Some time back, I posted my frustration with Barnes 7mm, 120 gr. XBT. I'd switched primers, from Federal 210's to Win. WLR's. Same load. I went from .5 MOA groups to 1.9 MOA !

The old load was kinda fussy. One grain under, and they shot .92. One grain over and they shot 1.58.

The newer versions of the same bullet are shorter. 1.165 vs. 1.10 inches long. They don't to seem to be as fussy. Same loads as above run 1.33 MOA at two grains under and 1.2 MOA for one grain under and for the same old load. Not .5 MOA as before, but not as fussy. This was with the WLR's, not the Fed 210's. I'm going to try the CCI 200's I have. And, perhaps some different powders.

Looks to me like Barnes learned something from their 168 gr. .308 XLC's. And they have been changing the shape of their other bullets to be accurate in a wider range of barrels and loads. E

A moving target is hard to hit.

How much did that change the BC. Is this a typo, or are the new bullets really 1/2 and inch shorter?

That's a typo. They are 1.10 vs. 1.165 for the older version. I don't know what the BC change is. Probably a few points but not much. Like the difference between their 165 gr. XBT and the 168 gr. XLC which is a boatail design. E

Barnes 120 xbt bullet, 71.5 grs of RL22 and WLR primer shot over a chrony at 3486 fps with average groups .853 in.

I thought I'd add to my old post with some new information.
I tried 60 grs. of Re-19 w/ WLR primers, not Federal 210's as previously. The 3 shot group measured .55 MOA including the fowler !
I changed over to CCI 200's. The 60 gr. group went 1.81 inches. 59 grs. went 1.24 inches. and 58 grs. went .9 inches.
I'm not seeing the jumps in group sizes. The old style, longer nosed bullet went from .92 @ 58 grs., to .46 @ 59 grs. to 1.81 @ 60 grs. Changing primers blew the 59 gr./.46 MOA load to 2.0 MOA. Doesn't seem to do that with the newer, shorter nosed style. Barnes has a winner here. Less fussy than their old style. Easier to find a good load.
BTW, the 60 gr. Re-19/ 120 gr. XBT/WLR load shoots the exact same POI as the 120 gr. Nosler BT/56 grs. IMR 4350/ Fed. 210 load.
Now all I must do is make sure both loads are at least 5% below the sticky case/ejector mark level of the old style barnes bullet. E

E, I'm assuming you plan to use that load for mule deer, and maybe blacktail deer? Sounds real good to me. I may take a look at that in my 7 mag. I have some loads with the X bullet now in my 240 wby, and both the 90 grain XFB, and the 95 gr TSX shoot real good. These are my first experiences with Barnes bullets, but, so far I am pleased with the results.

Actually, in that round, I don't need to use X bullets for deer. There are plenty of excellent, conventional bullets that will do.
The 120 gr. X shoots flatter. That 60 gr. load should clock over 3200 fps. The 59 gr. load shoots 3160 plus. And they would kick a bit less. All small details, but worth something. E

E, another question for you, because you have shot a 240 wby mag in the past, you stated you loved the 95 grain partition. My question is, for mule deer on down, given I have worked up loads that are more than acceptable relative to accuracy, of the three I have loaded, plus the 95 grain partition, (100 grain partition, 90 grain X, 95 grain TSX triple shock), which would be your choice for a) blacktail deer, short or long range, and b) Muledeer , short or long range, and C) Wild Boar, including upclose and personal. I have 2 boars with the 100 grain partition, and performance was excellent.

I have to admit that the old 95 gr. Partition worked on all sorts of critters at all sorts of ranges, like 40-500 yds. plus. It never failed. I've blown the whole front section off the bullet on a close range (40 yd.) muley, and exited with a caliber sized exit hole. The buck went down so fast I didn't know what happend to him. The stuff I shot way out there all died too. It took a while, like a 60 secs., but they did.
So the Partition will work. But I'd prefer the Barnes X. They retain more weight. I've yet to try the XXX, so I don't know about them. I know of no reson why they wouldn't be a touch better, due their design than the regular 95 gr. X.
BTW, the 85 gr. XLC is a very practical bullet, so say my spies. I'd certainly consider it. At 100%, I will retain far more weight than the 95-100 gr. Partitions. Big Stick, for instance, has a buddy who uses it out of his .243 AI. Big Stick likes the little 75 gr., .257 X. He says he put one through both shoulders of a medium size Black Bear and out the other side.
Anyway, according to Barnes, the 85 gr. XLC can do 3500 fps. with five different powders. Can you say Flat Trajectory ? E