Way back when, when I joined the forum, there was a Sticky about Failsafe bullets. I couldn't find the sticky by using the search function here.
I didn't read a whole bunch of the posts because I didn't have any Failsafe bullets (and had never come across any to buy)
I recently picked up 100, .150-grain .308 Failsafes and am finding data for loading them in my .30-06 difficult to find.

My question is: Will these bullets perform well out to 300 yards if I can get them moving 2900 - 3000 fps from my rifle?

Anybody have info/results that they're willing to share?

Thanks in advance,

sniper58

Failsafes always performed well in the game fields

My wife and I used a bunch of Fail Safes back when they were available, in .270, 7mm, .30 and .338. They usually worked very well, being easy to get to shoot and penetrating very similarly to Barnes X's.

But once in a while one would fail to expand much or at all, which can also happen with hollow-point X's, and the problem seemed to get worse toward the end of the Fail Safe's production life. You might want to shoot a couple into wet newspaper as a test, because wet paper is far more gentle on bullets than dry paper. If they don't expand well in wet paper, they might not expand on broadside rib shots.

I dug back through my correspondence with Winchester. I could not find any data for 150s, only 180s. I did find a letter from Chris Herzog, Technical Marketing Specialist that contained the following: "DO NOT seat less than .015" from barrel lands. The data that we have collected indicates that optimum accuracy is usually obtained between .020" and .025"." Also included in the letter is the phone# (618) 258-3568. This letter is from January of 1996, so I don't know if that number would be current; if it is, perhaps it would get you some information for the 150s.

Thanks Gentlemen!

My searching online has indicated that the Failsafe bullet is quite similar to the Barnes MRX in construction. Because of the moly coating on the Failsafe bullets, pressures using MRX data "should" be lower (?)

Barnes data says that a max load of H414 should provide just over 3000 fps.

I'll start them at 0.025" off the lands and see how it goes.

180 grain 308 Failsafes are my favorite 30 cal bullet in almost any 30 cal I own.I was lucky enough to buy a bunch of them from a guy who quit hand loading.They were the old style 50 to a box.I also have some 140`s in .277 but for some reason never got around to using them.

The coating is the Lubaloy not moly. I loaded them with the same data you would use for a Swift A frame or any other bullet that produces slightly more pressure like the original Barnes X not the TSX.

No, it's moly.

A friend of mine who has shot a boatload of deer tried the Failsafe (150 grain in 308 Win. IIRC) for a while and said he got more runners than he was accustomed to. He went back to vanilla cup and cores for that application.

This is from a 2001 Winchester components publication:

308 Winchester 150FS 43gr Win748 powder WLR primer yields 2540fps @ 45,100psi peak pressure

John, I believe that the true Winchester bullets are Lubalox-coated, and the Combined Technology ones are contaminated with moly.

5sdad,

You may be right. I just dig into my GUN DIGEST collection to refresh my memory. The Fail Safes were first announced in the 1994 issue, which means 1993, since GD is published the year before the cover date. But Fail Safes were called Black Talons then, like the handgun bullet Winchester introduced a little while before. The Black Talon didn't last long, because of the "cop killer" BS the mainstream media came out with about the handgun bullets, and the same of the rifle bullet was changed to Fail Safe.

I went on my first safari in '93 and my companion used 180 "Black Talons" in his .30-06. I still have the one we recovered from a blue wildebeest, and the coating between the land-grooves could be Lubalox. Though in that 1994 GD, Ed Matunas (who worked in the industry for many years) calls it a "unique black coating." If it was Lubalox, why didn't he say so? Lubalox wasn't a secret.

I started using Fail Safes after that 1993 Safari and among other animals, took an Alaskan moose with the new 230-grain .338 in 1996, which was the first 230 that Winchester heard had been recovered. Winchester was very interested in seeing it, so I sent it along, and they examined it and sent it back. I also have it, along with one of the unfired bullets used in my handloads, and they are definitely moly-coated.

Nosler and Winchester started teaming up around then, and the 1998 GD states the new Partition Golds were moly-coated. (Or the black ones were, since hey also offered an uncoated version.) By the way, the Nosler folks told me at the time they didn't see any reason to introduce the Partition Gold, that it was all Winchester's idea, including the steel cup over the rear core. But Winchester was willing to pay for it, so they did it.

So if anybody runs across some "Black Talons" or very early Winchester Fail Safes, they may be Lubalox-coated. But by the mid-1990's they were moly-coated.

Here's a photo of the bullets and paper that came with them.

I guess I could call Nosler and talk to them.
I did find an older (2006) Winchester pamphlet in my "stuff" box that gives 1 load for 150 grain Failsafe bullets in .30-06. Says 55.1 grains of WW 760 gives 2810 fps at 52,100 psi from 24" barrel.



Don't know if the phone number is current, but I'll check on Monday.

I still have almost 2 boxes of Partition Gold moly-free bullets and 1 box of the moly-coated ones.

Great bullets for black bears from my .308. Haven't recovered a bullet yet!

I am not fond of moly, not because there's anything inherently wrong with it, but I typically need to shoot a bunch of different bullets from my rifles for testing. Moly fouling tends to make non-coated bullets do screwy things, at least for the first few shots, so I don't use it much.

When I went to Botswana in 2002 on a buffalo/plains game hunt, one of my rifles was a Ruger No. 1 .375 H&H. I wanted to use three different bullets, all 300-grain, the Fail Safe, Nosler Partition and Speer Grand Slam tungsten-cored solid. Since the rifle was a single-shot, a round loaded with any of those bullets could easily chambered depending on the game, I removed the moly-coating and found it didn't make any noticeable difference in velocity. With the same charge of H4350 all three shot to the same point of impact, instead of varying due to moly-fouling in the bore.

Did use an Uncle Mike's buttstock cartridge carrier on that trip, which Ingwe calls a "bubba buddy." But it sure was handy, and I ended up using all three bullets on game from impala to buffalo.

I would love to get my hands on some 7mm 140g fail safes.

I managed to accumulate a fair supply of the old Winchester 180s in .308. Later on, I came by a box of the CT version. The older, Winchester, ones that I have are very black and I am sure are Lubalox. The CTs, which I know are moly, are much more of a silver color and the coating will come off in your hands if rubbed hard (unlike M&Ms and the Lubalox ones. )

I stand corrected both Lubalux and Moly coated versions exist. Not only that I have used both. For some reason I thought the moly version was done as an aftermarket thing for bulk bullets.

I really didn't see much difference between the two but I removed the moly with solvent for the reasons that Mule Deer stated. I don't think solvents would have removed the Lubalox as it is more of a plating.

Ross Seyfried thought highly of the 140gr. .270 for Elk, me I think there are better ones out there now but won't hesitate to to shoot the rest I have at game.

Just curious, how did you remove the moly and was the bullet "normal" looking afterwards (copper color, not black)?

I have a bunch of the 230gr .338 Failsafes and they are coated - not sure if it is moly or lubalox. They shoot pretty accurate in my M70 338WM.

I still have few boxes of the Fail Safe and purchased them for Elk Hunting at the time but never got around to using them. I have 50 loaded at the moment for my 280 Ack.

TXRam,

By the time the 230 .338 Fail Safe was introduced, they were using moly.

I removed the moly with a product from Bore Tech called Moly Magic, designed for cleaning moly buildup from barrels. At first I tried rubbing alcohol and acetone. They didn't do much to the bullets I had, but other people have reported them working, probably because of differences in how firmly the moly was attached. (Some insist on calling it "moly plating," but to me plating means a hard coatings, and moly isn't hard.)

I'd dump a box of bullets in a small Zip-Lock bag and squirt a little Moly Magic inside, then let the bullets soak overnight. The next day most of the moly wiped off easily with a paper towel, though on some bullets rubbing with XXXX steel wool was necessary (the reason I believe moly-coating attaches more firmly to some bullets than others). Afterward the bullets were copper-colored, but often retained a slight hint of gray.

Well,
I've got 20 rounds loaded up with H414 (0.025" off the lands) that I'm going to try today.

I have 5 rounds each loaded from 54 grains to 57 grains of powder.
I used data from Nosler manual #7 for WW760 powder (same as H414)

Wish me luck!

Brand new rifle, so I will have to get it on paper with Winchester factory ammo first. Taking my cleaning gear with me to make sure that I'm starting with a clean bore for the Failsafe bullets.

Taking the chronograph along as well. I just hope I can shovel enough snow away from the front of the bench to get to bare ground.

Tejano,

Yep, there are better bullets out there now. I used the Fail Safes for a number of years, because they typically shot more accurately than the Barnes X's of the era, and provided the same performance on game.

But around 2000, give or take a little, Barnes X's started shooting much better in most rifles, apparently because Randy Brooks got a handle on obtaining consistent copper, and making consistent bullets. They still copper-fouled bores, but not as badly as the first X's, and the blue-coated XLC's didn't foul much at all.

But the TSX solved the fouling problem, and plastic-tipped monolithic bullets of various brands solved the occassional problem of a hollow-point being battered closed in the magazine box during recoil. This was probably the major reason for occasional hollow-pointed bullets like the X and Fail Safe not expanding. The tips also increased ballistic coefficient, which wasn't great with the hollow-points.

Thanks John! I've got some of the Bore Tech stuff that I think I bought to try on these as a matter fact - will dump a few in a baggy with some here in a bit.

John, I've got a fair number of the .338" 230's from when Midway was closing them out. They're the only moly bullets I've ever owned. (I didn't know until this thread that they were moly.) What's the downside with that coating?

Following Ross Seyfried's suggestion I bought a bunch of FailSafe .375"/270 gr bullets when Midway closed them out, and these bullets proved to be uncoated. The finish of the jackets appears to be "normal" jacket metal in color and appearance...

jim

If a Failsafe failed to expand I'd love to see a picture of one.

Pictures aren't necessary to determine if a bullet opened or not.

In 2002 I had the privilege of using my cow tag on the Bar-None ranch just up the road from Mule Deer's hometown of Townsend. I was packing an M70 in the new 300 WSM and had handloaded 180 "Failsafes" at 2,950. They were wonderfully accurate.

We located a group of cows on a hillside across a draw, I found the one I wanted, got a good rest and let her have it from around 320 yards. She didn't react one bit to the shot and kept slowly walking. It puzzled me how I could have missed, so I got on her again, and shot a second time. Same thing, absolutely zero reaction. She kept walking forward another 20 feet or so and suddenly went over, sliding down hill.

I got over to her and found both my shots were within 6" of each other, and both right through the lungs. Both had exited. When I got her open the lack of internal trauma was noticeable. Two neat holes right through the lungs. In other words, both bullets failed to open, just penciling through, hence the lack of reaction and nearly identical sized tiny entrance and exit holes.

Myself and various friends have had enough experiences like the above with Barnes X's, TSX's, TTSX's and Failsafes that I have sworn them off. When they work, they work well. When they fail, they fail miserably.

Partitions just don't have that sort of problem...

The first six of those 230s out of a brand new stainless M70 .338 went into one slightly ragged hole. Most accurate out of the box rifle I've ever shot.

Funny. I bought a bunch from Midway at the same time that were moly coated. I loaded them over IMR4350 and put them in one hole. I decided moly might not be so bad afterall.

The problem with moly-coated bullets isn't accuracy; they usually shoot just as well and sometimes better.

But problems can occur when you shoot uncoated bullets through a moly-fouled bore.

Well, I survived the range trip.

Results with the Failsafe bullets were OK............Results with my .325 WSM not so much

I shot 4, 5-round groups with the Failsafe loads at 100 meters.
Weather was OK for Central BC this time of year. +2 degrees, wind was calm, overcast, humidity was close to 100% (I'd guess)

Here's a photo of the best 2 groups.
Upper group was with the max load of 57 grains. Avg velocity for 5 rounds was 2956 fps Extreme spread was 56 fps (2926 fps - 2982 fps)

Lower group was with 56 grains. Avg velocity was 2909 fps.Extreme spread was 26 fps (2895fps - 2921fps)

I don't know what happened with the shot above the 57 grain group..........flinch maybe?
To me, it seems to have some vertical spread. The lower group has horizontal spread. Maybe I'll try 56.5 grains next time and see how it shoots.

John beat me to it. I used shooters choice and acetone then wiped with Never Dull pads. The lubalox is good and I just left that and it doesn't seem to affect shooting non coated bullets that much as far as grouping.

Any hollow point can get the tip clogged on entry and fail to expand or get bashed in the magazine. All bullets will fail at some point if you shoot enough of them. The Failsafes just had a few mixed results that were spread around widely.

Although I haven't tried it this is one bullet that could benefit from candle annealing to help it open up. I think some of the negative reports were from using the harder 300 magnum version in 30-06's and lesser velocity rounds.

TBBCs and Bitterroots don't have that problem either. Agree?

Tejano,

Yeah, some of the problems were due to two different .30 caliber versions. That never seemed like a good idea to me....

But one of the failures-to-open I know about occurred with 160's in a 7mm Remington Magnum, using factory ammo. The shooter was a former government trapper/hunter and long-time outfitter I've known very well for many years. He shot a big Midwestern whitetail more or less broadside, and it turned and started trotting off. He shot it again twice more before it disappeared. Luckily there was snow on the ground, and he tracked the buck several hundred yards before finding it dead. All three bullets went through the chest cavity, and as far he could tell none opened up much, if at all.

In my experience it's pretty easy to see when bullets don't open up, even if they're not recovered. The wound channel is very narrow, with only slight bruising along the outside, not anything like the destruction from any bullet that expands. It's unusual to also find the bullet, because obviously when they don't expand they tend to penetrate even more than usual, but have seen recovered bullets a few times, and either they don't expand at all, or barely start to expand.

Have seen some hollow-point TSX's that only opened up to about bullet diameter, as well as a few that didn't open up at all. Have mentioned this before, but the only TSX's I've seen or heard of failing to open were all from 6mm to .30 in caliber, which is why I've hypothesized that recoil-flattening of the tips in the magazine is the major problem. .22-caliber centerfires don't kick enough to flatten the tips, and TSX's over .30 have much larger holes in the tip, which would be just about impossible to batter closed from recoil.

The Lubalox/moly question has been nagging at me, so I contacted Winchester. Here is the exchange.

We are discussing the component Fail Safe bullets. Were any under the Winchester name ever moly-coated rather than Lubalox-coated, or did moly only figure in with the Combined Technology component Fail Safes? Thanks, John

John
Component Fail Safe bullets made by Winchester had a lubalox coating. Best Regards, Technical Services Department

Just thought that I'd offer this to add to the data base for those interested.

I think that the Failsafe bullets that I have are coated with Lubalox.

I took a moly-coated .243 bullet and one of my Failsafe bullets and scrubbed them with a nail polish remover-soaked piece of steel wool.

Nothing came off the Failsafe bullet, but 30 seconds of rubbing took the moly coating off the other bullet.

I used a lot of these bullets back in the '90s and early into this century. Never had one fail to open but a friend did on one elk. He was shooting factory 300Win mag ammo loaded with 150r FSs. The component bullets I've had that were made and packaged by Nosler had moly coating. I didn't buy many of them at all as I had a source for the Lubalox coated ones that were to be loaded into the factory ammo. Allen Day and I both used them in Africa with very good results on various plains species, and Allen killed a couple of his buffalo with them, using his 300mag no less! To say they penetrated well would be an understatement. In more recent years the TTSX from Barnes has pretty much pushed them out of the picture for me, even though I still have a good supply of them. They have too many pieces/parts and were expensive to manufacture, but they shot and killed awfully well for me.

True, Allen Day was a fan of the Failsafe bullets. He also really liked Nosler Partitions and I think he'd used Swift A-Frames a little in Africa (his buddy's 338 Win mag)and I know that he liked the prospects of the Northfork (although I have no idea if he ttried them)

John55, you should post here more often, your wisdom is valued. Thank you.