast majority of people who say they don't work, put them in the lungs like a C&C or plastic tip. They'll kill, but it'll be slower and they'll run. Those 338s can likely go through several pigs north to south, in a row
I'll look at the book when i get home. But those would be the perfect weights for those cartridges! 225 MAYBE in the win mag, but with a TSX 338 I'd be looking at a 340 or RUM for anything heavier
The thing that's been a real eye-opener for me has been the penetration capabilities of hard, homogeneous bullets like these Barnes and cast, antimony-laden lead alloys. You really have to discard your former rules-of-thumb regarding X-bullet weight for Y-caliber for use on Z-class of game that were based on the earlier soft-core jacketed rounds. The conventional wisdom regarding the Barnes coppers is that they penetrate at least as well as the next weight class (or two) up, so you might do well to consider going lighter weight for greater speed and flatter trajectories.
I'm incredibly stoked by this test in that:
1. It killed that MONSTER boar deader than common sense in the DNC.
2. Save for the entering rib, it was entirely a soft tissue shot that. . .
3. . . .stopped within the body, giving us a REALLY GOOD notion of what the limitations of this technology are. If it had exited, we'd still be wondering and Zee would probably be off risking his backside on a quest for a Cape buff.
Yeah, I'm pretty giggly about this one.
Regarding the lackluster accuracy of the factory load. . .I gave that some thought. This round IS loaded to 5.56 NATO pressures, which most of us know to be out toward the ragged edge of sanity. Rare is the load that shoots bugholes that close to the edge of the envelope. I also noticed that they crimped the neck - great if you're wanting your M249 SAW to be reliable; not so much if you're trying to win a Benchrest match. I'm pretty sure it's not the bullet that's to blame here.
I was really hoping that I would be able to catch a bullet in a pig. Like mentioned, if they had all passed through, we would be wondering.
That is is why I wanted a big one and wanted a quartering shot. Giving me enough porcine to maybe stop a Bullet.
The other two sows of 100-125 pounds just weren't enough to stop a Bullet. Even a 62gr .22cal one. Even the spine couldn't slow it down enough to stop.
The Barnes definitely have the penetration thing going for them. Which........is why I say I don't need them. I just don't require excessive penetration with what I have available to hunt. Ain't no Whitetail/Mule Deer or pig on this planet I can't conquer with a cup & core or bonded bullet.
Maybe if I specialized in light for caliber or small caliber cartridges, I could use the extra penetration of the Barnes. But, I've killed some pretty big pigs with the 62/64gr Gold Dot out of the .223 Remington as well. The bullets didn't hold together on the big ones. But, they killed the pig just as dead. And well............I have a lot of those bullets.
I am steering no one away from the Barnes. I am truly impressed with this little bullet. I'm just saying........I don't currently need it. But, I wouldn't kick it out of bed.
"To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
THIS is the one cartridge I have that I'd consider the Barnes bullet for. I have been very pleased with the 85gr Sierra HPBT-Game King that I've been using. But, this is one cartridge I use that I think could benefit from the extra penetration of the Barnes to lead this cartridge into its own.
I might have to do some research.
"To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
THIS is the one cartridge I have that I'd consider the Barnes bullet for. I have been very pleased with the 85gr Sierra HPBT-Game King that I've been using. But, this is one cartridge I use that I think could benefit from the extra penetration of the Barnes to lead this cartridge into its own.
I might have to do some research.
The trouble is going to be the bullet length in such a short case that HAS to fit in an AR magazine for me.
"To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
The OTHER problem as mentioned with the Barnes, is the high cost.
Were i using a bolt gun or single shot for 1 or two deer a year.......not so bad. But........for pig eradication...........it can be a high volume endeavor. So, the cost adds up. I may go through 10-12 rounds at one heard.
"To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
The trouble is going to be the bullet length in such a short case that HAS to fit in an AR magazine for me.
True, OAL could be an issue.
Looking at the online loads, they have the 70gr .223 at 2.250, which should fit, and just shy of 2900 with H4895. I imagine the 80 gr 6mm is pretty close to the 70 .223. They also list their match 85gr at 2.260 and 2528 with H4895. I'm guessing the 6x45 would end up somewhere in between those, in length and velocity.
I just looked at the bullet on Midway. It's a long skinny boat tail. Yeah. That ain't gonna work. I've got the Sierra at Mag length already.
I think the 80 TTSX may work, the 85 TSX looks to have a longer ogive. The 80 has near the same BC at .331 vs .333. The rings look more centered, the TSX further back
THIS is the one cartridge I have that I'd consider the Barnes bullet for. I have been very pleased with the 85gr Sierra HPBT-Game King that I've been using. But, this is one cartridge I use that I think could benefit from the extra penetration of the Barnes to lead this cartridge into its own.
I might have to do some research.
Might actually be worth nagging Barnes on this topic. I'm kinda surprised that 80 and 85 grains are as light as the TSX and TTSX families go with 6mm. Considering how they penetrate, they could drop down into the 70 grain range with a flat base and still be OK for a lot of game.
Powders I use/have that might work for the .338s......
Benchmark
H4895
H4350
H4831 & sc
I will not buy any other powder than Hodgdon. Except Trail Boss.
Thats just how how I roll.
Thanks.
Have you tried any others? You may be limiting yourself. No two rifles are the same. Some like it this way, some like it that. We as one cylinder mortal humans may not know precisely what this way or that way may be, but such differences do exist. That's why most old loaders try a variety of powders.
From what I know of you on here, I would bet my next retirement check if you can do something better you'll do anything you believe will give you something better. If you want to experiment powder varieties is a good place to start.
Daddy, what's an enabler?
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Is it all X bullets or TSX? #4 is the most current, tan cover, 90% TSX data
Wait let me look.
No, it's even older than that, a Number 2. It's all X Bullets. XFB-Flat Base, XBT-Boattail, and solids, which aren't called X bullets so I don't know, I guess they don't have a fancy designation. Don't see any TSX in it. I think this was a few years before TSX. This book is OLD!
Daddy, what's an enabler?
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Have you tried any others? You may be limiting yourself. No two rifles are the same. Some like it this way, some like it that. We as one cylinder mortal humans may not know precisely what this way or that way may be, but such differences do exist. That's why most old loaders try a variety of powders.
From what I know of you on here, I would bet my next retirement check if you can do something better you'll do anything you believe will give you something better. If you want to experiment powder varieties is a good place to start.
I try to keep it simple.
No desire to "experiment" with powders. The ones I have seem to work pretty darn well with what I have.
"To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
Replies
Yea the 300 isn't a picnic to shoot at the bench. It wasn't as bad when i put the laminate stock, but now its too heavy to hunt with, according to my preference. The 130s though, were real soft on the shoulder, I'd say between a 165 and 180 '06. The 130 in the 06, even in a 7lbs rifle, were less then a 308 recoil wise. Looking at data though I won't be using the 130/06 combo again, but will for a 308. Difference is maybe 100fps.
I still have some 180gr TTSX I never tried in the 300....may have to.
What weight, and Federal or '06?
180gr TSX for the .338-06
210gr TSX for the .338 WM
72gr Varminator for the .243 Win
I'll look at the book when i get home. But those would be the perfect weights for those cartridges! 225 MAYBE in the win mag, but with a TSX 338 I'd be looking at a 340 or RUM for anything heavier
Those are just the Barnes bullets I've acquired over the years from folks who didn't like/didn't use them. The boxes are full or slightly less than. I've never done anything with them. Yet.
210 BC .404
338 Win:
Book best IMR4350 63.5 to 70 max.
2678 - 2903 @102% case fill
Also list Varget, aa2700, Hunter, IMR4831 H4831SC
185 BC .352
338-06
Book best
RL15 52.5 to 57.5
2753 - 2967
Also list TAC, h4895, Varget, IMR4064, IMR4320
The 72 is not in the current book, but they've been updating their website with pdf files with new bullets
And if you end up using them on game, put them in the shoulder! The vast majority of people who say they don't work, put them in the lungs like a C&C or plastic tip. They'll kill, but it'll be slower and they'll run. Those 338s can likely go through several pigs north to south, in a row
The thing that's been a real eye-opener for me has been the penetration capabilities of hard, homogeneous bullets like these Barnes and cast, antimony-laden lead alloys. You really have to discard your former rules-of-thumb regarding X-bullet weight for Y-caliber for use on Z-class of game that were based on the earlier soft-core jacketed rounds. The conventional wisdom regarding the Barnes coppers is that they penetrate at least as well as the next weight class (or two) up, so you might do well to consider going lighter weight for greater speed and flatter trajectories.
I'm incredibly stoked by this test in that:
1. It killed that MONSTER boar deader than common sense in the DNC.
2. Save for the entering rib, it was entirely a soft tissue shot that. . .
3. . . .stopped within the body, giving us a REALLY GOOD notion of what the limitations of this technology are. If it had exited, we'd still be wondering and Zee would probably be off risking his backside on a quest for a Cape buff.
Yeah, I'm pretty giggly about this one.
Regarding the lackluster accuracy of the factory load. . .I gave that some thought. This round IS loaded to 5.56 NATO pressures, which most of us know to be out toward the ragged edge of sanity. Rare is the load that shoots bugholes that close to the edge of the envelope. I also noticed that they crimped the neck - great if you're wanting your M249 SAW to be reliable; not so much if you're trying to win a Benchrest match. I'm pretty sure it's not the bullet that's to blame here.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Benchmark
H4895
H4350
H4831 & sc
I will not buy any other powder than Hodgdon. Except Trail Boss.
Thats just how how I roll.
Thanks.
338-06
H4895
52.5 - 2758
55.5 - 2925
338 Win
H4831SC
66.5 - 2650
74 - 2857
I love you.
That is is why I wanted a big one and wanted a quartering shot. Giving me enough porcine to maybe stop a Bullet.
The other two sows of 100-125 pounds just weren't enough to stop a Bullet. Even a 62gr .22cal one. Even the spine couldn't slow it down enough to stop.
The Barnes definitely have the penetration thing going for them. Which........is why I say I don't need them. I just don't require excessive penetration with what I have available to hunt. Ain't no Whitetail/Mule Deer or pig on this planet I can't conquer with a cup & core or bonded bullet.
Maybe if I specialized in light for caliber or small caliber cartridges, I could use the extra penetration of the Barnes. But, I've killed some pretty big pigs with the 62/64gr Gold Dot out of the .223 Remington as well. The bullets didn't hold together on the big ones. But, they killed the pig just as dead. And well............I have a lot of those bullets.
I am steering no one away from the Barnes. I am truly impressed with this little bullet. I'm just saying........I don't currently need it. But, I wouldn't kick it out of bed.
The 80 or 85 6mm, in the 6x45. Or the 100gr in the 25-06.
46.7 - 3366
51.9 - 3674
THIS is the one cartridge I have that I'd consider the Barnes bullet for. I have been very pleased with the 85gr Sierra HPBT-Game King that I've been using. But, this is one cartridge I use that I think could benefit from the extra penetration of the Barnes to lead this cartridge into its own.
I might have to do some research.
The trouble is going to be the bullet length in such a short case that HAS to fit in an AR magazine for me.
Were i using a bolt gun or single shot for 1 or two deer a year.......not so bad. But........for pig eradication...........it can be a high volume endeavor. So, the cost adds up. I may go through 10-12 rounds at one heard.
Kinda what I figured.
I just looked at the bullet on Midway. It's a long skinny boat tail. Yeah. That ain't gonna work. I've got the Sierra at Mag length already.
True, OAL could be an issue.
Looking at the online loads, they have the 70gr .223 at 2.250, which should fit, and just shy of 2900 with H4895. I imagine the 80 gr 6mm is pretty close to the 70 .223. They also list their match 85gr at 2.260 and 2528 with H4895. I'm guessing the 6x45 would end up somewhere in between those, in length and velocity.
I think the 80 TTSX may work, the 85 TSX looks to have a longer ogive. The 80 has near the same BC at .331 vs .333. The rings look more centered, the TSX further back
Might actually be worth nagging Barnes on this topic. I'm kinda surprised that 80 and 85 grains are as light as the TSX and TTSX families go with 6mm. Considering how they penetrate, they could drop down into the 70 grain range with a flat base and still be OK for a lot of game.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
I too have a Barnes book but I'm thinking it's a bit dated like from the 90s.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Have you tried any others? You may be limiting yourself. No two rifles are the same. Some like it this way, some like it that. We as one cylinder mortal humans may not know precisely what this way or that way may be, but such differences do exist. That's why most old loaders try a variety of powders.
From what I know of you on here, I would bet my next retirement check if you can do something better you'll do anything you believe will give you something better. If you want to experiment powder varieties is a good place to start.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Is it all X bullets or TSX? #4 is the most current, tan cover, 90% TSX data
Wait let me look.
No, it's even older than that, a Number 2. It's all X Bullets. XFB-Flat Base, XBT-Boattail, and solids, which aren't called X bullets so I don't know, I guess they don't have a fancy designation. Don't see any TSX in it. I think this was a few years before TSX. This book is OLD!
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
I try to keep it simple.
No desire to "experiment" with powders. The ones I have seem to work pretty darn well with what I have.
Uh-oh...yer turning into the reloading version of a "Mopar Guy."