Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
Moderators: gds, bakerjw, renegade, bamachem
-
- New Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:51 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
Have searched the forum and other than some references in hunting section I haven't seen too much on the Barnes TAC TX 110 C.O.A.L. the Barnes website says 2.260" I loaded my first batch of rounds with 18.5, 19.0, 19.5, 20.0gn at that length and hit the range. This was with once fired Magtech , from my 10.5" PSA upper. I didn't have any issues feeding and the gun seemed to like the hotter loads better BUT I noticed the bullets cannelure was just outside the case when seating the bullets to a C.O.A.L. of 2.260. has. Anyone played with lower charge say 18.0-18.5gn and shorter C.O.A.L. ? Again gun functions fine, so it's tempting to not mess with a good thing but seems to me that the cannelure should be seated further that the recommendation from Barnes. Should be noted that brass was a trim length of 1.360 +/-0.002
Re: Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
The Cannalure has very little meaning most of the time when loading for the Blackout. In this case it's one of the few bullets designed for the cartridge and It's where Barnes loads the round for factory rounds. It makes no sense that there load data is different than their own ammo, but it just goes to show how little meaning it has.
I've loaded it both longer and shorter, although much shorter and you run out of bullet pretty quick unless you trim short.
It's been a while, but I think the Canalure puts the base of the bullet right at the bottom of the neck, which in theory would be the optimum seating depth.
Have fun with it and if you get in trouble, you can always ask the guys at Bull's Eye Sporting Goods. He acts like he knows what he's doing and even gets it right sometimes
I've loaded it both longer and shorter, although much shorter and you run out of bullet pretty quick unless you trim short.
It's been a while, but I think the Canalure puts the base of the bullet right at the bottom of the neck, which in theory would be the optimum seating depth.
Have fun with it and if you get in trouble, you can always ask the guys at Bull's Eye Sporting Goods. He acts like he knows what he's doing and even gets it right sometimes
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
Re: Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
You can't beat the mountain, pilgrim. Mountains got its own way.
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:09 am
- Location: NW Florida
Re: Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
OP,
I just checked the Barnes website. It lists the OAL of 2.25", not 2.26". Now, I'm a bit sloppier when it comes to case length (but it works fine for me)...I just make sure my cases for hunting, accuracy testing, and sighting in are 1.35" to 1.368". Over 1.368" and I trim to around 1.36". Under 1.35" I use for plinking and practice.
Anyway, at an OAL of 2.25", it appears the cannelure lines up pretty good with the case mouth edge. I apply a mild crimp to loads with the Barnes bullet with a LEE crimp die...I seem to recall that Barnes suggested (or used to suggest) a crimp be applied, but I can't find that recommendation on their website today. I do not crimp any of my other Blackout handloads.
I just checked the Barnes website. It lists the OAL of 2.25", not 2.26". Now, I'm a bit sloppier when it comes to case length (but it works fine for me)...I just make sure my cases for hunting, accuracy testing, and sighting in are 1.35" to 1.368". Over 1.368" and I trim to around 1.36". Under 1.35" I use for plinking and practice.
Anyway, at an OAL of 2.25", it appears the cannelure lines up pretty good with the case mouth edge. I apply a mild crimp to loads with the Barnes bullet with a LEE crimp die...I seem to recall that Barnes suggested (or used to suggest) a crimp be applied, but I can't find that recommendation on their website today. I do not crimp any of my other Blackout handloads.
- bangbangping
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:34 pm
- Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Re: Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
If you crimp, it's probably better to crimp into the cannelure. If not crimping it doesn't matter. Although I haven't tested at 2.26", I doubt there will be much difference between a .145" bullet jump and .155" bullet jump.
FWIW, I tested this bullet a bit several years ago and had best results matching factory velocity or a little faster (20-20.2 gr. W296), magnum primer, and not crimped.
FWIW, I tested this bullet a bit several years ago and had best results matching factory velocity or a little faster (20-20.2 gr. W296), magnum primer, and not crimped.
Re: Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
Just because it’s fun to compare, a few factory rounds I measured were 2.240”
300 Blackout, not just for sub-sonics.
- bangbangping
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:34 pm
- Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Re: Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
Just measured a dozen...2.235" to 2.247", with most at 2.243". I think these are 2014 vintage.dellet wrote:Just because it’s fun to compare, a few factory rounds I measured were 2.240”
-
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 3:52 pm
Re: Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
Thats weird, i have barnes data that says 2.250", its a pdf i believe from their wesite that has the 110 and 120 tac-tx with the oal and several powders and such.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 4FtRBa4oxP
It was a pdf from barnes that came up in a google search of "barnes 110 tac-tx reload data"
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 4FtRBa4oxP
It was a pdf from barnes that came up in a google search of "barnes 110 tac-tx reload data"
Only Jesus Christ Saves ! ! !
-
- New Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:51 pm
- Location: North Carolina
Re: Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
2.250 is the correct overall... idk why i had 2.260 in my mind. just dialed in a test batch with H110 19-20gn in 0.2gn increments... looking forward to seeing what my 10.5" likes best. Thanks for input everyone!
Re: Barnes 110 TAC TX (C.O.A.L.)
Just measured a box of factory ammo and they all averaged 2.252”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 206 guests