In the Barnes reloading manual, the authors show data wherein the "blue-coated" XLC bullets out perform the non-coated solids by up to 150 to 200 fps, although more powder is needed to bring the load up to peak PSI.

Have you experimented with these loads, and if so, have you observed the same thing? What's your experience?

Happy hunting and shooting, AIU

I have used the blue coated XLC in .308 in in 30-06 and 300 RUM.
Its accuracy in my barrels is far better than the regular X bullets.
Becuase there is less friction -less pressure, you can slightly increase the powder ,compared to x bullets.

The new TX bullets are similar although not the same

I have yet to determine which is superior TX or XLC but both are better - for me - than reg X

In the Barnes line, I wouldn't fool with anything but the TSX. Accuracy has been great, fouling minimal and and a great game killer.

I agree with J exept in the case of the 140 gr 6.5 XLC.
They do not make a 140 6.5 nor will they in the TSX. but they may make it in the MRX.

good luck The TSX rock.

I found that I was able to produce about 100fps more out of the xlc than with the regular x.However the tsx comes within about 25fps of the xlc with much better accuracy and more reliable expansion on game.

The problem with TSX bullets is that Barnes is now reporting much smaller ballistic coefficients (revised down) for the TSX line - significantly smaller than the BCs reported for their XLCs. For example, the TSX 180 .308 has a BC of .453, whereas the XLC 180 .308 has a BC of .552. This is enough difference to significantly affect down-range performance, especially for those of us engaged in long-range big-game hunting.

AIu

The Barnes BC's didn't change just the numbers they published. I think a good portion of the shooting public had already figured out on their own that the BC's in the catalog were highly optimistic. That is not a problem unique to Barnes either. I've shot a number of them over a pair of chronographs and only the Nosler BC's were in the ballpark as well as some Hornady bullets.

jsteven, would you be willing to share your calculated BC data with us? I'd like to see it. Also, how did you calculate it? Regards, AIU

I don't calculat the BC, I am interested in what the velocity loss is at 200 yards, which is a function of BC. In other words, if they show a BC of .522, but it loses velocity at the rate of a bullet with a BC of .440, something somewhere is amiss.

jstevens, that makes sense. What BCs did the TSXs appear to have in your studies? How much less than advertised? Did you look at the XLC line? Regards, AIU

AIU
I haven't played with the TSX's yet, never used the standard X at all after my first rifle I tried them in fouled so badly. Another thing that apparently comes into play is the stability of the projectile as it leaves the barrel. I read an article where someone did pretty much the same thing i've done, some of them would show a ridiculously low BC, usually something like a 200 grain in a 1-12 twist .308. The slightly unstabilized bullet would show a way way off actual BC compared to the BC calculated by the shape of the bullet. This would make sense, as a slight amount of yaw would really increase drag, naturally these were not the accuracy leaders either. Like many other things in shooting, the theoretical BC which is related to shape mostly may not lead to the same thing in a practical BC which is what we are interested in, as this is what will affect drop, windage. I wish I could remember where the article was as it wasn't too long ago. Somewhere in another thread on AR some folks discussed the downgrading of BC by Barnes and Barnes had acknowledged that the TSX's shape was not changed, their estimates of the BC had been changed. In my experience, I was messing with 7mm bullets mostly Nosler, Hornady and Sierras. The Nosler Bc was pretty darn close, the Sierras not, the Hornadys had some that were spot on, others were off a bit. One of these days, I'm going to set up and test some North Forks, since there is no published BC's on them that I know of, but I've been going to do that for two years now. It's a pain in the butt to try to line up to chronos unless you have a buddy to help and it still sucks. I hate to admit this, but one of my chronos is an old Oehler that is so old it doesn't have a digital readout, you have to turn a dial, get a number and look up the velocity in a table. I only dig it out when I need a second one, as it will always pick up a shot, which the newer Chrony won't. The old Oehler is set up on 5 ft spacing, so is damned unhandy to say the least. By the way after a lot of testing, on the same shot, the Chrony is almost always exactly 26 fps faster reading than the old Oehler, with a bullet in the 3000 fps range, something else you need to know to figure the velocity loss.

jstevens, thanks for the comeback. I have two chronos (an old PAC and a new Oehler 35), and I considered setting one up immediately in front of the gun with the other just ahead of the target at 100, or maybe out to 300 yds. (I'd put the older PAC chrono at 300 yds - that is, the one I could hit and not feel too bad - although I believe my guns shoot well enough not to put the second chrono in jeopardy.)

From the drop in velocity over a measured distance, one should be able to calculate the REAL BC. Indeed, I hope most of these bullet makers are calculating their BCs with actual measurements, rather than estimates based on bullet shape. I know Lost River Ballistics claims to have done it that way.

One could also measure velocity + bullet drop at 300 yds, and by using a reliable external ballistics program, one could get a good estimate of REAL BC. Knowing velocity and trajectory should work. This is the technique I'm goint to use. Have you tried it?

Regards, AIU

I talked to TY at barens the otehr day and he said that on most of the TSX there BC dropped about 15% from the standerd X in the same weight and caliber.
.

AIU
The drop in velocity is really all we need to know to get an estimate of real BC. Just be sure you shoot the two chronos one behind the other so you know how much difference there is in the reading of the two chronos. I don't believe you can get a good reading by using 300 yard drop figures. I just looked in the Nosler manual and the difference between a .400 BC and a .510 BC when sighted in at 200 yards is .5 in. when fired at 3000 fps. The .400 BC drops 6.9, the .510 BC drops 6.4. As you can see, unless you're shooting groups in the .5 in. range at 300 yards this is not going to be very helpful. For me one flier is going to make the BC go way up or down. I wish I could remember where I saw the article where they did tests on a whole bunch of bullets with two chronos, the magazine article was pretty recent. These guys had some that were way off and as I said the theory was that it was do to the bullet being slightly unstable. Anyway when you look at the .5 difference that a major change in BC makes at 300 yards, BC isn't all that major a consideration in a hunting bullet even one that may be used at 400-500 yards.

jstevens, you make a good point, but for my purposes this is the only practical way to "confirm" the published BCs. I use BC to predict trajectory for long-range hunting, and if the observed trajectory is "close" to predicted, I assume the published BC is "close" to reality. I shoot 5 times and take the average distance above or below the line-of-sight. Regards, AIU