• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

6.5XC--New Tubb Test--3100 fps w 123s

Forum Boss

Administrator
Folks,
David Tubb just sent this report on latest testing of the 6XC necked up to 6.5mm using "Experimental" 123gr Sierra BT bullets. The results are exciting. With moly-coated 123s and Russian primers, David was able to get 3100 FPS from his 26" Schneider barrel.,Note, in my posts I've predicted the 6.5x47 Lapua would be able to push 123gr Scenars at 2950+ FPS. It looks like a 6.5XC can match that and more!)

About the bullets, these were a special "experimental" run from Sierra. David tells us: "the 123s will probably be introduced later in the year." We don't have a BC number yet. For comparison, a Lapua Scenar 123 is rated at .547 BC by Lapua, but David thinks that's a little optimistic.

Testing the 6.5XC -- April 16, 2006

All of the tests were done with one seating length,about .020” jump to the rifleing) Reamer was Henriksen with .296 neck and 1 ½ degree lead,set for a 142 Sierra at 2.800” to touch the rifleing). Reamer is designed to allow using a 142 Sierra and still feed out of the Tubb 2000 magazine box,2.877 inside length). A 142 Sierra when seated at 2.780” length keeps the full diameter of the base of the bullet just in front of the neck shoulder junction of the case.

Maximum OAL 6.5XC case length 1.911”,48.54mm) trimmed to 1.900”
OAL of the all loaded rounds were 2.782”,give or take a couple of thousandths.)

Resize die was a Superior Shooting Systems tool steel die body with interchangeable integral neck shoulder bushings,same one use for the 6XC). A .286 resize bushing and .2625 expander were utilized.

Barrel in all 6.5XC tests was a T2K profiled Schneider 26” 8 twist polygonal. All of the bullets were molycoated.

Bullets used were experimental 123 gr Sierras,Looks like a little brother to the 142) and the 142 Sierra Matchking.

All velocities were 5 shots each with the same 5 pieces 6XC brass,neck opened up to 6.5mm) till the maximum load was reached – then I changed to a different 5 pieces of twice fired brass in order to guage brass flow into the ejector.

Note ---Maximum velocity charges were based on brass flow into the ejector plug. This means it is a HOT load. If you do not have an ejector plug in you bolt face you may not see these pressure signs – and probably will go off of the looseness of the primer pocket – with this 6XC brass the primer pocket did not loosen during these tests – so be careful.

All of the 6.5/6XC brass used had been shot with my normal H4350/6XC load a couple of times – could have used new brass but thought this would be more indicative of actual results.

Density altitude for the tests was 4100 ft,+ or – a 100 feet)

Russian primers used in all tests.

All tests were with either Hodgdon’s Varget,lot # 4013) or 4350 powder,lot # 4647)

I did no accuracy tests just chronograph tests.

All barrels lengths were 26” – a longer barrel will usually give slightly more velocity


Experimental Sierra 123 with Varget

Charge Velocity
36 grs 2761 fps
38 grs 2907 fps
39 grs 2980 fps
40 grs 3042 fps
41 grs 3101 fps MAX


Experimental Sierra 123 with H4350

43.5 grs 3025 fps MAX
NOTE: Compressed load – it gave me different seating
lengths based on the powder being crushed

Sierra 142 with Varget

38 grs 2806 fps
39 grs 2853 fps MAX


Sierra 142 with H4350

39 grs 2662 fps
41 grs 2777 fps
42 grs 2829 fps MAX


Just for grins I figured since I had such good luck with the Varget and the 142s in the 6.5XC I would try the Varget with the 115 DTAC in the 6XC. The test rifle was a T2K with a 26” Schneider polygonal ¾ degree lead, loaded round OAL 2.740”


DTAC 115 with Varget,in 6XC caliber)

37 grs 3003 fps MAX


DTAC 115 with H4350,in 6XC caliber)

39.5 grs 2960 fps - my standard load,NOT A MAX LOAD in my T2K)

It might be a worthwhile endeavor to do further test of Varget in the 6XC for accuracy.

As for the 6.5 XC – Varget is a very good choice of powder,or similar burn rate) for the 123 gr bullet weight,not hardly enough usable case capacity in the 6.5XC for H4350 and the 6.5x47 has slightly less capacity)

I was more impressed by 6.5XC than from my tests,3years back) before. I attribute the increased velocity of the 142 with H4350 to a couple of items. The barrel used before was not a polygonal rifleing configuration and additionally I feel that the better head hardness of current production 6XC brass is probably the main reason for the extra 100 fps when compared to the prior test.

-- David Tubb --
http://www.DavidTubb.com
 
JER said:
Is there anything there the 260 Remington does not already do?

Good observation. I shot a 260 Rem for a couple years and I maxed out at about 2970 fps with the 123 Scenar in a 24" barrel. Given the fact that David is running a "fast" barrel that is 2" longer, the performance looks roughly equivalent.

But, with the 6.5XC you burn less powder and will have a little less recoil. You still have to neck up cases from 6mm to 6.5, but the brass should be a little more stable,with 30 degree shoulder) and I doubt you'll see some of the donut issues one can get with the 260 Rem when necking up .243 Win brass.
 
I see that the 6.5 is going lighter with still some impressive BC.

Any reason there couldn't be a 150 SMK with BC of 7 or so?

I mean if I got the case capacity in a 6.5x.284 give me something that will kick the little projectiles tail down range!

So if your looking Berger, Seirra, Lapua make your experimental bullets with BC Of 7 and 150-155 and send them to rhino for testing in his Warner Rig!

RHINOUT!
 
Moderator said:
But, with the 6.5XC you burn less powder and will have a little less recoil.

Just wondering, but how would you wind up with less recoil if you're driving the same weight bullet at the same velocity? I've seen a few references to this here and there, but just now got curious enough to ask the question.

robert
 
rstreich said:
Moderator said:
But, with the 6.5XC you burn less powder and will have a little less recoil.

Just wondering, but how would you wind up with less recoil if you're driving the same weight bullet at the same velocity? I've seen a few references to this here and there, but just now got curious enough to ask the question.

robert

Part of the recoil is comes from the weight of the powder charge itself. Though the difference is only a few grains, the recoil force equals 1/2 mass times velocity squared. The squaring of the velocity means that a relatively small change in mass affects recoil more than you'd think. Using PointBlank software, here's a calculation.

For 142gr SMK at 2850 fps, 13lb gun

6.5XC 39gr Varget = 8.43 ft/lbs recoil force

260 Rem 44.5gr H4350 = 9.19 ft/lbs recoil force
 
Moderator said:
Part of the recoil is comes from the weight of the powder charge itself. Though the difference is only a few grains, the recoil force equals 1/2 mass times velocity squared.
I disagree.

Force is not proportional to velocity squared. Energy is.

Recoil force is momentum, which is M x V. It's a linear relationship in which both terms have equal impact on the result.

Moderator said:
The squaring of the velocity means that a relatively small change in mass affects recoil more than you'd think.
Actually, the squaring of the velocity means that small changes in VELOCITY affects recoil more than one would think. The mass effect is smaller than the velocity effect since mass is not squared in any calculation of recoil or momentum.

Unless you have a calibrated shoulder, I bet no one will be able to tell the difference in recoil

I'm interested in this, but I'll wait for some independent testing.
 
Well you're right, a small change in velocity makes a bigger difference than weight because it is the factor which is squared.

What I mean to say it that because the Energy equation has a factor in it that's squared you get a much bigger felt difference in energy than one might expect from just adding/subtracting a few grains to the powder charge weight.

Regarding Recoil Energy, things actually get a bit more complicated than I made out. First, JER is 100% correct in that RECOIL IMPULSE is based on the momentum equation. However, "Recoil ENERGY" in ft/lbs is the most commonly used indice of recoil, and ft/lbs of recoil is indeed what I labeled in the Point Blank sample calculations. This Recoil Energy is calculated based on the Kinetic Energy equation, but V is not the bullet's velocty, it is the free-recoil velocity of the rifle.

See: http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/August01.htm

"The recoil energy of the gun can then be calculated from the kinetic energy equation:
E = ½*Mg*,Vg)2 or simplifying:

,3) E = Wg*,Vg)2/64.4

Essentially you put together recoil velocity together with recoil impulse and, using the kinetic energy equation, you can derive recoil energy, i.e. what I called recoil force.

Where:
E = free-recoil energy, ft.-lbs.
Mg = mass of the gun,Wg/32.2)
Wg = weight of gun, lb.
64.4 = acceleration of gravity*2, f.p.s.2
Vg = free-recoil velocity of the gun, f.p.s

See: http://www2.rpa.net/~bologna/formulas.htm

FIND: Recoil Energy

A. Calculate recoil impulse:
I=,WB * VB + 4000 * WC)/225400
Where WB=wt of bullet in grains, VB=velocity of bullet in fps, and WC is the wt of the powder charge in grains.,I is in lbs/sec)

B. Calculate the velocity of the recoiling gun:
VG=32.2 * I / WG
Where WG is the wt of the gun in lbs., 32.2 is the acceleration due to gravity, and I is the recoil impulse from calculation #1

C. Calculate the free recoil energy of the gun in ft lbs.
EG=WG * VG^2 / 64.4


example: 120 grain bullet with muzzle velocity of 2750 fps using a powder charge of 41 grains. Gun wt is 6 lbs.
I=,120*2750 + 4000*41)/225400=2.1917 lbs/sec
VG=32.2*2.1917/6=11.7621 fps
EG=6*11.7621^2 / 64.4=12.8895 ft lbs

-----

Getting back to the original question, the simple reason that there is less recoil is that you are accelerating a slightly smaller mass,fewer grains of powder).
 
The people in the industry I have spoken with use a rule of thumb of 1 1/2 times the muzzle velocity of the bullet in calculating the recoil of the powder charge. There are, apparently, too many factors involved to quantify it exactly, but they say that experience indicates 1 1/2 times muzzle velocity is "in the ball park".

The reason is that, at bullet exit from the muzzle, the powder gas experiences a more or less instantaneous acceleration when not confined by the barrel and bullet. You may have seen high speed imagery of bullets in a "reverse flow" of gas at exit from the muzzle which illustrates the event.

For this reason most people underestimate the effect of weight of the powder charge on recoil.

It would be interesting to see what sort of velocities the 6.5 XC could achieve with 4895. My experience with Varget in the 6.5-08 has been that it is inclined to reach a pressure peak sooner than 4895 with all but the lightest bullets.

As both are "Extreme" powders I doubt that there would be much given up in the way of temperature stability.

Rick
 
Gents,

I am using the Lapua 139 at 2750 quite comfortably with the win. .250 formed brass and 39 1/2 grs. H4350 . I found bullets over 120 grs. in weight to work a bit better with 4350 than varget in this case. With regard to the 123 I found both powders to work equally well but both shot in the "sweet spot" at different velocities. The 139 at 2750 still shoots inside the 123 at 2950 at 600 yards based on my experiences with the two bullets. Those interested in 6.5x47 will be able to attain the same velocities as the xc to a point. Pulling 3100 from a 123 is impressive but will also be very hard on the throat and the brass, and again one cannot ignore the issues of economics when it comes to barrel life, at least not for me at $300.00 a wack .
As for H4895 it will work well with the lighter bullets, i.e. 107/108 but tends to get peaky and a bit inconsistent with the heavier stuff. Quite simply I don't see a reason to shoot the 4895 unless the other powders dry up for what ever reason.This is also based on experience with the cartridge.

I am shooting this cartridge across the course and it is doing everything the .260 does with much better barrel life. The longer neck and the shoulder as well as the reduction in powder will push the barrel life over 4000 rounds for those shooting NMC.

123'S out of Sierra are a good thing, they are an excellent 300 yard bullet and will do well out to 600 at 2900 and above, but you do have to shoot 'em at 3100 to get inside of a 139 or a 142 at 600 or 1k .

Phil Hayes
 
Hayes said:
I am shooting this cartridge across the course and it is doing everything the .260 does with much better barrel life. The longer neck and the shoulder as well as the reduction in powder will push the barrel life over 4000 rounds for those shooting NMC.
There's the first good reason to change to something shorter than a 260.

I will, however, continue using 6.5 mm Lapua bullets.
 
Well you're right, a small change in velocity makes a bigger difference than weight because it is the factor which is squared.

What I mean to say it that because the Energy equation has a factor in it that's squared you get a much bigger felt difference in energy than one might expect from just adding/subtracting a few grains to the powder charge weight.

Regarding Recoil Energy, things actually get a bit more complicated than I made out. First, JER is 100% correct in that RECOIL IMPULSE is based on the momentum equation. However, "Recoil ENERGY" in ft/lbs is the most commonly used indice of recoil, and ft/lbs of recoil is indeed what I labeled in the Point Blank sample calculations. This Recoil Energy is calculated based on the Kinetic Energy equation, but V is not the bullet's velocty, it is the free-recoil velocity of the rifle.

See: http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/August01.htm

"The recoil energy of the gun can then be calculated from the kinetic energy equation:
E = ½*Mg*,Vg)2 or simplifying:

,3) E = Wg*,Vg)2/64.4

Essentially you put together recoil velocity together with recoil impulse and, using the kinetic energy equation, you can derive recoil energy, i.e. what I called recoil force.

Where:
E = free-recoil energy, ft.-lbs.
Mg = mass of the gun,Wg/32.2)
Wg = weight of gun, lb.
64.4 = acceleration of gravity*2, f.p.s.2
Vg = free-recoil velocity of the gun, f.p.s

See: http://www2.rpa.net/~bologna/formulas.htm

FIND: Recoil Energy

A. Calculate recoil impulse:
I=,WB * VB + 4000 * WC)/225400
Where WB=wt of bullet in grains, VB=velocity of bullet in fps, and WC is the wt of the powder charge in grains.,I is in lbs/sec)

B. Calculate the velocity of the recoiling gun:
VG=32.2 * I / WG
Where WG is the wt of the gun in lbs., 32.2 is the acceleration due to gravity, and I is the recoil impulse from calculation #1

C. Calculate the free recoil energy of the gun in ft lbs.
EG=WG * VG^2 / 64.4


example: 120 grain bullet with muzzle velocity of 2750 fps using a powder charge of 41 grains. Gun wt is 6 lbs.
I=,120*2750 + 4000*41)/225400=2.1917 lbs/sec
VG=32.2*2.1917/6=11.7621 fps
EG=6*11.7621^2 / 64.4=12.8895 ft lbs

-----

Getting back to the original question, the simple reason that there is less recoil is that you are accelerating a slightly smaller mass,fewer grains of powder).
Ooohhh. That made my poor little head hurt. (LOL)
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,791
Messages
2,203,452
Members
79,110
Latest member
miles813
Back
Top