Re: Range Report: Barnes XPB [Mission Aborted]
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:10 am
Well, the operational range of the Barnes 200gr XPB keeps shrinking. Not because of lack of velocity, but due to lack of expansion in milk jugs filled with water.
As already reported, using reduced loads to simulate reduced velocities encountered at longer ranges, they failed to expand at simulated 300 and 250 yards, penetrating and exiting all 7 jugs, never to be found. At my last outing on Wednesday, doing work on one of the other calibers I'm experimenting with (6.5 Grendel), I took along my 200 yard Barnes XPB simulation round as well as one loaded with a Hornady 200gr FTX as a control. This time, I set up 9 jugs, hoping to capture the Barnes for a post mortem examination, if it once again made it through all 7 jugs.
It worked! The Barnes came to rest in the 7th jug, having imparted hydraulic damage consistent with a bullet traveling that fast in the first two jugs just like my first two outings and boring rather cleanly through the remaining 4 and coming to rest in number 7 with almost enough energy to break though it's offside wall as well. At first glance, the recovered bullet looked like it had never been shot, save the rifling engraving, but close examination revealed an ever so slight splitting just starting a few hundredths of an inch down the very tip.
The control Hornady 200gr FTX, one of the blems I recently got for a steal from Midway, performed much more admirably and made me wish I had included it in the failed 250 and 300 yard simulations previously. it's final weight was 154gr for a net retention of 77%. Not unlike the results obtained in my tests last year chronicled in the FTX Bullet Comparison thread in this sub-forum. The core and cup separated with the cup stopping in the 4th jug and lead core stopping in the 5th jug. The first two jugs were totally obliterated. The 3rd jug was split on the front side and had a large exit hole on the off side. The 4th jug had a decent entry hole and a smaller exit hole consistent with the separation that occurred and the 5th jug had the smaller entry hole.
While some folks do not care for expanding, jacketed bullets in this caliber, there's no point throwing big bucks at the Barnes when a plain FMJ would suffice. That is, assuming you only intend to shoot creatures at 200 yards and beyond, skipping those closer in. Where I hunt, I would be hard pressed to get a shot at a big northwoods buck beyond 50 yards, let alone 200, so it's still on my short list for this coming deer season, along with the 275s as well. I haven't gotten around to any water shots with them, but I suspect they are tipped the same, having only a longer body behind the hollow point area. I will yet give one of them a try, but at appropriate velocities they reach. Needless to say, traveling slower, their operational range will be shorter. More on that later.
These Barnes water shot tests have an apparent flaw in how they were conducted though. As some of us have come to realize, QuickLoad's predicted velocities rarely match what we encounter in practice and the 450b is no exception. So far, these reduced and buffered loads have been created using QuickLoad's predicted velocity and have not been fact checked across a chrony. That was an oversight by me and the next time out, I intend to check them. That could be a game changer WRT these water shot results. If they are traveling slower, or faster than predicted, we will need to adjust the predicted distance in the comparisons so far and I will make that right in a subsequent thread. It should be a linear transfer of the curve though. 300 being 350, 250 being 300, 200 being 250, etc.
Tomorrow, we start tearing down the rifle range superstructure for rebuilding the following weekend. The range may be usable in between the weekends, but I'm not a big fan of stopping there after work since the setup and knockdown time for my equipment eats up almost all the available time I have before I have to pick up the Mrs from the Park-N-Ride. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to get those loads across a chrony ASAP.
Hoot
As already reported, using reduced loads to simulate reduced velocities encountered at longer ranges, they failed to expand at simulated 300 and 250 yards, penetrating and exiting all 7 jugs, never to be found. At my last outing on Wednesday, doing work on one of the other calibers I'm experimenting with (6.5 Grendel), I took along my 200 yard Barnes XPB simulation round as well as one loaded with a Hornady 200gr FTX as a control. This time, I set up 9 jugs, hoping to capture the Barnes for a post mortem examination, if it once again made it through all 7 jugs.
It worked! The Barnes came to rest in the 7th jug, having imparted hydraulic damage consistent with a bullet traveling that fast in the first two jugs just like my first two outings and boring rather cleanly through the remaining 4 and coming to rest in number 7 with almost enough energy to break though it's offside wall as well. At first glance, the recovered bullet looked like it had never been shot, save the rifling engraving, but close examination revealed an ever so slight splitting just starting a few hundredths of an inch down the very tip.
The control Hornady 200gr FTX, one of the blems I recently got for a steal from Midway, performed much more admirably and made me wish I had included it in the failed 250 and 300 yard simulations previously. it's final weight was 154gr for a net retention of 77%. Not unlike the results obtained in my tests last year chronicled in the FTX Bullet Comparison thread in this sub-forum. The core and cup separated with the cup stopping in the 4th jug and lead core stopping in the 5th jug. The first two jugs were totally obliterated. The 3rd jug was split on the front side and had a large exit hole on the off side. The 4th jug had a decent entry hole and a smaller exit hole consistent with the separation that occurred and the 5th jug had the smaller entry hole.
While some folks do not care for expanding, jacketed bullets in this caliber, there's no point throwing big bucks at the Barnes when a plain FMJ would suffice. That is, assuming you only intend to shoot creatures at 200 yards and beyond, skipping those closer in. Where I hunt, I would be hard pressed to get a shot at a big northwoods buck beyond 50 yards, let alone 200, so it's still on my short list for this coming deer season, along with the 275s as well. I haven't gotten around to any water shots with them, but I suspect they are tipped the same, having only a longer body behind the hollow point area. I will yet give one of them a try, but at appropriate velocities they reach. Needless to say, traveling slower, their operational range will be shorter. More on that later.
These Barnes water shot tests have an apparent flaw in how they were conducted though. As some of us have come to realize, QuickLoad's predicted velocities rarely match what we encounter in practice and the 450b is no exception. So far, these reduced and buffered loads have been created using QuickLoad's predicted velocity and have not been fact checked across a chrony. That was an oversight by me and the next time out, I intend to check them. That could be a game changer WRT these water shot results. If they are traveling slower, or faster than predicted, we will need to adjust the predicted distance in the comparisons so far and I will make that right in a subsequent thread. It should be a linear transfer of the curve though. 300 being 350, 250 being 300, 200 being 250, etc.
Tomorrow, we start tearing down the rifle range superstructure for rebuilding the following weekend. The range may be usable in between the weekends, but I'm not a big fan of stopping there after work since the setup and knockdown time for my equipment eats up almost all the available time I have before I have to pick up the Mrs from the Park-N-Ride. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to get those loads across a chrony ASAP.
Hoot