Barnes 62gr TSX

[BillB]

Anybody have a pet load? I currently have Acc2520, Varget, ARComp, RamshotTAC, and 8208XBR. Just bought some CCI 400's and have 41's as well and a bunch of LC brass.
Never loaded these before. I want to load up some nasty hard hitters for two legged creachters to keep for that day we all dread.

[BillB]

Ok, I'll admit to being relatively new to reloading, I've only loaded about 4k rounds, all .223 and I guess one thing I've never really done is weigh any of the bullets I've reloaded.
In my quest for accuracy (really the main reason for my reloading adventure) I decided to weigh both boxes of the Barnes 62gr TSX bullets I picked up and did I get a surprise. I weighed 100 rounds and of that 100 only 15 were at the advertised weight. The breakdown is as follows.

62.1=13
62.2=16
62.3=10
62.4=2
62=15
61.4=1
61.5=2
61.7=9
61.8=8
61.9=24
I understand that these are hunting rounds mainly and that spread may have little effect on the outcome of that mission but is this normal?
I decided to get out a partial box of 69gr Sierra Match Kings and weighed the 28 that were in the box. The results,
69.0=22
69.1=4
69.2=2
I guess that's the difference between match winning bullets and hunting bullets. I've read though of people shooting some pretty damn small groups with the Barnes TSX, does a few tenths of a grain not have as big of an impact on accuracy as I thought? Somehow I can't believe that it doesn't. Wrong?

[markm]

I guess that's the difference between match winning bullets and hunting bullets. I've read though of people shooting some pretty damn small groups with the Barnes TSX, does a few tenths of a grain not have as big of an impact on accuracy as I thought? Somehow I can't believe that it doesn't. Wrong?

At a hundred yards, those variances aren't nearly as pronounced as they will be at 500, 750, and 1000 yards.

I'd love to take the two furthest weight extremes and hand load them, then shoot them into the 1000 yard berm to see if the difference translated into real impact variance.

[BillB]

I separated them and will load each weight individually. All I have is 300 yards. I'll try a few of each with a like powder charge and see.
I was really impressed with the SMK s after weighing the Barnes. We are talking about a .5 grain variance, its bound to have some effect.

[BillB]

I found a little $7 booklet on loading the .223 and it has some Barnes loads in there. I happen to have a few of their recommended powders too. So I guess the advice is load to their specs and powders.

[markm]

We are talking about a .5 grain variance, its bound to have some effect.

I was thinking the heavier bullet would drop elevation quicker, however it may retain velocity slightly better and offset the drop... and thus become a wash.

Damn... now I want to know the results.

[ubet]

I used to think weighing bullets, brass etc was the answer. Then I realized, I don't shoot good enough to truly notice the effects, I am not anal enough to care about .5gr difference in case and bullet weights and that I was spending way to much time fiddle farting around with very small variations and not enough time shooting. Unless you're the top end of shooters, I think reading wind, the weather conditions, consistent trigger pull are going to have a bigger impact in bullet performance than .5gr variation. The whole first through the trees thing.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[sva01]

I found a little $7 booklet on loading the .223 and it has some Barnes loads in there. I happen to have a few of their recommended powders too. So I guess the advice is load to their specs and powders.

Care to share what booklet it is? I am hoping to get into loading the 62 and 70 gr TSX bullets for hunting loads.

[Ned Christiansen]

I have sometimes, not always but sometimes, had what I thought was disappointing accuracy with the TSX in various weights. I note that the grooves appear to be turned in and sometimes show some chatter, and sometimes chips from the process can be found in the grooves. Also noted, the bullets appear to be tumbled, going from their somewhat mottled surface. My guess from looking at them under magnification is that they are tumbled in BB's of maybe /060-.100 diameter...... but that's just a guess.

I suspected that the accuracy issues I was experiencing might be due to the grooves being eccentric to the bullet body-- I never tested that. The junction of the grooves and the bullet shank varies from bullet to bullet, due to the tumbling I believe. On some it is a sharp edge as you would expect, on others this junction is well-rounded by the tumbling process (I think). This has en effect on the bearing area of the bullet in the bore. I thought this might impact accuracy, or maybe weight variances from it although I doubt that would be very much at all. I never weight tested them.

I bought a box of TTSX's and examined them closely for this variance in bearing area, and separated them into three groups-- 1, very little rounding, 2, medium, 3, max rounding. I loaded these into virgin Lapua cases with weighed charges of RL15. I did not "work up a load", hoping to get away without it since I was comparing bullet performance. Here's a pair of pics to illustrate the shank / groove rounding. In the one pic I have rolled the bullets on a piece of paper with Prussian Blue on it to show the dif in shank bearing area, it's pretty easy to see:




I didn't do an exhaustive afternoon-long grouping session, but I shot two targets with each bullet group (not rounded, kinda rounded, very rounded) and damn if I didn't get some of my better groups with all-copper bullets, and points of impact were virtually the same for all. 5-shot (100-yard) groups were 1.25 for groups 1 and 2, 1.65 for group 2 ("kinda rounded"). In the subsequent 3-shot groups, all were very similar and under 1".

Maybe would have been different with the un-tipped TSX...? Maybe it's just that much better. I have in the past had trouble staying under 2" with all weights of .223 TSX.

[BillB]

Thanks Ned, interesting observations and good write up. I have to say, I was never looking for, nor expecting, Seirra-esque accuracy levels from the TSX, me a would make me very happy as I am loading these for "worst of times" SD ammo. I know, I know, there are many quality, proven, effective, reliable and affordable factory loadings out there that are all suitable for that scenario but I'm one of those types, the type who just knows he can do it better/cheaper, and WTH. I enjoy learning and experimenting.
Like I said, if I were to get MOA or a little better I'd be ecstatic. I learned my concealment skills from the best (not saying I AM the best) and if anything is more than 100yards distant, they would never know I'm there and can just pass me on by. So MOA would be just fine for me, I have other, factory and hand loads that will inhabit the further reaches.
This is the little booklet I bought. Had it not been wrapped in cellophane and I was able to look inside, I probably would not have bought it because it's basically just a collection of many bullet and powder manufacturers load data that's available online. I guess at least it saves time having it all in one place.
15414579216856072918101630344195.jpg
I used the info in it in the Barnes section ( double checked against Barnes website for current info, it is the same) to load 30 of my 100 bullets with TAC, Accurate 2520 and Varget and wow, I have some seriously compressed loads. I mean they are compressed like I've never experienced before. I loaded them to 2.240 just as Barnes says, they also spec LC brass which I used as well. I used CCI41 primers though. I didn't load to max in either powder so are super compressed loads safe? I double weighed each charge on two different scales, my digital and my RCBS beam scale. I'm getting ready to go and remeasure my OAL on some of the higher charge weight loads.