Barnes LRX 7mm 139 vs 145

[sndmn11]

Take that with a grain of salt. I do not know what defines "expansion" it very well could be viewed the diameter at any point of the bullet grew. My approach has been to add 400fps and call that my max distance for that LRX bullet.

 

[Battering Ram]

I'm running the 145's in my wife's 7-08 being pushed by RL-17 at 2900 FPS from the muzzle. She's killed an elk with no problems (one shot). The bullet was a pass through but the effects was what I was hoping for. I can post wound pictures if you would like. The shot distance was 199 yards. The rifle is dead nuts accurate to 700 yards. We haven't tried shooting it farther yet. I don't remember if Barnes had the 139's available at the time of load development.

 

[PartsJr.]

I was shooting the 145 LRX behind IMR4831 in my .280ai. I got decent groups, around 5/8-3/4" groups at 100 yds, good but nothing to brag about. Velocity was around 3050fps. I decided to switch to a more temperature stable powder and go with H4831sc. I figured if I'm switching powder I'm going to try the 139LRX. I like the idea of more velocity. For my shooting distances the slight reduction in BC is negligible. I haven't worked up a load for these yet but am looking forward to seeing how they perform. If I'm not happy, I'm thinking if trying hammer bullets next.
Good luck. Let us know what you go with and how they perform.

 

[PartsJr.]

I don't think you'll see a huge performance difference but I was unaware of the differences in expansion velocities between the two.
A buddy shot this deer head on at 100 yds with his .280 ai. 145 gr LRX.
He never did find the bullet.

 

[sndmn11]

I'm running the 145's in my wife's 7-08 being pushed by RL-17 at 2900 FPS from the muzzle. She's killed an elk with no problems (one shot). The bullet was a pass through but the effects was what I was hoping for. I can post wound pictures if you would like. The shot distance was 199 yards. The rifle is dead nuts accurate to 700 yards. We haven't tried shooting it farther yet. I don't remember if Barnes had the 139's available at the time of load development.

I've got the same velocity with staball in my wife's 20" 7-08 145LRX. Was silly easy work up.

 

[Battering Ram]

I've got the same velocity with staball in my wife's 20" 7-08 145LRX. Was silly easy work up.

Yes sir! I found the load development to be very easy.

 

[slam2107]

Yes sir! I found the load development to be very easy.

I shot the 145LRX in my 280AK 61gr H4831sc 1/2" groups killed my Bighorn Ram 504yds

Yes sir! I found the load development to be very easy.

.

 

[BobG408]

I found the email when I got home.

"
As for the expansion, there is no max velocity or too fast to expand. You can push them as fast as you want. All they need is to impact the animal at the minimum velocity needed or faster.

So, the minimum IMPACT velocity needed for reliable expansion on both soft tissue or direct bone is as follows-

.264"/6.5mm 127 gr LRX- 1600 fps
.284"/7mm 139 gr LRX- 1400 fps
.284"/7mm 145 gr LRX- 1600 fps
.308" 175 gr LRX- 1600 fps
.308" 190 gr LRX- 1500 fps
.308" 168 gr TTSX- 1500 fps
.308" 180 gr TTSX- 1500 fps
.308 165 gr TTSX- 1800 fps

In the 300 WSM due to case capacity of that cartridge and the length of a copper bullet, I recommend the 175 gr LRX or 168 gr TTSX. Or the 165 gr TTSX if you have to. I have taken quite a few elk and deer with both the 168 gr TTSX and 175 gr LRX, as well as other Barnes Bullets. My favorite for my 300 Win Mags is the 175 gr LRX. From 15 yards to over 800 yards they have been awesome on elk. Deer have been a 60 yard shot to 760 yards furthest. In my bothers and cousins 300 WSM's I load them the 175 gr LRX or 168 gr TTSX. One 300 WSM we have has such a short magazine we have to use the 165 gr TTSX ( has a shorter ogive than the 168 gr TTSX or LRX's). But if your mag has enough room I recommend the 168 gr TTSX or 175 gr LRX.

I've used the 190 gr LRX on elk and deer as well but it doesn't do really anything better than the 175 gr LRX. It would just eat up way too much case capacity in the WSM unless you had a long magazine somehow.


Chase Young
| Consumer Technical Support |
Barnes Bullets
38 North Frontage Road | PO Box 620 Mona UT 84645
Phone 435-856-1000 | Fax 435-856-1040
[email protected] "
"

I've just committed to the 280 AI. Can anyone please offer any reloading recommendations for the Barnes 139 or 145 grain bullets? Thank you very much.

 

[2rjshort]

139s over a near max load of 4831sc gave me sub 1/2 groups. I seated .050 off the lands.
I couldn't get the 145s to fly as well

 

[PA Plumber]

As mentioned in the previous post to BobG408: 61 grains of 4831SC with 145 LRX and a standard large rifle primer.
Just over 1 5/8" at 300 yards.

 

[ruby76]

I use RL23 with the 145's out of my 280AI.

 

[Magnum44270]

Run the 145 in my sons 7m08ai at 2920fps. Took elk at 52yds frontal, whitetail at 185 and 215 and an antelope at 435.

Why are you guys running such light bullets in the work horse 280ai? Ill be running the 168 ablr in mine

 

[2rjshort]

The general consensus is to run lighter mono's and heavier lead. This year I ran 168vlds in my ai since I couldn't find the LRX last year and it performed very well on a decent sized bear and whitetail doe. Both around the 430 yard mark. Now that the LRX is available, I'm not sure what I'll run. However, the 139 works extremely well in my rifle.

 

[FEENIX]

The general consensus is to run lighter mono's and heavier lead. This year I ran 168vlds in my ai since I couldn't find the LRX last year and it performed very well on a decent sized bear and whitetail doe. Both around the 430 yard mark. Now that the LRX is available, I'm not sure what I'll run. However, the 139 works extremely well in my rifle.

If you are happy with the 139, stay with it. If you can get the 145 to shoot out of your rifle, it will give a slight advantage at LR. It is even better if you have the right twist for the 168 (1:8" or faster). Good luck!