Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: 69/77gr. Lapua Scenar/L?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    253
    Feedback Score
    0

    69/77gr. Lapua Scenar/L?

    Has there been any ballistic jell tests using the 69/77gr. Lapua Scenars?

    How do they compare to the 69/77gr. Sierra Match Kings or the 68/75gr. Hornady BTHPs or the 69/77gr. Nosler BTHPs?


    I can't seem to find anything on this using Google or the site search feature.
    Last edited by 556Cliff; 10-02-12 at 14:46.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    169
    Feedback Score
    0
    I've never heard of any tests with these projectiles. They're too uncommon to have been tested.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    47
    Feedback Score
    0
    They are actually not uncommon at all. What they are is expensive target shooting bullets from Finland that don't perform terminally in any real way. They will kill paper real good at long ranges, though.
    The closest I get to being an operator is dialing "0".

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,857
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kLewis View Post
    They are actually not uncommon at all. What they are is expensive target shooting bullets from Finland that don't perform terminally in any real way. They will kill paper real good at long ranges, though.
    Yes, unlike Sierra Match Kings,Hornady BTHP Match or Nosler Match ........

    From a terminal performance standpoint, I don't know to what extent Scenars may have been tested, but I'd be surprised if they demonstarted significantly enhanced or reduced performance from what has been tested and documented previously from Sierra/Horn/Nosler.

    Remember, the .mil's adoption of BTHP Match bullets was initially driven by an attempt to hit your intended target at longer ranges. Essentially, to improve on 855 accuracy. To effect the target, first you've got to hit them.

    Improved terminal performance at closer ranges was a secondary, but desirable, effect. But I doubt the terminal performace of Mk 262 at 200-600 comes anywhere close to what you achieve at CQB distances, especially when fired from carbine-length barrels. So we're really scoping the discussion to how do we perform from across the room-to-~ 150-200 yards, otherwise we're just debating the characteristics of non-expanding/fragmenting bullets at ranges beyond this envelope.

    Scenars are going to cost more due the fact they're imported. Whether or not they prove more accurate than domestically-produced bullets and loaded ammo, only each individual can prove for themselves, and most likely only if they roll their own.

    I'm unaware of any mfg that loads this bullet in any of their loads. I seriously doubt Scenars are going to demonstrate marked inprovement over Sierra/Horn/Nosler bullets, I really think we're looking at the margins here, and to truely improve use a Scenar for whatever reason, you really have to commit to rolling your own to maximize performance in your particular weapon.

    The country is $17T in debt. This is an easy one to select U.S. manufactured ammunition which utilize U.S.-manufactured bullets. Sometimes it's hard to shop locally and limit purchases to U.S companies, but this is a no-brainer.

    And with the advent of controlled expansion bullet designs, it really warrants reevaluation of whether or not they're the better option vs heavier match slugs. JMHO.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •