Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters APRIL column--Advantages of High BC

This is likely a dumb question, but I have a 25-284 built on a Rem 600 action. I run into mag box constraints when loading Barnes bullets and am wondering how frequently that becomes an issue with factory rifles and heavier, high BC bullets?

Not a dumb question at all.

A lot of handloaders still make a big deal out of how much powder space a deeply-seated, longer spitzer takes up, but the amount is generally inconsequential except in larger-caliber (say .35+) cases of relatively small capacity. I can explain why if you really want to know, but it ain't gonna make any noticeable difference in the .25-.284.

That said, often such bullets end up being seated a ways from the lands. Whether this makes any difference in accuracy depends on secveral factors, but Barnes bullets generally shoot best when seated a little deeper anyway--as do many of the high-BC lead-core bullets. My 6.5 PRC shoots best with at least three kinds of bullets when they're seated around .1 one from the lands.

The "problems" also depend on the specific cartridge and rifle. My Tikka T3 .260 Remington, for instance, wouldn't even allow some pretty standard hunting bullets to be seated near the lands, the reason I worked over the magazine to gain another .1 inch--and it does shoot better with bullets close to the lands. But that's why the 6.5 Creedmoor was developed, to allow high-BC bullets to be seated to the lands in a standard (2.85") short-action magazine.

Thanks John.

It should be interesting to see how it works out.



Bill

Count me as one of the hardheaded hunters who has been slow to come to the high BC dance. After tinkering with them in the 6.5CM, I've slowly become a believer in the ballistic superiority of such. No denying it.

Thanks MD for an excellent, informative, and very well written article that is easy to understand. Great information taken here from all of your posts on this thread.

Thanks John, Good info and well written.


Mike