I have seen or heard that the barnes x is a baddy for the double rifle. This due to barrel construction or joining?

Is this conjecture or should I not use Barnes x in a modern double rifle?

Any Opinions?

merkelmeister,
Not advisable, but the Barnes manual does tout their XLC's for this use, as well as the blue coated brass solid, but the coated solids are special/limited production items that are usually impossible to find.

The XLC is monometal copper, and with the blue coat they still measure 0.475" diameter. They must be swaged down before coating.

The monolithic solids are brass or bronze, and are a bit harder. Even if swaged down and "blue coated" they would likely be harder on bores.

Even the steel jacketed lead core Woodleighs have got to be harder on double rifles than the soft points. Best to limit solid use to actual hunting, after the load is established.

The safest thing is just to use softs, and solids only when necessary.

I have tried the XLC's with good results. I would not use the monolithic bronze or brass in a double rifle.

One great solid for a double rifle, IMHO, is the GSC FN, if you can find them.

The Woodleigh soft and GSC FN shoot close to the same velocity with the same bullet weight and powder charge, even though the FN is much longer than the Woodleigh. This suggests that the soft copper driving bands lower the pressure even though the length intrusion tends to raise the pressure in the 470 NE.

The Swift A-Frame and the Woodleigh solid shoot to the same velocity almost identically for 500 grainers with the same 470 NE load otherwise.

In summary, the only solid bullets I would use in my Merkel 470 NE are:

1. GSC FN 500 grain (molycoated copper driving bands)
2. Woodleigh FMJ 500 grain (gilded steel FMJ lead core)
3. Trophy Bonded Sledge Hammer 500 grain (bronze flatnose lead cored base)

The reason is to avoid over-stressing the joint of the barrels on a double by the use of too-hard bullets.

Maybe all the new doubles made after WW II are strong enough to handle monolithic solids of brass? I don't know for sure, so I err on the side of caution.

I load many hundreds of rounds, each year for use in doubles of all description employing the use of Barnes bullets and I have seen a fair number in actual use. All with favorable results.

Nickudu,
Are these the Barnes XLC, regular Barnes X, Barnes solid, and the coated solid? All types?

I didn't know you were a custom ammo producer. Is this a business of yours?

If you have any records of 470 NE loads you have put together that would be interesting.

To illustrate how pressures and velocities (all 500 grain bullets and the only variable being the type of bullet seated and crimped on the cannelure or between the front two bands of the GSC's) seem to be affected in the 470 NE:

Woodleigh Weldcore RNSP: 2083 fps ES = 18 fps

GSC FN "Solid": 2095 fps ES = 23 fps

Woodleigh FMJ "Solid": 2115 fps ES = 20 fps

Swift A-Frame "Soft": 2120 fps ES = 32 fps

Barnes XLC "Soft": 2141 fps ES = 23 fps

GSC HV "Soft": 2164 fps ES = 19 fps

All loads used: Norma Brass, F-215 primer, 92.0 grains RL-15, filler of light foam 5/8" thick cut with a 50 BMG case chamfered sharp, used as "cookie cutter." Velocities are averaged from the 23.6" Merkel barrels, average of 4 shots, two from right and two from left. Extreme velocity spreads are shown after the velocities above. Not much of a sample, but some indication of what is going on, and a basis for fine tuning later.

It is complicated to sort out variables such as "hardness" of bullet on the lands of the rifling versus length of bullet, surface coatings, driving bands, crimp, etc.

[ 09-16-2002, 01:12: Message edited by: DaggaRon ]

From what I can see...
ALL solids have a reputation for being tough on barrels. If barnes X bullets are to be considered solids, then why aren't they destroying bolt rifle's rifling for years and no one shoots them? Because the barnes copper is SOFT and leaves a heavier than jacketed bullet amount of copper in the barrel.
What solids DO do, expecially steel jacketed ones, is NOT give, and the copper jackets over them is VERY thin. Thinner than the lan/grove difference, and thereby steel comes into contact with steel. THAT'S a problem.

Monolith solids are not supposed to do this.

Barnes X and the XLC are loaded in doubles. You might have a regulation problem. that can be worked out.

Jeffe

DaggaRon,
I load for my good friend John LaSala of www.safariarms.com when he is inundated with orders. I enjoy keeping my hand in it and staying current with all available powders and components and I consider it the highest of compliments to be the only individual entrusted with this work, as John is a stickler for quality from the word GO. We load everything , from wildcats to .600 N.E. and routinely test various firearms, new powders, bullets etc., etc. Good fun.

Nick,

With that type of ammo is it only calibres that are not generally available via Win, Rem, Federal and Wby?

Mike

Hi Mike,
All calibers, with any available bullets a customer may desire but with an emphasis on the Barnes, which John strongly believes in.

Nick,

Shooters who buy that ammo in readily available calibres, are they shooters that are perhaps half way between being reloaders and those that buy ordinary factory ammo from Win, Rem etc.

Mike

Maybe a little of both. Most are not reloaders, for a variety of reasons and want a certain bullet, a performance improvement, an accuracy improvement or all of the above. The new customer, or the established customer with a new rifle, are offered "Test Packs", containing a sampling of loadings known to us to shoot well in a good many rifles of that caliber. In this manner, we can identify what the customers rifle "likes" without a lot of wasted time and expense.

There are also many customers who do handload but are either not experienced enough or don't have the time or inclination to "do the work", so to speak. The purchase of some of the die-sets and other high dollar items involved, often plays a role in their rationale. The bottom line for many is that they receive an accurate, dependable product of the highest quality with a minimum investment of time and effort and dollars.

Nick,

The first time I noticed this sort of stuff was when Longbob got a 458 Lott but did not reload. I figured at first he must have a mate loading ammo for him.

We don't see much of this type of thing in Australia. A couple of people load for the more common calibers. I think in Australia with the magnum calibers, the Wbys and certainly the odd calibers about 99% of owners would be reloaders.

Mike

Almost by necessity, I'd expect that to be the case there, Mike. It's easier here ... more choices but this is not to say there aren't many thousands of handloaders. I think a lot of guys get started in it and lose interest at some point. Throw in all the new factory offerings and the ranks diminish further. There will always be those guys who draw the line at a certain level and those who would never dream of using anything but their own brew .... like you.

[ 09-16-2002, 05:56: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

Nick,

If a law was passed tomorrow that you could load your ammo, I would simply get a Howa 308 and take up flying radio controlled model aeroplanes. Maybe mount a little 22 in the nose

I think down here cost is a factor because of volume of shooting. If there were plenty of roos, pigs and goats about, you would burn up big dollars in Wby or similar factory ammo for the week.

Mike

Mike375

I have previously heard of some people handloading on a semi-commercial basis. Decades ago and more recently I think it was a pistol club (IPSC?) where some members loaded up ammo and sold it to members. Good deal for non-reloaders as they burn through a lot of ammo each week.

An issue with selling on a semi-commercial basis handloaded ammo is the legal and liability aspects of it. What happens when some twit blows half his face off? (note - it could be caused by soil in the muzzle - but you know who will get blamed). Its not worth bankruptcy for a few dollars.

(Nick - how does your friend get around the liability issue - just usual ammo manufacturer type liability statements on the pack?)

Also I have a principle of never using other peoples handloaded ammo. I've seen how some people handload and its not pretty - double powder loads, no powder etc (I think this person had never heard of visibily double checking open cases for powder level once the batch was all thrown/weighed). Plus they were smoking with a 5kg can of powder open and dipping out some powder! I think that was when my "principle" became established.

But you are right, I think the percentage of centrefire shooters in Aust that handload would be considerably greater than the US. Indeed at one time I didn't know one person that actually used factory ammo.

John,

I think someone in Canberra does some and I have seen a few adds from time to time from someone in the SSAA magazine.

Except for a few people when they just want to try something in factory, I have never really seen anyone who does not reload for calibers that are not 223, 22/250, 243, 6.5 X 55, 270 and 308.

If these forums are a true guide Amercians seem to be far more likely to get calibers like 7mm STW, 338 Win, 30/378 etc. and etc. far earlier in the tehn shooting career than we do.

In my experience, by the time most Australians move away from the 223, 22/250, 243, 6.5 X 55, 270 and 308 area, they are pretty well into shooting and reloading.

Mike

Mike

I think the average AR member is more an enthusiast than the average, and remember the US has a population approaching 300 million and a much larger market for firearms, ammunition etc.

The vast majority would use IMO bog standard 30-06s, 30-30s, 308, 7mm Rem Mags etc just like we do here. The enthusiast minority over there probably uses more wildcats, as they have far more support from gunsmiths, suppliers etc

This site is called "Accurate Reloading" so would you expect the average AR forum contributor to use only factory ammo? Not likely!

Other than making some $$$ I don't see the point in buying commercial "handloaded" ammo other than specialised calibres such as NEs, wildcats etc or special bullet loads. I just tried some Winchester Fail Safe 375s in 270 gr and they have a higher velocity than my handloads, acceptable and good accuracy and use what appears to be a Barnes X bullet. Why pay someone to load them for you if you can buy them factory or make them up yourself?

Unless ofcourse they are truly customised - eg RWS once made up special lots of 12 gauge ammo with your name on it. Would you like some headstamped ammo with "Mike375" on it? Would give the African customs blokes a headache. Would be worth it for that alone!

John,

I have little bit of the Winchester 270 grain Fail Safe factory ammo here and through a Tobler Number 5 barrel it shoots ragged hole groups. However I have not chronographed it.

Reloads still are required for peak accuracy unless you are lucky with factory ammo and even then you do not know what the next batch will be like.

Mike

Mike

The Win Factory ammo shot a 3 shot group of 0.865 MOA and an average of 2595 fps out of my 23" barrel (375 H&H). Nice even spaced pointed triangle too.

That's faster than I have got any 270 or 300 grs to go out of my barrel with handloads so far but haven't tried much so far.

Best group from handloads was 0.415" with a 300 gr Woodleigh RN SP. I think I will use the 375 for benchrest shooting . Not!

[ 09-17-2002, 04:05: Message edited by: NitroX ]

Butch Searcey uses Barnes bullets in his doubles and has so posted here. While I do not require his endorsement to ratify my own experience, since he is in fact a manufacturer of double rifles, some here might make note of this fact.

Why do the Barnes Folks seem to recommend only the XLC (blue coated X-Bullets that measure the same diameter with their blue coat as the uncoated X-Bullet for the same caliber)? Food for thought >>> HMMMMMMMMMM ...

DaggaRon,
The XLC's are definitely the way to go, today, but we used uncoated and molycoated versions, long before the XLC's hit the scene, without problems.

I will side with Mac on this one....I will use the GS because the bullet runs on the driving bands and gives less pressure than any other bullet...Barnes X will really run the pressure up in my double and more as it fouls...I won't use them.....

In my limited experience of testing velocities of various bullets in a 470 NE, and in summary of my reading of books and from this website including the above, I would agree with Mac and Ray. What I prefer to handload for my double:

Woodleigh softs and solids and GSC FN "expanding solids," when I can get them.

I only use solids to establish a load, then save it for serious business.

Then I go shoot sporting clays and skeet with a sawed off 10 guage side by side with slugs, or number 4 shot for dove hunting.

I'm with Mac, Ray and Ron on this one. I've had personal experience with serious damage from X bullets in doubles. Just an impression, but I think that the X is possibly worse than the monolithic solids in this regard.

Mac:

I don't know if it is the same string as the one you were referring to, but BwanaBob posted about using X bullets in a 9.3 X 74R Chapuis and breaking the barrel solder loose twice. The string is here on the Big bore forum - "9.3 X 74R loads - any suggestions?" last post 8/9/02. Sorry for not knowing how to link you directly to it, but I'm not quite up to speed yet. Chapuis obviously thinks that X bullets are a problem in their rifles.

In regard to the statement that X bullets won't damage the barrels of bolt rifles - as you correctly observed, of course they will. I won't use 'em in any rifle that belongs to me.
-----------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."