|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 29, 2012, 06:06 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
Disaster with Barnes TSX in 257 Weatherby
I tried the Barnes TSX 25 cal., 115 gr flat base, in my .257 Weatherby today. I also had a new Zeiss 4.5-14 50 scope with Leupold rings on my previously-installed Leupold one-piece base.
Powder was 63.5 gr of H1000 and brass was once-fired Weatherby (Norma). I think the only variables were the new scope, new rings and Barnes bullets. I sighted in using some year-old reloads made up of the same brass and 117 gr Sierra GameKing bullets (63 gr of H4831). Adjustments to the scope were exactly as expected (4 clicks = 1 inch in any direction at 100 yds). Finally, I shot two 3-short groups with the Sierras at 50 yards (point of impact .5" high) Then I moved to the Barnes at 100 yards. The first bullet missed the target entirely. I shifted back to 50 yards and more or less hit the bullseye. Back to 100 yards - another miss. I'm scratching my head in dismay. Finally, I came back to 50 yards and shot 6 of the Barnes and got a spread from 4" at 7:30 to 2" at 10:30. Clearly, the shot at 7:30 would have missed the 100 yard target. There was a guy shooting next to me who was a gunsmith and he very kindly took a look at the gun/scope. He could find nothing wrong. He suggested that since the Barnes are sold copper, maybe they have to make them slightly smaller (sold copper not being able to "squeeze" down a barrel as easily as a lead-based bullet). I just miked the two bullets (Barnes and Sierra). The difference is not measurable by my non-digital mike and tired eyes but after setting the mike on the Sierra, the Barnes IS slightly smaller. Not enough for me to mike the difference but enough to feel a wiggle. Does anyone have any idea what could be happening? Thanks Last edited by FLChinook; October 30, 2012 at 12:52 AM. |
October 29, 2012, 06:17 PM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Failure to stabilize is my first guess. What's your twist rate?
|
October 29, 2012, 06:23 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
Quote:
One of the Barnes at 50-yds was keyholed... |
|
October 29, 2012, 06:38 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 24, 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 759
|
Quote:
Try some lighter weight jacketed bullets which would be quite a bit shorter and see if the problem goes away. I wonder what the rifling twist in your barrel is also. It may be a 1 in 12 twist which would be for shorter bullets. |
|
October 29, 2012, 06:41 PM | #5 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Ah.
The keyholing is the key info. You're not stabilizing. Don't worry about accuracy, continue to work up the charge until they stabilize, if they do, then worry about accuracy above that point. |
October 29, 2012, 07:34 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,400
|
Your measurements were probably correct.
If you put a precision mic on the different bands and body segments of Barnes' solid copper bullets, you'll find that most are tapered or wasp-wasted (depending on the design). I'd like to say it's so the bullets can handle the various bore dimensions seen in factory rifles, without causing excessive pressure in the tighter bores. .....but I don't really know if it's intentional, or just a byproduct (mild defect) of their manufacturing process.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
October 29, 2012, 07:59 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
Quote:
Last edited by FLChinook; October 30, 2012 at 09:57 AM. |
|
October 29, 2012, 08:06 PM | #8 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
It pretty well must have, since that what you were getting. What other explanation is there?
It shouldn't take any more time than any other load work up. Shoot your rounds. They'll either stabilize as you approach max or they won't. If they don't, you have an inaccurate load. If they do and you're happy with the accuracy, you're golden. Should be just like any other load work up. |
October 29, 2012, 08:22 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
I've always had good results with the Sierra GameKing 117 gr spitzer BT. Do you think Nosler's Ballistic Tip 115 would do as good or better?
What's your favorite powder for these two bullets? |
October 29, 2012, 09:48 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 656
|
Quote:
In my case, I tried a different powder and the problem went away. The tumblers shot perfectly fine out of a different gun however. It may not fix your problem, but it may not hurt to try a different powder. |
|
October 29, 2012, 10:10 PM | #11 |
Member
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Posts: 40
|
My .25-06 (Tikka T3) is a 1:10 as well. The 115 Barnes FBs are the most accurate bullet I've loaded. Sub MOA @ 100 yds. I can't imagine the 06 Remington can stabilize it but the weatherby can't. Maybe try H4831. That's what I use.
|
October 29, 2012, 10:39 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 9, 2005
Location: Ohio, Appalachia's foothills.
Posts: 3,779
|
|
October 29, 2012, 10:49 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
Here's picture of the target. I initially thought there was only 1 keyhole but clearly all but maybe 2 are keyholed. My powder charge was at the suggested starting amount but the max is only 4 grains higher. Would such a small increase turn around this unbelievable effect?
This was at 50 yards... 257 Weatherby Barnes TSX Keyholes.jpeg |
October 29, 2012, 10:59 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 9, 2005
Location: Ohio, Appalachia's foothills.
Posts: 3,779
|
Is the rifle a Weatherby?
If so, they have extreme freebore which will also help with low velocity with a starting load. Get a chronograph and get them up to speed. |
October 29, 2012, 11:06 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
Quote:
If increasing the velocity is the answer, then what will happen to the bullet downrange when the velocity reduces? Will it start out stable and keyhole at longer distances? I am so tempted to abandon it altogether and go back to my GameKings or maybe try Nosler BTs... My reloading books do not give me data on the Nosler |
|
October 29, 2012, 11:10 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
Quote:
I see some shooters at the range with chronographs but I would prefer not to have one... can't I rely on the reloading tables? |
|
October 29, 2012, 11:17 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 9, 2005
Location: Ohio, Appalachia's foothills.
Posts: 3,779
|
Absolutely not. Without a chronograph, it is anybody's guess.
My best guess is with that huge freebore and minimum load, you are getting extremely low pressure and velocity, thus the keyholing and poor accuracy. |
October 29, 2012, 11:20 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
Why don't I see this with other bullets?
|
October 29, 2012, 11:37 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2010
Posts: 733
|
Quote:
I bet the 100gr TSX would shoot much better, as its length is more in line with what a 115gr conventional bullet would be.... |
|
October 30, 2012, 12:24 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
Is the tendency to keyhole a function of Ballistic Coefficient?
Here's the BCs: Barnes TSX 100 .336 Barnes TSX 115 .335 Sierra GameKing 100 .355 (vel>2800) Sierra GameKing 100 .310 (vel<1600) Sierra GameKing 100 .333 (vel>between) Sierra GameKing 117 .410 (vel>2500) Sierra GameKing 117 .403 (vel>1800) Sierra GameKing 117 .370 (vel>between) Nosler Ballistic Tip 100 .393 Nosler Ballistic Tip 115 .453 Nosler Partition 100 .377 Nosler Partition 115 .389 Nosler Partition 120 .391 Berger VLD Hunting 115 .466 It's interesting that the Barnes TSX bullets of different weights have almost the same BC. Every other bullet I've checked has a larger BC for increasing bullet weight. The Nosler Ballistic Tip seems to have a better BC than the Partition; almost as good as the Berger... I don't think Bergers would work will with my gun (if it has "huge freebore") as Berger recommends lengthening a round to where the bullet almost touches the lands. That would be hard to do in my case. It's interesting that Sierra gives different BC values for different velocities; slower is not better Last edited by FLChinook; October 30, 2012 at 12:57 AM. |
October 30, 2012, 01:50 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,400
|
In your photo, I don't see anything truly key-holing, but they may be yawing (still a stability issue).
Don't worry about the ballistic coefficients. They have far more to do with a bullet's flight characteristics, than stability. And, a bullet's shape affects the BC more than length alone. Unrelated to the OP, but related to your last post.... Note how Sierra quotes multiple BCs for their bullets. That's because G1 ballistic coefficients actually change significantly in flight (as velocity changes). And, the standard G1 model doesn't apply well to modern boat tail designs. Because of this, manufacturers have to decide what BC to use. Some use the highest BC the bullet is likely to achieve. And, some are more conservative and use an average of the expected velocities to get their BC. Without knowing what velocity is used to calculate the listed BC from any given company, comparing G1 BCs of different bullets really doesn't do much good unless they're significantly different (like a .273 vs a .426). Most precision bullet makers will also list the G7 BCs for their bullets. The G7 model is much better suited to modern boat tail bullet designs, and allows for more precise ballistics calculations. But... G7 BCs are much lower for any given bullet, than the same bullet's G1 BC. So, "main stream" manufacturers are hesitant to start listing G7 BCs for their bullets. They don't want people getting confused and thinking the lower G7 BC is representative of the older standard of the G1 BCs. Here's an article, if you want more information. (It also has representations of the G1 and G7 standard projectiles.)
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
October 30, 2012, 02:12 AM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
Quote:
Thanks for the useful presentation of BC data. I knew Berger gave G7-BCs but I've not been able to make comparative use of it (other than between Berger bullets) as no other bullet manufacturers give the same data. |
|
October 30, 2012, 03:26 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,400
|
Ballistic Coefficients are a numerical representation of how closely a projectile's in-flight performance conforms to that of the "standard projectile". So, as mentioned earlier, that's generally the G1 standard projectile.
A Ballistic Coefficient represent a bullet's resistance to aerodynamic drag. Having an approximation of that factor allows one to calculate fairly precise trajectories for a given velocity. That's pretty much it. BCs just tell you how well the bullet will resist aerodynamic drag, in relation to the "standard projectile". When we're talking about stability, we're referring to rotational stability: A bullet rotating in a manner that is stable and predictable, around its long axis. A rotational velocity that is too low may not keep the bullet stable on that axis; and a rotational velocity that is too high can magnify small balance imperfections in the bullet, causing it to also be unstable. (If you rotate them really fast (like 350,000 rpm), they can self-destruct before they reach the target.) By saying your rifle is not stabilizing the Barnes 115 gr TSX, we're referring to them having a low rotational velocity. They just aren't spinning fast enough to remain stable in flight. To fix that, you must increase velocity, or the barrel twist rate. Since replacing your barrel probably isn't on your to-do list, increasing the powder charge for more velocity is the better solution (if you can do so). If you can't find a powder that will get you enough velocity to stabilize that bullet in your rifle, you have two choices: 1. Forget about that bullet. 2. Rebarrel the rifle with a faster twist rate. (I would opt for #1.) If I was in your position, I would: Give away the rest of the bullets, if it was a box of 50. Increase the load, to try to make these work, if you bought 100 or more. And use the 80 gr TTSX (or 100 gr TSX - the heaviest I would go) if you want to try a different Barnes bullet.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
October 30, 2012, 09:34 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Posts: 2,155
|
Barnes manual loading data for their 115gr TSX in a 257 Wby start load is 66gr/H-1000 @3073fps and max load of 72gr/H-1000 @ 3287fps.
If you look at Hodgdon data they list the Barnes 115gr XFB start load of 67gr/H-1000 and max of 71gr/H-1000 both list the Fed 215 primer. you already had this post from mrawesome22 Absolutely not. Without a chronograph, it is anybody's guess. My best guess is with that huge freebore and minimum load, you are getting extremely low pressure and velocity, thus the keyholing and poor accuracy.
__________________
Semper Fi Vietnam 1965 VFW Life member NRA Life Member |
October 30, 2012, 09:54 AM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 378
|
Quote:
It's pretty clear now that this bullet needs more "umph" for my barrel. I would never have thought that different barrels for the same caliber would have different "umph" requirements but I guess they do. I think, as in the old closing of Dragnet, "This case (on this bullet in my barrel) is closed"! I just wish we could establish some direction as to which bullet shape might be most likely to be better stabilized in my barrel without needing max loads. Thanks everyone. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|