xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,638
Testing Hornady's new CX bullet
- Thread starter Guy M
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
It's nice to see some testing, so far by the looks of them I'm curious but not hopeful, I really like to see a mono shed the nose and get that frontal diameter down so they don't turn or stop on heavier hits since they have such low sectional density if they don't.
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,638
Yup the cost and the time/ work. The video only shows a small section of the work involved. When I did testing like this we didn't even set up cameras. There's a lot of prep time and work involved just setting up the ballistic gel not to mention the camera set up. I'll set up a simple camera on a spotting scope for when I shoot out to distance. So far only 1320 yards. It's a PIA and the quality is no where near the videos on here. But there's useful info in it. I appreciate Guy's, UL, and Simple Minded Fella's work. There's a lot of work and cost involved.
Would LabRadar velocity reading at the bench, and terminal velocity at 500 yards on Shotmarker be good enough to verify BC? Or would it take more sophisticated measurements to validate BC?
Reason I am asking the club I belong to has 500 yard range and the Shotmarkers are available for the high power shooters to use. I can do some testing, if that satisfies your curiosity.
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,638
I'd say farther would be better. But even 500 yards with really critical measurements would be far better than nothing.
True. 500 is the longest distance I have access to for testing during the week.
.300 Dakota
Well-Known Member
Says Hornady. Compared to what?? Any bullet with a groove is designed to reduce bearing surface and fouling compared to one that doesn't have a groove. But if you've tried to shoot Nosler E-Tips, you know they can stop up a groove in just a few shots.
I'm looking for someone who's shot several different monolithic bullets and tried these to confirm fouling is minimal or no worse than Barnes. Not buying the hype until I've seen/heard real-world evidence.
You thought that it has a good bit of bearing surface, and I provided you with their information. The GMX bullet was supposedly the baseline.
The best real-world experience is your own experience.
.300 Dakota
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Looks to have even more bearing surface than the GMX from my computer screen. Surely somebody who's actually shot some can answer. I appreciate your response, and I hope you can appreciate my standpoint about not wanting to drop $50 only to have to drop another $50 for solvents and tools to remove copper.
Perhaps @Guy M, @WYMIKE, and @Blacktailer can answer the fouling issue/concern as they are the only ones from this thread who have experience with the CX.
ADDED: @Puddle from another thread.
ADDED1: I asked Simple Minded Fella about fouling and he responded ....
Last edited:
Moose47
Well-Known Member
Wow guys, as usual lots of great information about the new CX bullets. I have finally found some 180 gr CXs for my 300 Win Mag and 300 WBY and will begin to reload them as soon as they arrive.
A little background about me ! I have lived and hunted in Alaska for the past 40+ years. Myself and hunting partner's are meat hunters not trophy hunters. my goal has been clean kills with least amount of meat damage possible.
My bullet of choice has been the Barnes copper line which has great expansion qualities along with good clean killing power. From what I have read the problem with Copper bullets is they need more velocity to expand than lead bullets which can limit your rifle caliber choice.
So here's my thought on the GMX vs CX bullets and the problem Hornady ran into. You may have noticed that Hornady dropped the GMX line like a hot potato with little to no explanation. For me it seems simple that Hornady got feed back from the field that the GMX will not expand enough due to a lack of velocity and or the bullet material was too hard, end of story.
So the new CX bullet will be another attempt by Hornady to compete in the copper bullet market which could grow in demand if more states put pressure on the use of lead bullets. With that said my un professional opinion is that to shoot or hunt with copper bullets you need a minimum of 1800 to 2000 FPS on impact to achieve good expansion and a clean kill. To achieve this you need a high velocity rifle and for sure you must be aware of your ballistics at the longer ranges you may shoot at. For example if you hunt with a 308 with a 180gr bullet you may want to limit your range to 200 to 300 yards if not less to get the needed expansion for a clean kill.
Thanks again for all the great comments, my powder choice will be RL 26 which can achieve fantastic velocity improvements for the magnums.
A little background about me ! I have lived and hunted in Alaska for the past 40+ years. Myself and hunting partner's are meat hunters not trophy hunters. my goal has been clean kills with least amount of meat damage possible.
My bullet of choice has been the Barnes copper line which has great expansion qualities along with good clean killing power. From what I have read the problem with Copper bullets is they need more velocity to expand than lead bullets which can limit your rifle caliber choice.
So here's my thought on the GMX vs CX bullets and the problem Hornady ran into. You may have noticed that Hornady dropped the GMX line like a hot potato with little to no explanation. For me it seems simple that Hornady got feed back from the field that the GMX will not expand enough due to a lack of velocity and or the bullet material was too hard, end of story.
So the new CX bullet will be another attempt by Hornady to compete in the copper bullet market which could grow in demand if more states put pressure on the use of lead bullets. With that said my un professional opinion is that to shoot or hunt with copper bullets you need a minimum of 1800 to 2000 FPS on impact to achieve good expansion and a clean kill. To achieve this you need a high velocity rifle and for sure you must be aware of your ballistics at the longer ranges you may shoot at. For example if you hunt with a 308 with a 180gr bullet you may want to limit your range to 200 to 300 yards if not less to get the needed expansion for a clean kill.
Thanks again for all the great comments, my powder choice will be RL 26 which can achieve fantastic velocity improvements for the magnums.
Moose47
Well-Known Member
Had a chance to get to the range for some initial testing. 300 Win Mag, 180 grain CX, 78.5 RL26,Fed 215 primer, COAL 3.360 3 shots @ 3186,3161 and 3167, Average 3171. Accuracy was 1+ MOA, not the best but usable for a hunting load. This load is close to a max load so please use caution with your rifle. Overall you can see that RL 26 brings new life to the 300 WM, these numbers are what yo could expect from a 300 Weatheby. More to come !!
Doing some load development in a Remington 700 SS BDL 24" 7mm Rem Mag with the 150 CX. Been using new Rem brass, fed 215, and Hodgdon 4831SC and Reloader 23 both are 100 fps under the published data. Ran the Hodgdon over max by one full grain by .2 increments got a very light sticky bolt on the last 2 increments and no signs of pressure on the brass. Can only get about 2800fps with the Hodgdon and 2900 with the reloader 23. First try with a monolithic bullet. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
