As you mention in post #73 "coated bullets" "do allow more velocity than uncoated bullets" so you acknowledged that as a fact. If you were at all genuine in your thinking would not you then expect the coated XLC bullets from the Barnes manual to exceed the others???????? In the Barnes manual the XLC can load 3 grains more powder and provide 100-150 FPS more velocity than uncoated this seems to be right in line with your manuals. Correct????? Now that the manual issue is addressed.
In the case of the 30-06,it is predictable that barnes would produce higher velocities with coated bullets than the other manuals using non coated bullets.Whatdoes not make sense is whybarnes could not produce more velocitywith the 7mmremmag with coated bullets than all six other manuals could with non-coated bullets.In any casewhether coated or non coated bullets are used for both the 30-06 and 7mmremmag ,the velocity comparisons should be equal.If six manuals produce more velocity with the 7mmremmag with non coated bullets,it only stands to reason that they would produce more velocity with the 7mmremmag with coated bullets.
In post #39 I mentioned I did in fact mention the velocity from the Barnes manual
3091 FPS with 165 or 168 grain bullets and the fact that it had 60 ft/lbs more energy than the 160 Grain 7mm you were tauting.
Yes but you did notmention
As far as your 160 Grain at 3112 vs the 165 grain 06 I addressed that in post #39
because I had not mentioned it yet,so you were not yet aware that it existed.