Best Long Range Lead-Free Caliber?

mtmuley

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
535
Location
Montana
The 199 or 214 in a properly twisted .300 RUM would be pretty nasty I think. I ran the 199's up to nearly 3200 fps in my factory 10 twist, but decided to go with the 181 for better stability. My new barrel will be twisted for the heavier Hammers. mtmuley
 

cmahoney

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
272
Location
Minden Nevada
The 199 or 214 in a properly twisted .300 RUM would be pretty nasty I think. I ran the 199's up to nearly 3200 fps in my factory 10 twist, but decided to go with the 181 for better stability. My new barrel will be twisted for the heavier Hammers. mtmuley
Have you used any of their 6.5 bullets?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

mtmuley

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2017
Messages
535
Location
Montana
Don't own a 6.5 of any kind. They have a forum, and there are a lot of guys over at LRH using the Hammers. Good info at each place. mtmuley
 

N2TRKYS

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
1,579
Location
Alabama
Whatever you choose, I would test it somehow at longer ranges. This was a federal copper bullet found in my wyoming buck, 350ish yard shot with 30-06. I realize it’s not the same caliber you are looking at, but it scared the crap out of me and I will be testing max range on all copper bullets I shoot now. They tend to require more KE to mushroom out nicely, it would seem.View attachment 85302
What grain bullet is that?
 

406Smith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
188
To all-

It is not “kinetic energy” that expands bullets. It is velocity.
I absolutely am not one that lives & dies by KE. But to be clear, energy within the system is without a single doubt the only way that bullets expand - that’s just how mechanics of materials works.

I tend to use velocity as a metric as well for a given bullet, but there is an intrinsic link in the background.
 

MattB

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
1,567
I absolutely am not one that lives & dies by KE. But to be clear, energy within the system is without a single doubt the only way that bullets expand - that’s just how mechanics of materials works.

I tend to use velocity as a metric as well for a given bullet, but there is an intrinsic link in the background.
That doesn't makes any sense. KE is a function of mass and velocity. Do you think that a bullet made of a given material will expand better at a lower velocity because there is more of it?
 
Last edited:

jhm2023

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2018
Messages
133
Location
Delta Junction, AK.
Whatever you choose, I would test it somehow at longer ranges. This was a federal copper bullet found in my wyoming buck, 350ish yard shot with 30-06. I realize it’s not the same caliber you are looking at, but it scared the crap out of me and I will be testing max range on all copper bullets I shoot now. They tend to require more KE to mushroom out nicely, it would seem.View attachment 85302
This IMO is why you use Barnes. They have a softer copper and better designed nose cavities. Everyone else is just trying to imitate and failing at it. The only other good options that I'm aware of are Lehigh defense or Cutting Edge. Also velocity is the constant factor that determines function in an particular bullet line for a certain caliber. Minimum energy varies considerably and isn't usually advertised. Nose cavities in quality monolithics are engineered for particular minimum function velocity so it's wise to learn what that is.
 
Last edited:

406Smith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
188
That doesn't makes any sense. KE is a function of mass and velocity. Do you think that a bullet made of a given material will expand better at a lower velocity because there is more of it?

Distance over time does not deform material. Work is a function of force & distance. Material strain is tied to the stresses [force over area] imposed. Material properties (i.e. modulus of elasticity) and geometry will also impact strain.
 

MattB

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
1,567
Distance over time does not deform material. Work is a function of force & distance. Material strain is tied to the stresses [force over area] imposed. Material properties (i.e. modulus of elasticity) and geometry will also impact strain.
You are probably right about that, but I don't know what that means or how to evaluate it.

But let's look at a simple example to see if the minimum KE for expansion theory passes the smell test. I believe Barnes indicates that a minimum velocity of 1,800 fps is required for their LRX bullet to reliably expand. The lightest LRX bullet made is the 70 gr .22 bullet. It generates KE of 504 lb./ft. at 1,000 fps. The 280 gr. .338 LRX generates that level of KE at 900 fps. Your intrinsic link to KE would suggest that the .338 cal. bullet should expand reliably at 900 fps because of equivalent KE of the 70 gr. .22 LRX at the minimum velocity threshold. Conversely, would we need to push the .22 cal. bullet to 3,600 fps and approximate the KE generated by the .338 bullet at 1,800 fps in order to achieve reliable expansion?

Or do you think that perhaps a minimum velocity of 1,800 fps (as per the bullet manufacturer) is a reasonable rule of thumb, and that bullet weight and KE are not relevant?
 

406Smith

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2018
Messages
188
Mfg minimum velocity is also the rule of thumb that I use. But KE & bullet properties are responsible for expansion. Someone else stated earlier that it was solely velocity, which is absolutely untrue. If it was true, bullets would expand as the left the muzzle.

Mfg minimum velocities are part marketing and that’s why they are rules of thumb & not gospel.

The fundamental principles behind bullet expansion have been around a very long time. No need to sniff science :)
 
Last edited:
Top