I have some 168gr XLC's that I'm going to try in my .300 Win Mag. I had decided to use RL19 and start at 77.5 gr and work up to the Barnes data listed max of 81.0 grains. (The data is for the 165gr XLC.)

I just went and looked at their data for a 165 gr. XBT (non coated) and the listed max charge is only 76.0 grains.

Is it true that with the coated 168gr bullet can be loaded with 5.0 grains more powder than the non-coated?

Since I've heard of some errors in the Barnes reloading data, so I thought I'd ask here before loading. If anyone wants to run quickload on it for me that would be great.

(Barnes doesn't list the pressures for their loads. I am curious what pressures I would be expected to get)

The reason for the increased powder charge for the XLC is the coating.
What happens is the coating reduces the friction of the bullet contact with the rifelings. This reduces the pressure of the charge and results in slower velocities.
To get the pressure back up you have to increase the powder charge. The coating is supposed to help the bullet reach much higher velocities but I'm waiting to see the real results.
As far as load data being correct I cant really answer that but most book's max loading is light to cover their ass.

WATCH IT--i'VE SPENT A good amount of time studying the barnes data. It now appears that Barnes is backing down on claims for the coated bullets. In many cases they NOW seem to let you go only 1 OR 2 more grains that their regular bullets.
Quickload lets you choose brand of brass when questioning the 300 win mag. I used winchester brand which seems to have the most generous water capacity. Then I checked with a 165 speer boattail at 77.5 grains of re 19. It says 61,000 pressure. The reason I picked a speer boattail is because I THINK the speer would make slightly less pressure than a regular barnes and that is "A WASH" for the coating on the barnes.

I THINK YOU DID GREAT by questioning that data. In my mind I think of an XLC barnes to be the equal of any "regular" bullet in making pressure and would use all other data sources as a cross reference when loading the xlc. I tend to think most "regular" non coated barnes will make 2-6k MORE PRESSURE than other brands of bullets with the same weight.
THESE ARE MY OPINIONS FROM MANY READINGS and my own work--YOU need to formulate your own however.
I just want to add a "thermometer" to your work.

Thanks, guys. I knew that I could load the coated bullet with more powder but I thought 5 grains seemed a little high. (Maybe Barnes was a little conservative on their max load for the non-coated and a little aggressive on the max for the coated?)

My brother always jokes about "starting at max and working up from there" because of the conservative data in some of the reloading manuals. Seems like when he works up a load, a lot of times he ends up with a load at or even 0.5 gr or so over listed max.

Thanks Kraky for taking the time run quickload and share your opinion. I appreciate it. I will hopefully have some results to post next week. We'll see how the listed velocities compare actual.

IF YOU WILL GO THE BARNES WEBSITE THEY HAVE MANUAL CORRECTIONS LISTED AND PRINTABLE.

Curly , Go to the source...
http://recipes.alliantpowder.com/rg.taf?_function=centerfire&step=2&bulletID=273&cartridgeID=1075&caliber=%2E300&cartridgedescr=Win%2E%20Mag%2E&bulletdescr=Speer%20165%20Spitz
Alliant says 74.6 is max for a 165 speer ...I know the design and no coating are different but if it were me and my rifle i'd start 73 and work up. Make sure you have that X well off of the rifiling. if that link dont work start at alliantpowder.com and drill down to the 300win mag data.
Good Luck

[ 02-13-2003, 03:04: Message edited by: Dave Jenkins ]

I don't have the Barnes Manual #3. I have a "Loadbook" that I get my data from for the .300 WM. It has data from most all the powder companies and most of the bullet manufacturers. I just checked the Barnes website and didn't see anything listed for the .300 WM. However, it was interesting that the .300 Weatherby showed a max load with RL19 of 83.0 with the non-coated bullet and a max load of 83.5 with a coated one. So it seems that they don't load it with much more powder than the standard X-Bullet.

Now I think I will start with 74.5 grains and go up from there. (The Barnes listed starting weight is 76.0 grains for the 165 XLC.)

Actually, before I load them, I am going to email Barnes and see if they have changed their mind on the loads for the .300 WM data that I have.

Curly Alliant makes the Reloader powders and others. I have Barnes #3 and Nosler #5 and can check for you tonight. Whenever I run across conflicting info I usually check with the powder manufacturer.
Dave

300 Win Mag..all of the following is from Barnes #3 page 390:
Load Data covers both bullets

165 grain XLC BT
SD .247 BC .505
168 XLC BT
SD .253 BC .476

Recommended powders IMR 4350, IMR 4831 and RL 19

For RL 19 the starting load is 76.0 for 3129fps
the max load is 81.0 grains for 3332fps
They used a 24" barrel and Fed 215M primers.
Curly I'm going to be trying the 165 in my WSM since it has a slightly higher bc.
Good Luck,
Dave

That is odd that the 300 Weatherby would only have a 0.5 grain increase in powder charge from the non-coated to the coated X bullet, while the 300 Win. Mag. shows a 5 grain increase between non-coated and coated bullet charges. Does anybody have any idea why this would be? It certainly makes no sense to me. Curly, sorry I can't help you with any good info, I don't shoot a 300 Mag. or Barnes X bullets.

Well Curly I guess nobody has an explanation as to why the 300 Weatherby and the 300 Win. Mag. are that much different when going from the non-coated to the coated X bullet. I really thought somebody here would be able to explain that.