I have limited experience with these two (only Mulies with both... all died), but I do have a few observations comparing .308" 180 grainer's...

First, the XLC's have a smaller diameter "hole" at the tip to facilitate expansion than the FS. The XLC hole is .050" vs. the FS's .065" hole... that doesn't sound like much, but the FS's is noticeably bigger. Since this type of bullet relies on this air cavity to create expansion, it DOES stand to reason that the bigger hole would be more reliable.

The XLC measures 1.349" OAL. The FS measures 1.294" OAL... based on the OAL and the ogive shape, the FS will allow more powder room for a seated bullet with a maximum charge of extruded powder like RL22 or H4350.

The XLC is claimed to give higher velocities (as much as 200 fps) with safe pressures as compared to standard bullets of equal weight... in two 30 cal rifles (308 Win & 300 WSM) I have found this to be pure BS.

I talked to a person on the Barnes shop floor a few years back... he told me they had QC difficulties with the copper tubing they use for X's... it often varied quite a bit in diameter.

I guess my bottom-line, gut-thought is the Barnes, while great in concept, is being mfg'd by a small outfit without the rescources to control their product from start to finsh whereas the FS is mfg'd by a more substantial CO. with more rescources and better control of the final product. The X, though, is avaliable in a wider range of cal's.

Which bullet do you prefer and why... what are your observation's and experience?

Brad

I'd like to hear your experience with either or both

My only experience has been with the Failsafe 180 grain in my 30/06. It was all over the target, the 5 shot group---I got was plate size. I gave up on them and went back to my pet "Hornady" load.

I'm guilty of liking(loving)the XLC's.

I've yet to have an X not expand. That indicative of exit side wound channels,as I've only recovered a couple to examine and confirm. I could not comment on the .015" difference in cavity openings and their profound influences,be it pro or con.

The XLC comfortably wins the BC "race". I weigh that.

It also wins the award for simplicity,as it is constructed of but a single component,I like that notion too. There are no concentricity issues to be concerned about,as there is no jacket. The melding of the Fail Safe's componetry,leaves me a little skeptical. It has a jacket,two partitioned cores and a heel cup,all working in harmony(hopefully). The Fail Safe is not offered in diameters and weights that interest me most,so I have little firsthand experience with them.

Please understand that I am not cussing the Winchester offering,but I very much like the 1pc X design and have repeatedly pushed it,trying to find it's limits,with copious amounts of raw impact velocity(hasn't happened yet). That too impresses me.

I find the XLC coating to grant a smidge more speed,over it's non-coated brethren,but not the 200fps mentioned. I liken it to moly,though I believe it to be better. It's niche,is to reduce fouling and I know it to aid that. Of course I'm a moly fan to boot,as I'd rather be shootin' than scrubbin'. The FS's coating,I find likewise a good thing.

I can't weigh the "merits" of the two Companies. If forced to,I'd weigh simply,that Barnes is a product of the US of A and that ain't a bad thing,in my opinion.

As far as raw material control issues,I believe both would strive to do their best in that regard,to aid in a more balanced end product. I don't believe Barnes orders .25700" copper wire and bobs it to length and pokes her in a .257 100gr XLC box,calling it "good 'nuff". I'm guessin' it is cut to length,then swaged in a die,to grant it's final form. Then it is coated lastly. The exact metallurgy of the tubing(consistencty thereof)would strike me as more of a concern,than a small deviation in lot to lot pre-formed diameter. Of course I'm not in the bullet making business and could be soaking wet,though that is my guesstimation on the situation.

I very much like the diversity of the X offerings. I firmly believe the increased speed of the lighter than "traditional" weight projectiles,in a given diameter,really pronounces terminal effects. Case in point,the aforementioned .308" 180gr comparison. I much prefer the 165gr XLC to the 180,in even the largest of the Big 30 cals(30-378Wby,30-8mmRemmag,300Wby,etc.). That bullet is a sledgehammer,of the highest order and is my mainstay .308" projectile. It is amazing.

My first pick,is always an X. I like the speed,trajectory curve and excellent terminal results.

I'm a hopeless convert,but you already knew that...................

I've tried the X-bullet in a .338, a .350 RemMag and in my 9.53 HellCat and could never get one to shoot anywhere near my satisfaction (and I ain't that picky when it comes to a hunting bullet)..tried a lot of combinations and, as it was getting kind of expensive, I decided "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and went back to my Nosler Partitons.....never let me down either with respect to accuracy or performance but who can say as the largest thing I ever shot with one was a Cape Buffalo (one shot and dropped) and the recovered bullet weighed about 200gr (started at 300gr at 2500 fps)...the ones I've recovered typically retain about 65% of their weight. Quick one-shot performance on moose, caribou, black bear, brown bear as well as kudu, waterbuck, eland, warthog, zebra, etc etc.

At my age I think I'm thru experiementing ... except maybe to try the flat-nose X-bullet in my new .450 Marlin bolt-action.

I don't think these two bullets are much different, except as follows: Barnes-X is made of copper (lighter), while the FS has lead (heavier) in the bottom half. It all means that the "X" has to be longer than the FS to equal its weight. If both were of the same length, then the "' could not be as aerodynamic as the FS, since more copper would have to be added to the nose area. At least in theory, the narrower hole up in front should make the "X" more aerodynamic if not equal to the FS.

If there is any difference in attained velocity from either one, it probably has to do with the coatings used. The FS is "Moly-coated," and I don't think the "X" is.

180 gr FS shot from a 3006.

The first shot failed to shoot, so much for fail safe eh! The primer confirmed that it was not the guns fault but rather the bullet. Plus this bullet does not expend as I expected it to or perhaps not at all. I examined the entrance channel and saw NO cavitation exit would was the same as entrance. That was the last time I use FS

You call that a fair and cogent test? Sheesh, get real!

I haven't taken anything with the Barnes-X, but I have a fair amount of experience with the Fail-Safe. I've used it off and on since 1995, and I've taken over fifty animals with this bullet, especially out of the .300 Winchester, but also the .375 H&H. I consider it to be the ultimate big game projectile (if your rifle shoots it), and if I had to choose one bullet for all big game hunting purposes, the Fail-Safe would surely be it.

Fail-Safes works on just about anything you'd care to hunt. I've used them on the tiny Kirk's dik dik, smallish Hill Country whitetails, elk, eland (twice as big as elk), lion, leopard, grizzly, cape buffalo, etc., etc. If it lacks in some area of performance, I'd surely like to know what that area of performance is! But I suppose someone's just bound to step up and say it bounces off elk and stuff, just like everything else does (or seems to).... something to that effect.

What I appreciate about the design of the Fail-Safe is that since it has a lead core at the back of the bullet (enclosed in a steel cup), it doesn't have to be as long as the Barnes-X in order to achieve equal mass (weight). This is a more practical proposition, and it increases case capacity.

AD

In my book you're comparing a ford taurus to a chevy malibu--pretty much the same design. Just a matter of which your gun likes better.

Design is similar, except as AD pointed out the Fail safe has a lead core in the rear and is not as long.
Accuracy has generally been better for me with the Fail Safe, meaning more rifles shoot good using them. Penetration is as good with one as the other.
Until one shoots several head of game with a bullet I don't truly think he has given it a fair chance nor gained a heck of a lot to base an opinion on.

???
For those of you that are shooting the Barnes XLC &or the CT FailSafe... Since both bullets come coated.

Who is cleaning up their barrel and doing a bore Moly coating either with MsMoly or by other means?

And who is shooting the coated bullets through a bare- non-molyed bore?

Less fouling? Cleaner bore? Easier to clean? Lower pressure? Dropped velocities? Higher powder charges to get the velocities back up to the level of the un-coated bullets?

Jack-
I shoot the Fail Safes but do not do any bore conditioning nor did I do any before trying the XLCs or the plain Xs. I quit using the Xs of either variety due to lack of decent accuracy. My supply of Fail Safe bullets is not moly coated but has their Lubalox coating, as do all of the ones loaded in factory ammo.

John- When you started shooting the FailSafe & Barnes XLC bullets through your normal- non-molyed bore did you notice less fouling because of the coatings on the bullets?

It's my understanding that the coating on the XLC bullets helps reducing the copper fouling problems experienced with the normal Barnes-X bullets.

Do you have a reason why you didn't moly prep your bore for shooting the coated bullets?

[ 08-27-2002, 21:52: Message edited by: CaptJack ]

I believe the secret to shooting barnes bullets,is to shoot them at magnum speeds.I believe Magnum speeds make up for flaws in the x bullet. Every problem I've ever had with an x bullet,has been when the bullet had an impact velocity of 2600 fps or less. When you consider that most game is taken well inside of 200 yards,its easy to keep the velocity at or above 3000fps at impact,when fired from a mag and a select few standard cartridges,with this velocity I've never had an x bullet fail. On big game,I could care less about extreme accuracy,within reason. Set aside all the fairy tales about needing sub moa to kill elk,deer and other big game,and you'd be suprised what you can kill with "awful" accuracy in the 1-1/2 to 3 inch range. With expectations of 2 -3 inch groups and high velocities,you'll never be left disappointed with the x bullet.

In my experience,the fail safe is more reliable and accurate then the x bullet and doesn't require the high velocities to insure it expands on impact. Not to mention,I've found the failsafe will shoot out of fouled barrels accurately and doesn't require the barrel to be stripped clean like the x.

Both the X bullet and failsafe are good bullets. With that said I'll take North fork over either of them. I like a large exit wound on animals and the x bullet and failsafe has never given me that. The exception being a 150gr 30 cal. x bullet that was fired from a 30-378 and smacked a bull elk at 80 yards. The exit wound was around the size of a soft ball and the x bullet left one petal inside the bull that was the length of a 150 gr bullet.

Jack-
I did not notice any decrease in fouling between the XLC and uncoated X bullets. Except for one rifle, I've never had a gun shoot as good as I like with them so didn't shoot very many of them, and in that one rifle I fired one box full.
The Fail Safe fouls my barrels a lot less and delivers better accuracy. The bullets I have are coated with Lubalox which is not to be confused with moly. This coating is what comes on factory loaded Fail Safes and requires no bore prep like moly seems to need, and so I've never bothered with prepping the bore.

John S: The original FS was coated with Lubalox, and I believe there are some still available with that type of coating. But about a couple of years ago, Combined Technology started producing the new FS bullets. I still have a few 230-grain FS (Lubalox coated), but the new ones are Moly-coated. I have those, too.

Also, Nosler Partition Gold are produced in two forms, one which is Moly-coated and another that is not coated. The Partition Gold has the same steel cup the FS has.

Here is the site: http://www.nosler.com/failsafe.html

[ 08-28-2002, 10:58: Message edited by: Ray, Alaska ]