Did Barnes do anything with the construction of this bullet to facilitate opening at longer ranges (vs the TTSX) or did they just change the shape to give it a higher BC?

Thanks,

Jerry

Nosler reportedly softened their ABLR's for easier opening at LR/lower velocities.

Not sure about Barnes. My 26 Nos shoots the 120 TAC-X and 120 E-Tip into smaller groups than the 127 LRX. So, I'm sticking with 120's. At those speeds, it doesn't matter. They'll open...

DF

The LRX are supposed to work down to a lower velocity limit than the TTSX although I can't find the numbers right now and don't remember where I read it. I think they're quoted as being good 2-300 fps lower than the TTSX or TSX. I'd guess there's some construction difference to make them open easier.

If I remember right its 2100ft/sec for TSX and 1600ft/sec for LRX.

Not sure what you mean by longer ranges, but the 127 LRX seemed to open on the coyote at 410 yards.

I wouldn't trust the 127 LRX at 1600fps. I've had impacts on deer at 1900 and had adequate, but no more than adequate expansion. I consider 1900fps as the minimum desirable impact velocity for it. FWIW, the 127 LRX is my favorite big game bullet (followed by the .30/168 TTSX) and have had excellent results with it on deer and coyote. Will probably shoot a cow elk or two with them this year.

Found it:




This is from a 500+ yard shot on a whitetail where impact velocity was right at 1900fps. Good expansion, but I wouldn't want much less.

Why do you feel that way? From my limited perspective that appears to be excellent expansion characteristics at 1900fps, which would make me think that 1600fps would give adequate expansion.

Thanks,

David

Thanks for the input guys.

I emailed Barnes yesterday and this is the response I got;

"Hi Jerry,

Yes the 6.5mm 127gr LRX requires a minimum impact of 1600fps for initial (beginning) expansion. Compared to the 6.5mm 120gr TTSX that requires 1900fps for the same beginning expansion. We suggest an impact velocity of 100fps to 200fps higher than these values for good bullet expansion and subsequent good wound channels.

Thanks, Ty

Ty Herring | Consumer Service"

Thanks!

David

That email from Barnes is exactly why I prefer to keep impacts @ 1900+. Their suggestion is 1800fps and I'm allowing for the unknown and unexpected with my 1900 number. If I plan for 1900 and fudge a little bit I'm still ok.

Glad you finally got a candid reply like that. I've sent a couple emails asking if there is a number above their minimum that is more optimum to stay above.