Barnes > Nosler for BC Inflation? 145 Match Burner 6.5mm

[entoptics]

Tried some 145 Match Burners in my 264WM today. Seems Barnes has taken a page out of the old Nosler playbook, and just came up with a BC number by looking at the nearest competitor and adding a few percent...

Rifle = 1:8 twist, 5R, X-Caliber, 24"
Loads between 2995 fps and 3040 fps

LabRadar was used to calculate B.C., with tracking files' maximum distance between 90 and 130 yds. Data culled for fliers, then regressed for near/far distance. Environmentals recorded with Kestrel (Temp/Hum) and iPhone baramoter app (P). This method generally gives VERY good agreement with Berger and Hornady bullets' quoted B.C.s out of a variety of rifles, based on literally hundreds of calculations over the last couple years. It also ALWAYS matches real world drop verifications within my ability to shoot.

Barnes 145 Match Burner results (11 shots)...

Quoted G1 B.C. = 0.703
Calculated G1 B.C. Average = 0.647
% Difference = -8%
Standard Deviation of B.C. = 0.018 (3%)
Extreme Spread of B.C. = 0.062

All in all, we are not impressed. This is reminiscent of Nosler's notorious ABLR B.C. inflation, and worse than any I've measured. The next closest cheater I've measured is actually the 147 ELD-M, with a 4% loss compared to the quoted B.C. I don't get too riled up about that one, as Hornady has consistently matched (± 2%) or even beaten it's quoted B.C.s in every other cartridge I shoot them in.

Frankly, it's not exactly hard to believe the B.C. is inflated. The friggin Berger 156 EOL only quotes a G1 B.C. of 0.679, so how the heck could a bullet 11 grains lighter, without a plastic tip, beat that by 4%? It apparently can't...

I didn't get great groups today (roughly 1 MOA), but I'll reserve judgement on how they shoot, as I was only out to get rough velocity measurements for IMR8133. If I can get them to shoot better, I won't complain about a 0.650 BC in a 145, but it sure irritates me when companies cheat.

 

[257Tony]

The stupid thing is, .647 is an excellent bc for that bullet, people would still buy them even with the lower bc, if it was advertised correctly, at least I would.

Thanks for the data!

 

[Hondo64d]

Tried some 145 Match Burners in my 264WM today. Seems Barnes has taken a page out of the old Nosler playbook, and just came up with a BC number by looking at the nearest competitor and adding a few percent...

Rifle = 1:8 twist, 5R, X-Caliber, 24"
Loads between 2995 fps and 3040 fps

LabRadar was used to calculate B.C., with tracking files' maximum distance between 90 and 130 yds. Data culled for fliers, then regressed for near/far distance. Environmentals recorded with Kestrel (Temp/Hum) and iPhone baramoter app (P). This method generally gives VERY good agreement with Berger and Hornady bullets' quoted B.C.s out of a variety of rifles, based on literally hundreds of calculations over the last couple years. It also ALWAYS matches real world drop verifications within my ability to shoot.

Barnes 145 Match Burner results (11 shots)...

Quoted G1 B.C. = 0.703
Calculated G1 B.C. Average = 0.647
% Difference = -8%
Standard Deviation of B.C. = 0.018 (3%)
Extreme Spread of B.C. = 0.062

All in all, we are not impressed. This is reminiscent of Nosler's notorious ABLR B.C. inflation, and worse than any I've measured. The next closest cheater I've measured is actually the 147 ELD-M, with a 4% loss compared to the quoted B.C. I don't get too riled up about that one, as Hornady has consistently matched (± 2%) or even beaten it's quoted B.C.s in every other cartridge I shoot them in.

Frankly, it's not exactly hard to believe the B.C. is inflated. The friggin Berger 156 EOL only quotes a G1 B.C. of 0.679, so how the heck could a bullet 11 grains lighter, without a plastic tip, beat that by 4%? It apparently can't...

I didn't get great groups today (roughly 1 MOA), but I'll reserve judgement on how they shoot, as I was only out to get rough velocity measurements for IMR8133. If I can get them to shoot better, I won't complain about a 0.650 BC in a 145, but it sure irritates me when companies cheat.

I called and asked Barnes what the G7 is for the 145gr Matchburner. They told me .350. I asked them how they calculated their BCs. The tech told me by shooting them at 300 yards. Seems to me that method might not produce as accurate results as the Doppler Radar results Litz and Hornady use.

John

 

[DJ Fergus]

I called and asked Barnes what the G7 is for the 145gr Matchburner. They told me .350. I asked them how they calculated their BCs. The tech told me by shooting them at 300 yards. Seems to me that method might not produce as accurate results as the Doppler Radar results Litz and Hornady use.

John

Hypothetically for an example, if they shot that bullet with a muzzle velocity of 3300 fps to 300 yards and calculated the B.C from that, then it wouldn't calculate out the same as if it were fired with a MV of 2500 fps out to 1000 yds.

 

[buckbrush]

I've verified a .338 G7 to 1444 yards with this bullet. You guys are using G1s?!

 

[entoptics]

I've verified a .338 G7 to 1444 yards with this bullet. You guys are using G1s?!

If by "you guys", you're including Barnes themselves, then yes...

Barnes only quotes a G1 BC for their Match Burner lineup, so in order to compare my results to their published value, I used G1.

I did calculate G7 BC as well, and that value is, as expected, just shy of half that of the G1 BC at 0.321.

Your 0.338 value is still considerably short of the G1 value (0.703 x 0.497 = 0.349). 0.338/0.349 ≈ 5%.

So...No matter how you slice it, Barnes is inflating the BC.

 

[lancetkenyon]

When you can get a 500 box for $166, and they shoot .5MOA, I can deal a bit of an inflated BC. Just adjust BC in your ballistic app with actual drops, and violá.

But I do see where it would be aggravating. I am shooting the 140 MB in a couple rifles for steel.

 

[entoptics]

When you can get a 500 box for $166, and they shoot .5MOA, I can deal a bit of an inflated BC. Just adjust BC in your ballistic app with actual drops, and violá.

But I do see where it would be aggravating. I am shooting the 140 MB in a couple rifles for steel.

That's why I tried them in the first place. The only thing available...

Unfortunately for me, I can't get them to shoot very good. I'm limiting myself to IMR8133, as I'm saving my H1000 and RL26 for proven ELDM/ELDX loads in this rifle (and my 7 RM). I tried a seating depth test from 0.1 - 0.01 off the lands in 20K increments, with 4 shot groups and got no love. One depth looked promising, but when I revisited it with a couple more 4 shot groups, it turned out to be no better than the others.

I'll burn up the remaining 50 or so fireforming the last of my virgin brass by dinking some mid range steel and call it good...

 

[buckbrush]

If by "you guys", you're including Barnes themselves, then yes...

Barnes only quotes a G1 BC for their Match Burner lineup, so in order to compare my results to their published value, I used G1.

I did calculate G7 BC as well, and that value is, as expected, just shy of half that of the G1 BC at 0.321.

Your 0.338 value is still considerably short of the G1 value (0.703 x 0.497 = 0.349). 0.338/0.349 ≈ 5%.

So...No matter how you slice it, Barnes is inflating the BC.

Add them to the list of manufacturers that inflate numbers. G1s aren't of much value anyway in mapping correct drop curves. Currently, the only group doing it "right" are Berger. Regardless, emperical, true drops are required over the best math and extrapolation. Expect to burn some bullets obtaining data.

 

[338 dude]

Tried some 145 Match Burners in my 264WM today. Seems Barnes has taken a page out of the old Nosler playbook, and just came up with a BC number by looking at the nearest competitor and adding a few percent...

Rifle = 1:8 twist, 5R, X-Caliber, 24"
Loads between 2995 fps and 3040 fps

LabRadar was used to calculate B.C., with tracking files' maximum distance between 90 and 130 yds. Data culled for fliers, then regressed for near/far distance. Environmentals recorded with Kestrel (Temp/Hum) and iPhone baramoter app (P). This method generally gives VERY good agreement with Berger and Hornady bullets' quoted B.C.s out of a variety of rifles, based on literally hundreds of calculations over the last couple years. It also ALWAYS matches real world drop verifications within my ability to shoot.

Barnes 145 Match Burner results (11 shots)...

Quoted G1 B.C. = 0.703
Calculated G1 B.C. Average = 0.647
% Difference = -8%
Standard Deviation of B.C. = 0.018 (3%)
Extreme Spread of B.C. = 0.062

All in all, we are not impressed. This is reminiscent of Nosler's notorious ABLR B.C. inflation, and worse than any I've measured. The next closest cheater I've measured is actually the 147 ELD-M, with a 4% loss compared to the quoted B.C. I don't get too riled up about that one, as Hornady has consistently matched (± 2%) or even beaten it's quoted B.C.s in every other cartridge I shoot them in.

Frankly, it's not exactly hard to believe the B.C. is inflated. The friggin Berger 156 EOL only quotes a G1 B.C. of 0.679, so how the heck could a bullet 11 grains lighter, without a plastic tip, beat that by 4%? It apparently can't...

I didn't get great groups today (roughly 1 MOA), but I'll reserve judgement on how they shoot, as I was only out to get rough velocity measurements for IMR8133. If I can get them to shoot better, I won't complain about a 0.650 BC in a 145, but it sure irritates me when companies cheat.

I only had info on the 140 match burner

 

[xsn10s]

I'm still waiting to see what they do terminally on game. I got a box of 500 but they were delivered by Ace Ventura. At least 60% were damaged.

 

[Stixx]

338 Dude, Where did you you find the book that the data for the 140 was in?

 

[codyadams]

338 Dude, Where did you you find the book that the data for the 140 was in?

That would be the Berger reloading manual.

Also, and this may be old news, but Applied Ballistics has profiled them. They assigned them a .340 G7, which is quite impressive considering the 156 is assigned a .334 G7. I just picked up 1500 of these on sale for $90 per 500, pretty awesome deal for a great bc in my opinion. When comparing the 156 to the 145 using applied ballistics cdm's, at the same velocity they are nearly identical, with the 145 ever so slightly beating out the 156 in drop and drift. However, being 11 grains lighter, you will get more velocity with the 145, thus better trajectory. Wonder how they would perform on goats......ha ha

 

[cjl2010]

Wonder if a 7 or 7.5 twist would bring that BC up closer to what they quoted?

Or does it not work that way?