Interesting but not enough to make me switch. I use the FailSafes because they do what they do, and they are very consistent. Also if I wanted a secondary bulge in the bullet I would use the Swift A-Frame.
Posts: 8827 | Location: CANADA | Registered: 25 August 2004
I have shot 2 mule deer, 8 whitetails, an eland, gemsbok, impala, warthog, and zebra with the XP3 and have found it to be an excellent bullet. It gives great penetration but still expands enough to dump smaller animals.
Greg Rodriguez Global Adventure Outfitters, Inc. www.GAOHunts.com (281) 494-4151
Pity they insist on putting on that Lubalox stuff. That is enough to turn me off. That is one reason I never use Fail Safes or Partition Golds either (although I believe the latter can be had without the coating??).
Otherwise it looks like a great bullet. - mike
********************* The rifle is a noble weapon... It entices its bearer into primeval forests, into mountains and deserts untenanted by man. - Horace Kephart
Posts: 6653 | Location: Switzerland | Registered: 11 March 2002
Here is the Winchester press release from their website. I wonder if the supposed secondary expansion effect will result in the secondary tumbeling button effect as well? I really hope this is not the cheapening of the Fail Safe which truly is a great bullet. If so, I'm glad I've laid in a supply of Fail Safes in .308 and .338.
Posts: 1244 | Location: Golden, CO | Registered: 05 April 2001
It always struck me that Winchester got the principal right in the Failsafe. If you are going to make a projectile with a lead core for only half its' length the solid portion should be up front. The potential problem with lead cored projectiles is seperation of core from jacket making it logical to put the lead at the rear and the front solid. Mark
Posts: 277 | Location: melbourne, australia | Registered: 19 October 2002
Originally posted by wrongtarget: Sounds like a Lubalox coated version of the Accubond, knowing Winchester is in cahoots with Nosler!
That was the Accubond CT. This is a very different bullet. Besides the design differences, the XP3 penetrates deeper and retains more weight than the Accubond.
Greg Rodriguez Global Adventure Outfitters, Inc. www.GAOHunts.com (281) 494-4151
From the press release, it sounds like they have taken the FS, removed the steel cup in the rear, bonded the rear lead core, and added a polymer tip. Oh, and it's a boattail. Calling the secondary bulge "expansion" as if it is a benefit is a little stretch, though! That is what the steel cup was there to prevent! Maybe by bonding it the issues with rear core seperation will be history...
I have no issue with their Lubalox...I used 140 BST ammo from a .280 Rem for years with great success. IT IS NOT MOLY! I have a small stash of FS bullets with Lubalox...from before they switched to moly, and don't like the current FS design because of it.
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Posts: 1780 | Location: South Texas, U. S. A. | Registered: 22 January 2004
Wow what a joke, what a slap in the face to all failsafe users that know what the steel support cup in the rear is for... Winchester even knew what the steel cup was for because when the early failsafes didnt have them, they were deemed failures when they expanded in a manner just like the new XP3. So winchester engineered the steel cup in the rear.
Do they really think the public is that dumb? Two stage expansion? So your bullet can expand in the front and rivit in the rear... all the while the rear expansion is being masked by the front OR vice versa. "Here is your bullet folks... may be as flat as a quarter but boy did does it give them a double whammy". Ohh the 5 percenters will buy them and those who stand for everything and thus stand for nothing will to.
I am back from a long Hiatus... or whatever. Take care. smallfry
Posts: 2045 | Location: West most midwestern town. | Registered: 13 June 2001
Interesting that the article said Winchester was dropping the Failsafe bullet. If you like the Failsafe bullets, you might consider stocking up. Only one of my rifles shoots the Failsafe well at all. I like the Failsafe concept, but it is a HARD bullet, not really suitable for the whitetail crowd (like me).
______________________________ "Truth is the daughter of time." Francis Bacon
Posts: 5052 | Location: Muletown | Registered: 07 September 2001
I noticed the article stated 15 inches of penitration in wet news print. I'm sorry but that is no big deal to me. The last time I tested a 180 gr. Xbullet (the fail-safe would act the same) in dry packed magazines (much harder) I got from 14 to 16" of penitration from a 30-06 at 100 yards. From the looks of the recovered bullets they may have trouble maintaning a straight path during penitration. Looks like the Partition and TSX will have less competition to worry about.
---------------------------------
It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it
Posts: 741 | Location: NB Canada | Registered: 20 August 2002
