I went to the gun store yesterday to pick up some cleaning. While I was there I noticed the new and revised Barnes reloading book was out. So far this year I have shot two whitetail with my 7mm rem mag using the 140 XBT XLC coated bullet. (Performance was absolutely great) I new this new book would include data for the new coated bullets so I flipped to the 7mm rem mag pages. Let me just say that I was shocked at what I saw! The book stated that with the 140 coated bullet, and EVERY powder they had listed, not one single load was UNDER 3500 FPS!!!!! Many loads were even over 3700 FPS.

I then decided to reference this data with that of the 7mm STW. What I found has me even more confused. For the STW the list most loads well under 3500 and nothing over 3600. What is going on with this data? If this is true data (and some sort of physics magic) then I am going to use ONLY the Barnes coated bullet. Now I know my gun may be different, but still.

I wonder what is going on with this load? I am going to write an e-mail to Barnes and see what they say. I did not buy the book so I can't remember all the numbers exactly. I know that maybe this may just be a fast barrel that they used to develop these loads. However, if these numbers are true, they should have used some different guns to verify these velocities.

Very interesting. Has anyonce heard or seen the new 130 xlc in 30 cal?? I heard they were introducing it but never saw it in a sales flyer. I'd ike to try it in my '06 for wis whitetail--perhaps in my 300 wby to.
If anyone has the book can you tell me if it's listed and what velocity they are showing for '06 and 300wby??

Monyhunter, it sounds as if there has been a serious foul up in the printing. I know that I have had a copy ordered for some time. It has been delayed twice, so I suspect there is some revision going on. Probably the data sets got reversed. Even worse mistakes are possible. I for one do not believe that you can get 3500+ fps with a 140 grain bullet using any powder known to mankind, no matter what is coating the bullet. In the 2nd Edition, the hottest load listed barely cracks 3200 fps and several are less than 3000 fps...

I agree that this may be a typo. I am going to email Barnes to make sure. For some reason though, I find myself hoping that the laws of physics are all in-line and I will be able to get 3700 fps out of my 7mm. Man that would just be great! OUCH!! Sorry, just pinching myself to make sure I am not dreaming.

Don, I looked on Barnes website and they now have a 130 XLC XBT in 30 cal. I don't know the load data for it, but at least it is now there.

I got my Barnes No. 3 in the mail yesterday. They now have the XLC loads broken out separately to show the improved velocities achievable. In most calibers this amounts to 20 to 100 fps, however in the case of the 7 mm Rem Mag it is roughly 400 fps. I've learned that anything which appears too good to be true generally is. Something clearly is wrong here. I don't know what, but I'll bet that no other rifle will ever achieve those velocities with those loads (if indeed the test rifle did). Either that, or they were way over pressure limits and the testers didn't realize it. The more I think about it the more I lean toward the latter explanation.

iT's my understanding from another forum that the powder loads are ok but the velocity
listings are swapped between 7 mag and 7 stw.
I would think barnes will have a BIG lawsuit with their publisher?? Anyhow--maybe give them a call at 800 574 9200 and see what they have to say. I think someone said that there are other calibers where the loads are ok but listed velocity is not. I would think you might get a free book sometime soon??

Its more complicated than a simple mixup between the 7 mm Rem Mag and 7 mm STW data sets because it affects the 160 gr XLC too, and the numbers with both bullets are nearly the same in each caliber. I'd be willing to believe that the 7 mm Mag data is actually 7 mm STW data except that, here too, the quantities of powder listed are much too small to be STW data. I think its just a case of really bad experiment control. The test "engineers" got some fantastic results and instead of immediately asking "What went wrong?" they exclaimed "Wow!". Wrong answer. One of two things is clearly true: Either the data exceeds all established pressure limits (no matter what signs were evident) and is totally unsafe, or else it is just a freak of nature singular to that barrel and not at all representative of normal performance. In either case it should never have been published.

Examples:

140 gr XLC......7 mm Rem Mag....7 mm STW

RL-22 ...........3646 fps........3548 fps
IMR-4831........3611 fps........3446 fps
IMR-7828........3627 fps........3524 fps

In each of these cases the 7 Mag load was 8 - 10 grains less powder than the 7 STW load, yet produced significantly greater velocity.

This recalls a much earlier thread regarding published loading data and pressure limits. All reloading (without instrumented test barrels) is a dark art. There ain't no science involved. Published data, from any source, is nothing more than a suggestion. I have seen starting loads that were unsafe in my rifle. Its often conservative, but sometimes its not.

The new book is very slick, very attractive, but I'm finding dumb mistakes. The obvious ones relate to cartridge drawings, persistent problem with Barnes manuals. Other possible flaws may be much more difficult to detect, yet potentially more significant. I'm disturbed by trivial mistakes like incorrect cartridge drawings that are instantly obvious at a glance because it makes one wonder how scrupulously careful they were with the important stuff, and here we already have ample evidence that they were none too careful in two instances!

[This message has been edited by Harald (edited 10-25-2001).]