And Barnes makes .284" TSX bullets in 120g, 140g, 150g, 160g and 175g. All except the 120g have a higher B.C. than any of the .277" TSX bullets.
Just sayin'.
According to Barnes their 140gr. .277 TSX @.404 BC, beats the ballistic coefficients of the 120gr.,140gr., and 160gr. .284 TSX and almost matches the 150gr. @ .408.
You are correct - I missed that one. But the 150g and 175g .284" still beat it in terms of B.C. with values of .408 and .417 respectively.
Not that it matters to me as I use TTSX and LRX rather than TSX. All three of the .284" LRX beat the one .277" LRX in terms of B.C. Two of the four .284" TTSX beat all three of the .277" TTSX in terms of B.C., and a third essentially matches the best .277" TTSX (.373 vs .377).
All of which is kind of moot to me - so long as i can get good bullets for a particular cartridge I'm good to go, Chose the .284" diameter first with a 7mm RM, which handily beats the .270 Win in terms of long range ballistics. Added a .280 Rem 30+ years later because I already had a large stash of .284" bullets. Would have been perfectly happy with a .270 Win otherwise, as the .280 was intended as a rifle for my daughters to use. That didn't work out - one uses my .257 Roberts and the other got a .308 Win. - so I'm "stuck" with the .280. If thats a bad thing, I'll take more of the same.
A .280 AI never interested me because I still have the 7mm RM.
Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 08/21/18.
Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!
No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.
