Note from Hoot: I have finally repaired most of the broken image links due to changing ISP a few years ago.
Range Report Barnes 200 gr XPB
The reputation of Barnes' bullets performance has always made them alluring, but due to their cost being around $1.00 each just for the bullet, they were too rich for my blood. Good fortune provided me with several boxes of the Barnes XPB 200 and 275 grain bullets. They have been on my wish list of bullets to try in the 450b due to no other reason than I like their form factor. Having recently read of one of our members having pushed lighter bullets, that were coated with a friction reducing compound, very fast in the 450b, I was interested in also going in that direction. I had never pursued it with the lighter, more affordable, Hornady bullets that I already have because Lil Gun seemed to benefit from the back pressure that goes with resistance to the bullet moving down the barrel and these coatings reduce that resistance. I do have the capability of shot plating the big three coatings, WS2 (Tungsten Di Sulfide), MoS2 (Molybdenum Di Sulfide) and HBN (Hexagonal Boron Nitride). All reduce bullet drag and are listed in order of lubricity. HBN has been the rising star because it has no sulfur in it and if the residue is left in an un-cleaned barrel, in high humidity over time, it does not corrode the barrel. Not that we treat our weapons that way, but both MoS2 and to a lesser degree WS2 have gotten beat up for that. Also, for folks already contending with not enough case capacity for the amount of powder they need to cram into it, the reduced back pressure historically required more powder to achieve the same velocity. It is counter-intuitive as you'd initially think that more slippery equals faster. With the 450b, you usually run up against over-pressure signs before you run out of case capacity, so to me, it's no big deal if using a slippery bullet requires you to put an additional grain of Lil Gun in. Anyway, it was an added opportunity to experience the impact it has upon performance, so I included WS2, the most slippery coating in the test. I also could not resist doing a water shot to see if I could reproduce that beautiful expansion pattern we're accustomed to seeing in the Barne's Ads. The .451 XPB is designated as a bullet for loading the .460 S&W, just like the 200gr Hornady XTP.
I hadn't shot my 450b since just before last year's deer season (thanks Dad) and it was still wearing a hunting scope. So, I had to change out the scope for one more appropriate for sub-MOA accuracy testing. I have all my black rifle scopes on the same YHM risers, so changing them around doesn't require as much work as if I had to re-do the rings and everything. Still, any swap requires a re-zero. For that, I used a 5-shot flight of the 275 XPBs. They were not the focus of this test, but shooting a one grain per step group allowed me to accumulate some correlating data for QuickLoad to be used in determining loads for a future report. They also allowed me to season the bore with WS2 prior to my tests since I coated them as well. Their stat are included in the Excel spreadsheet below.
None of the 275gr loads exhibited excessive pressure signs and there was still a little capacity left in the case. They sure recoiled more than the 200s did though.
Before I get to the meat and potatoes. As promised, I did a shot using the lightest 200gr load that I tested with into milk jugs filled with water. I have used that method before with the various Hornady FTX bullets and though not as scientific as ballistics gel, it is an affordable means of testing expansion performance every one of us can use to share among ourselves with our own loads. Having seen the results from those FTX shots, all I can say is Barnes truly has this down to a science. The 200.7gr bullet weighed 200.7gr after the shot as well. In my book, that is 100% retained weight. But then, you'd expect that with a homogenous material with really thick petals. Not at all like cup and core designs with a relatively thin jacket about the same gauge as copper chimney flashing. The bullet penetrated 4 milk jugs, with the first two being totally destroyed with the resultant shock wave from impact and the latter two having just a hole in, out and in again. That could equate to penetration after the petals curled back.
Here's the porn:
The front-on image is almost a work of art:
Consider this. Before those petals ultimately bent back, they transitioned from slightly open, to fully extended, giving a huge internal cutting area with edges like copper Ginsu blades. I've got me one heck of a tie tack project.
WRT internal ballistic performance, I had wide-ranging velocities within a load, consistent with not enough neck tension. Next time, I'll either taper crimp these to .475 instead of .476, or throw in a light, Lee FCD crimp over the rearward cannelure. My experience with the 200gr Hornady FTXs was when used with Lil Gun, their velocities varied a lot until I laid on enough neck tension to allow it to get really cooking before releasing the bullet. I did chamber a round, ejected and examined it to measure how much the bullet pulled and it was something like.007, so I knew the tension was not totally inadequate. I suspect that the insufficient neck tension may have led to the high SDs. In some loads, I got some pretty good groups, but then I've seen before where SD did not correlate to great groups in this caliber.
Enough foreplay. Here's the meat:
I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that those speeds would increase an average of 30-50 fps each step if I had laid on more neck tension. That's my gut feeling anyway.
Here are some images of the more notable groups shot at 100 yards:
Note: Those are half inch grids and bullseye. "Aim small. Miss small."
200gr XPB WS2 Coated with 41gr Lil Gun (Best 3-shot group) (Best 5-shot group)
200gr Plain XPB with 40gr Lil Gun (Best 4-shot group)
200gr XPB Plain with 41gr Lil Gun
The Barnes 200 XPB bullets exhibit textbook expansion, which is to be expected. Whether that terminal performance makes them worth the cost is a personal call. Certain loads are definitely accurate, but others were not. I will follow up with all the full size target images if there is interest. Suffice it to say, the above loads are definitely good choices. WRT using friction reducing coatings. After the first 25 rounds of WS2 bullets. Upon cleaning the bore, there was considerably less resistance to the first few patches soaked with Kroil. After the first brushing and patch, the WS2 one was for all intent and purpose, done. It took a second round of brush and patch after shooting the 20 uncoated bullets to reach the same point. I generally clean between different bullets and also fire a fouling shot. I did not include an image of the five 275gr bullet group as they were for sighting in the scope and were all over the place until I got the scope dialed in.
Notable Revelation:
Back when I first set up my upper on my RRA NM lower, I had been following gunnut's efforts in developing his Recoil Less stock and made my own closely paralleling his design, but with one heavier spring weight as opposed to two. FWIW, I believe that two, consisting of different spring strengths, are a better choice as they will act upon different frequency components in the recoil impulse. Either weight system, when combined with the muzzle brake contributed to making shooting the 450b very pleasant, or so I thought.
Another caliber I'm developing loads for is my AR15 .300 WSSM upper, which also wears a Ross muzzle brake. It throws a 150gr bullet at 3000 fps, putting the performance somewhere between a .30-06 and a lite .300 Win Mag. Out of curiosity, I shot it without the brake and the perceived recoil was much more violent. I put the brake back on and removed my shake weight. There wasn't much change in perceived recoil. When I went back to the 450b, I left the shake weight out. Whoa! The perceived recoil was much more pronounced than I recalled, even with the muzzle brake on, so I put my shake weight back in and suddenly, the 450b was once again tamed. I've said this before, but it bears repeating. My Dad has a Browning A-Bolt Presentation Grade in .270 Winchester. The recoil from it is much more objectionable than the 450b with the brake and a Recoil Less stock. If you're concerned about hunting with a muzzle brake WRT your hearing, don't use one but fdefinitely consider one of gunnut's stocks with both recoil reducers installed.
Conclusion:
As some folks have already speculated, I suspect at the muzzle velocities we encounter and given the bore size of the 450b, a muzzle brake does not do nearly as much for perceived recoil reduction as in the .300 WSSM because the recoil in the 450b is more a function of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion and it is much less dependent upon reducing the rocket effect afforded by a muzzle brake than the .300 WSSM. That's a plug for gunnut's Recoil Less stock. Shooting is believing. It will have a greater effect on perceived recoil than just a muzzle brake. Ultimately, both contribute to reducing recoil, but the lion's share of the effect in the case of the 450b goes to gunnut's Recoil Less stock.
Upcoming tests:
1) More Powder, same bullet, up to signs of excessive pressure.
2) Water shots using less powder with a grits filler (for safe chamber pressure) to check expansion at lower velocities that would be predicted to occur at 100 (1930fps), 200 (1500fps) and (not my choosing) 300 (1175fps) 300 yards. Given the velocities of the intended .460 S&W, I expect similarly pleasing results.
3) Moving on to test the 275gr XPB similarly.
Respectfully Submitted and with thanks to commander faschisto,
Hoot