Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Yet another Error in Barnes Reloading #3 (.300 WBY/180)

Email sent To Barnes ...
<br>
<br>This weekend, I purchased your Barnes Reloading Manual #3 and have found numerous problems with the loads in it. (the version is copyright 2001 ... but no printing #). This is the first Barnes product that I have ever truly been dissatisfied with. When high velocity/pressure loads are published in a manual, they need to be proof-read and correct. When there is a corruption in a single load/velocity number, it casts doubt on all the numbers in the manual.
<br>
<br>1) Are you recalling/replacing this version with a corrected one ?
<br>
<br>I reload for the 7mm Rem, .300 Win, .300 Wby, 300 WSM, .30-378, .338 Win mag, 340 Wby and several other calibers for friends (usually at the warm end). I just started to look through the Barnes #3, and immediately found problems/questions, with the 7mm Rem 140's, the 300 WSM and the .300 Wby. (The .300 Wby is not in your list of known problems).
<br>
<br>Please have someone look at the loads for the .300 Weatherby, 180gr XLC using RL-22
<br>
<br>When comparing all the powders/Max-loads for the .300 Weatherby, using 165 XLC's against the loads (using the same powder) for 180 XLC's, EVERY max 180gr XLC load is less than the max (using the same powder) for 165gr XLC's (as it should be), Except the RL-22 load (of 87 grs of RL-22) .....
<br>
<br>If I plug the Barnes #3 manuals max load for 180gr XLC's (87gr RL-22) into QuickLoad, with a 24" barrel (per the #3 manual) and an assumed OAL of 3.600", even allowing for the XLC coating, I get back a pressure of over 74,000 PSI (more than 10K PSI above SAAMI max), to launch that bullet at 3276 fps.
<br>
<br>This max load is 1.5 grains above the load with the same powder (RL-22) for a 165gr XLC.
<br>2) This can't be right .....??
<br>
<br>
<br>Barnes C/S replied,
<br>1) No, they aren't recalling the manual
<br>2) Yes this is yet another error in their reloading manual #3.
<br>3) Their web-site is under construction and manual corrections are not yet posted. (so I guess it's more important to sell lots-o bullets, than to ensure reloader/shooter safety ?)
<br>
<br>...Silver Bullet

They have come out with a second printing,I'v read somewhere they'v corrected "most" of the errors.Course that doesn't help those that have the first one.
<br>Jeff
<br>

One wonders if their attorney is aware of their decision not to recall. Seems like a very bad business decision.
<br>art

SB,
<br>
<br> I just bought a Barnes Manual #3 from Midway a couple weeks ago. It is identified as the third printing.
<br>
<br> In this manual, Max load of RL22 in 300WBY with 180gr XLC is 84.5gr, for 3276 fps.
<br>
<br>MM

I'm sure their attorney is aware of the problem. This is probably the same guy who writes the "we take no responsibility, use at your own risk" language at the begining that makes it "OK" to publish flawed/dangerous data without fixing the problem. "Recall? Recalls are too expensive, besides we have nothing to worry about."
<br>
<br>Yes, it is very bad business if they're concerned about keeping their customers. IMO, this is a pretty good indication of Barnes' priorities.

SB
<br>This is one more reason to "start low and work up".
<br>It does make a person wonder where their priorities are. Be careful. I always look at several manuals before starting with a new cartridge to get several different "opinions". That has saved my behind more than once.
<br>Charlie

I always look at several manuals before starting with a new cartridge to get several different "opinions".
<br>
<br>That is good advice Charlie.
<br>
<br>A man can't have too many reloading manuals.
<br>
<br>
<br>

Good job on catching that error. Might just save somebody alot of trouble or worse. You would think a company would make sure that the info for something that could have very serious consequences is correct and if a mistake was found that they would take every measure to correct it. It's one thing I really like about the shooting industry, the way MOST companies stand behind their products. Companies like RCBS, Lee, Remington, Luepold, Savage, Redding, etc... Have heard many accounts of dies or scopes or rifles having a problem years after the purchase and these aforementioned companies replacing or repairing their products at no charge to the customer just to make things right and to keep their good name. I guess Barnes is not included in this list. It's too bad. Rick

SB:
<br>
<br>Check the .30-06, just for kicks.
<br>
<br>They virtually duplicate the data for the 165 and the 180 grainers. The big problem is that they provide the data for the 165 for the 180's. If there is a more commonly shot bullet/caliber combination than the 180/.30-06, I sure can't think of it. To blow it so badly on that combo is absolutely unconscionable. I wonder just how many guys have loaded charges developed for 165-grain bullets behind 180-grainers! It's gotta be in the thousands. Talk about just asking for a lawsuit!!!!
<br>
<br>Bad, bad business.
<br>
<br>Here's a thread on the above:
<br>
<br>https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...mp;amp;sb=5&o=365&fpart=
<br>
<br>Rick

I have little tolerance for a company that is sending a
<br>perception of laziness and a propensity for slopiness.
<br>First they sell (back in the early 90s) bad bullets these were either brittle or just penciled game. Now they come out with a book that could be dangerous to one's
<br>health, to say it lightly.
<br>
<br>
<br>

You would have to pick the caliber with my picture on it:)

that is one scary mistake. i've just emailed this message thread to barnes. hell half their web site links don't work anyway.
<br>
<br>sam

Doesn't surprise me. Their sloppy presentation is the reason I refuse to use or endorse their products. I refuse to beleive there is an excuse for so many mistakes in their manual. Even so, I may have been able to excuse them except their website is the same way. Maybe some day they will get their heads out of their asses long enough to publish a good reloading manual and then I can consider them again, but for right now I am forced to beleive they don't know [bleep] from apple butter so to hell with them.

Have heard from top sources that Barnes was trying to save money by doing the proof-reading themselves rather than hire a pro. Suspect they have found out that it would have been worth hiring a professional.

If they were trying to save money by proof reading themselves.
What do you think that says of the overall loads they published <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />????????????? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Im'a stickin with the pro's, Nosler.

Amen SU35!

Barnes is a name associated with controversy for the last decade, Soft then hard copper bullets, the worst fouling bullet made in America. One never knew from box to box where the rifle would shoot. And now comes a lousy reloading manual.

But, they will sell bullets and reloading manuals by the tons. How can that be you ask, its simple the gun rags are pushing Barnes bullets in every issue.

Dan