175 Barnes LRX in 308 Win?

[BringBackThe80s]

Any reason that, when choosing between monolithics for my all-game/all-ethical-distances load in my 308 Winchester, I should disqualify Barnes 175 gn LRX?

Yes, I know that's a bit heavy for a monolithic in 308. I spent a good bit of time chasing a consistently accurate loading for the 130TTSX, but twice after a couple range sessions thinking I've settled on a MOA-or-better-for-5+shots recipe, it has made a scattered group at 2" or more. No Bueno. Next, a pressure ladder with 150TTSX did not look amazing. A pressure ladder with 168TTSX looked a bit better--but 168TTSX does not offer a significant speed advantage over the 175 LRX, and i already had 100 of the 175s on hand.

When I shot a pressure ladder with the 175 LRX, the last 7 shots, each increasing by 0.3 grains, made a ragged hole/cluster under 1". An initial OCW test shows promise, I think. And soon archery season will put reloading on the back burner, so I'd like to go ahead and nail down a recipe with the 175 LRX so I can spend subsequent range trips practicing at varying distances.

Everybody says to shoot monolithics light and fast for caliber. I understand the reasons and would do so if I had landed on a light-for-caliber load before midsummer. But by 400 yds the 175 will be moving about as fast as the lighter, "faster" bullets. At 500 yds, it will still be carrying 1300 ft lbs (enough even for elk, I think), and moving at 1800+ fps (reportedly more than enough for full expansion). Drop with 175 is more than with lighter options, but I've got a laser and cheat sheet for that. And wind drift is notable less with the 175.

My thinking: Out to 175 yards, I've had 100% great results on deer using 250 gn, .451" Barnes at only ~2300fps MV. For that matter, I've killed dozens of deer with arrows moving a tenth that speed. It seems to me that a 175gn .308 LRX shot at 2600fps MV to bisect deer or elk vitals should punch through bone, expand, and kill cleanly out to 500 yards.

But, if I'm mistaken or need to choose a different monolithic, I'd like to change up before I get any closer to deer season.

Thoughts?

 

[BringBackThe80s]

P.S. I'm not trying to debate monolithic vs cup-and-core. I've killed deer with both. I've had softpoint 100gn .243s and 375gn .45s pass end-to-end through deer, and I've had 130gn .270 NBTs and 300gn .452 SSTs detonate internally so all I could find was a piece or two of jacket. I just don't like scattering hundreds of particles of lead, potentially into my kids' future dinner.

I've no quibble with those who prefer that performance. I just have been very happy with monolithics, small hole in/large hole out, and want to stick with them. This rifle has just been finicky with the lighter weight Barnes options and I want to double check my expectations before I spend more time and powder working up the heavy option.

 

[HandgunHTR]

For a Barnes, you need at least 2200 fps for reliable expansion.

You did however state you like archery hunting so using a 175 out of a .308 will be a bit like long range archery hunting. As long you don't mind trailing them or just plan to hit CNS, you will be fine.

I understand your reasoning for wanting to use a mono, but in this case, I would recommend trying a different type of mono over the Barnes. Lots of folks recommend Hammers.

 

[BringBackThe80s]

For a Barnes, you need at least 2200 fps for reliable expansion.

You did however state you like archery hunting so using a 175 out of a .308 will be a bit like long range archery hunting. As long you don't mind trailing them or just plan to hit CNS, you will be fine.

I understand your reasoning for wanting to use a mono, but in this case, I would recommend trying a different type of mono over the Barnes. Lots of folks recommend Hammers.

Thanks! Yes, I fully intend yo start a new workspace with Hammers when this season ends. And I may try the 150 CX from Hornady at that time, too.

Regarding expansion velocity, Barnes has reportedly designed the LRX to open at lower velocities because it is intended for long range use. Reportedly 1500fps to open, ~1700fps to get full 2x expansion (screenshots attached).

But I can't find any low-speed gel tests with this bullet and am hoping to hear from somebody who has used them at long distance.

 

[112Savage]

I have not tested the 175LRX at long distance/slow speed but I have tested the 95gr 6mm LRX at lower speed. The bullet started at 2744fps and hit three water/milk jugs at 394yds and was recovered in dry paper. Impact velocity was around 2000fps. Expansion was 0.403” and weight 94.2gr

 

[Macintosh]

Im happy believing LRX’s expand at lower velocities than ttsx’s typically do, but barnes is all over the map with their “recommended minimum velocity”. They dont publish this at all, and the one consistency is that they will tell you its different for every individual bullet even within the ttsx family or lrx family…that means they recommend a different minimum velocity for the .308 150gr ttsx than they do for the .308 168gr ttsx.
However, I have gotten different answers from barnes on recommended minimum for the SAME bullet, so it seems even they dont have a concrete specification. (This difference is reflected in the two different min velocities for the same bullets in the screenshots above—I have personally recieved similar direct from barnes)
Best I could get from barnes was that within lrx bullets 1800fps was their highest minimum recommended velocity. So I have chosen to arbitrarily add 10% to that, which makes 2000fps my “cutoff”. This seems to match relatively well with the concrete and anecdotal info Ive been able to get, even if it is less than scientific. Pick your own minimum, but imo that minimum velocity is really what matters above all else. I have not had the need to test that threshhold on game, but at the velocities I have used them (usually around 2500fps give or take at impact) Ive been very happy with their performance and prefer the smaller wound to the bullets generally recommended here.

 

[BringBackThe80s]

Im happy believing LRX’s expand at lower velocities than ttsx’s typically do, but barnes is all over the map with their “recommended minimum velocity”. They dont publish this at all, and the one consistency is that they will tell you its different for every individual bullet even within the ttsx family or lrx family…that means they recommend a different minimum velocity for the .308 150gr ttsx than they do for the .308 168gr ttsx.
However, I have gotten different answers from barnes on recommended minimum for the SAME bullet, so it seems even they dont have a concrete specification. (This difference is reflected in the two different min velocities for the same bullets in the screenshots above—I have personally recieved similar direct from barnes)
Best I could get from barnes was that within lrx bullets 1800fps was their highest minimum recommended velocity. So I have chosen to arbitrarily add 10% to that, which makes 2000fps my “cutoff”. This seems to match relatively well with the concrete and anecdotal info Ive been able to get, even if it is less than scientific. Pick your own minimum, but imo that minimum velocity is really what matters above all else. I have not had the need to test that threshhold on game, but at the velocities I have used them (usually around 2500fps give or take at impact) Ive been very happy with their performance and prefer the smaller wound to the bullets generally recommended here.

That makes, sense--thanks. I had noticed the 1500 vs 1600 fps statement. I figured adding 200 to the higher number is probably a reasonable safe threshold. That would get me to 500 yards.

And the reality is that here in the East Tennessee mountains and woods, I've killed 10 deer at 15 yards for each one I've killed at 150 yards--and 180 yards is the farthest I've ever needed to shoot. But occasionally I hunt a powerline or cutover that might offer something longer. And until I add a magnum to my gunsafe, I want to regularly hunt with a load I can go anywhere with, even out west, confident I've shot it in all conditions and at distances well beyond my personal on-game max distance .

 

[A382DWDZQ]

I think on those screenshots above, they just mixed up the .284 and .308 minimum velocities for the 150gr TTSX. I don’t find it odd that they have different minimums for different bullets. My understanding is that they have different composition/hardness, but I have never tested that. It does make sense though, that if they are making something for a higher velocity round, they’d make it harder, ie the .308 150gr
and 165gr that are more for magnum applications. One of the unofficial guides that I have used is just looking at their factory ammo to see what they run in a cartridge and what they have for load data. For
the 308, no factory LRX loads, but they do have load data for the 175 and 200, but not the 190. That leads me to believe the 190 probably has a longer profile than the 200 or its harder and has a minimum impact velocity that is too high, or both.

I would not disqualify the 175LRX from the running for a 308, though I’ve been happy with 168gr in several .308 cartridges.

 

[Macintosh]

I think on those screenshots above, they just mixed up the .284 and .308 minimum velocities for the 150gr TTSX. I don’t find it odd that they have different minimums for different bullets. My understanding is that they have different composition/hardness, but I have never tested that. It does make sense though, that if they are making something for a higher velocity round, they’d make it harder, ie the .308 150gr

No, I have asked specifically about .308 diameter bullets and been given different velocities for the same bullet weight directly from Barnes.

Regardless of whether it “makes sense” (Id argue it is the wrong way to think about it and is counterproductive to the way people actually think about picking and using a bullet) it is confusing and it means as a hunter you cant easily get info from which to make a good bullet choice.

The rationale you provided is exactly what they have told me. That may have made sense back when 400 yards was a crazy long shot in order to get the same performance from a standard cartridge that you do from a faster magnum, ie people were shooting magnums to get a flatter trajectory to extend point blank range, but not for any ranges past 350-400 yards…so the magnum was not designed to have a significantly longer range, it was only to reach 50 or 80 yards farther using a mpbr zero on a duplex scope. However, I dont think that is aligned with the scientific info in terminal performance I have read, especially as people are looking to extend their terminally effective range. The most terminally effective bullets are the ones that fragment a lot, and the ones for longer range will reliably upset both at high velocity as well as at low velocity (ie the veolocity will be low at long range). A bullet from a 308win is precisely the same as the same bullet from a 300rum, its just they are at the same velocity at different ranges. Yet here we have barnes neutering their own bullets so you CANT take advantage of magnum velocity at longer range, because those bullets are harder and require higher velocity to expand reliably. All in the name of not shedding a petal or two (ie fragmenting) which is MORE terminally effective than simply mushrooming. As far as I can tell it’s backwards logic.

 

[sdupontjr]

I know you said that the 130ttsx didn't do well, but I didn't follow the recommended seating depth that Barnes recommends. The TSX is recommended for 2.810" and the TTSX at 2.735". After reading tons of threads on this round on several different forums, I settled on 2.825" which is just at the second ring. Pushed with 49g of varget and CCI-200 primer shoots little biddy holes in 2 tikkas and 2 Rem 700's. You probably already tested that length, but figured I'd pass it along.

 

[BringBackThe80s]

I know you said that the 130ttsx didn't do well, but I didn't follow the recommended seating depth that Barnes recommends. The TSX is recommended for 2.810" and the TTSX at 2.735". After reading tons of threads on this round on several different forums, I settled on 2.825" which is just at the second ring. Pushed with 49g of varget and CCI-200 primer shoots little biddy holes in 2 tikkas and 2 Rem 700's. You probably already tested that length, but figured I'd pass it along.

Actually, I haven’t; just loaded to the length listed in the manual. I don't know why not, since I am loading the 175 in excess of mag length in order to maximize case capacity. Even at 2.810 COAL, the 130 would have LOTS of jump in this Tikka.

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[sdupontjr]

I believe I have about .120" jump in both my T3 lite and my CTR and have no issues. I do still get slight crunch at 2.825". I also have some 8208xbr that I was gonna try, but Varget shot so well and I have about 4lbs of it.

 

[A382DWDZQ]

No, I have asked specifically about .308 diameter bullets and been given different velocities for the same bullet weight directly from Barnes.

I meant that Barnes may have mixed up the two when providing that information that the .308 150gr TTSX is 1500fps MIV. I am fairly certain the 150gr .308" TTSX is one of the harder, higher impact velocity bullets. The 150 and the 165 are both offered in factory ammo for the 300WSM and the 300WM. I have contacted them as well, and made notes when I see other folks posting what they were told. What I have in my notes show that the .308 150gr TTSX is 2000fps MIV, and the .284 150gr TTSX is 1500fps MIV...there are multiple posts that seem to cofirm that. I also found one of my own from a couple years back that was incorrect, so going to see if I can edit that.

 

[TaperPin]

I tend to think 180 gr is heavy for the 308 with conventional bullets, let alone monos. It won’t bounce off anything, but I’ve shot animals with slow heavy monos and the results felt like I handicapped myself when having to track it farther than what I’d think is normal. Nothing wrong with shooting any bullet as long as you keep its limitations in mind. Lack of penetration won’t be a concern and you can eat right up to the hole!

In the end any combination doesn’t have to be perfect. A light mono with horrible accuracy will still easily take an elk at distance, and a heavy mono traveling at the speed of smell will likewise put meat in the freezer. Sometimes I have to remind myself nobody with a centerfire rifle has ever starved to death from it not being absolutely “ideal”.

 

[Flymost]

The issue with monos and lower impact velocities isn’t well known and isn’t easy to show. Barnes will show decently expanded bullets at lower impact velocity, but the problem is they expand very slowly so you get a pin hole in the near side lung and a barely adequate hole in the offside lung. Because of this I along many people experienced with monos will recommend a minimum impact velocity of 2200 fps. While monos are my second choice I have used them quite often and when I have I have had great results. I do keep my impact velocities up tho. Shoulder shots at lower velocities is also a good idea. It’ll ruin a little meat but nothing like a lead bullet.

 

[BringBackThe80s]

I know you said that the 130ttsx didn't do well, but I didn't follow the recommended seating depth that Barnes recommends. The TSX is recommended for 2.810" and the TTSX at 2.735". After reading tons of threads on this round on several different forums, I settled on 2.825" which is just at the second ring. Pushed with 49g of varget and CCI-200 primer shoots little biddy holes in 2 tikkas and 2 Rem 700's. You probably already tested that length, but figured I'd pass it along.

Your suggestion was a winner--thank you! When I put the longer length you suggested into GRT with my barrel, case capacity, etc., it predicted a node at 48.99 grains--within a hundredth of a grain of your recipe. It also predicted a second node at 48.3gn So I loaded up a 130TTSX/Varget OCW ladder from 48.0 to 49.6 in 0.3gn steps, plus an extra 2 cartridges at 49.0gn.

At the range I somehow swapped a #2 and a #1 charge into the #1 and #2 targets, respectively, so I am ignoring those two targets. But 5-shot group at 49.0 grains was 0.77 MOA, with three bullets going into one hold right at the center. The two 3-shot groups 0.3gn above and below it were both submoa with nearly the same POI, so together those three targets (with more than a half grain of charge variation) form a 12-shot group of 1.28 MOA.

And, probable temp stability for hunting looks good, too. I shot those groups at ~80F. Dropping the charge down to the 3rd charge weight (48.6gn) is equivalent to shooting at 30F, a pretty average daylight temp for this area during deer season. Those three targets together make an 11-shot composite group of 1.66 MOA. But 10 of the 11 shots clustered up into 0.88 MOA. So I shouldn't need to change my load or tweak point of aim much for winter hunting.

Much appreciated!

 

[sdupontjr]

Sweet, I went against the book but other before me had great results so I figured I'd try it. Worked for you too.

 

[Laelkhunter]

I saw a hunting show a while back and the woman from Barnes was the hunter. She was talking about their bullets, and explained that the LRX line is designed to open at lower velocities since it is designed for longer range and lower velocities that would be obtained at the longer range. Also, the 30 cal 168 TTSX will also open at a lower velocity than the 165 due to it's design and she said it was for use in the 30/06 and 308 Winchester, but would also work well in the 30 Magnums.