It appears from this thread that someother very experiencedshooters are also questioning the barnes data.Now why do you think that is?Could experience be a factor?I personally don't advertise a load without testing it myself or witnessing it being tested,and Idon't consider it credible until it has been verified.But then again ,I prefer to deal with fact rather than fiction.

I think someone needs some anger management intervention.

I don't want to get involved in the disagreement. My problem is 180 grain is just a little more than I need for whitetail. I like 165 grain bullets and the fact that max load for 165 is 3137 and 180 is 3103 leads me to think there is an error. Swift data has 165 scirocco at 3126 and 180 is 3031. Serria has 165 at 3300 and 180 at 3100, Nosler BT 165 is 3290 and 180 is 3118. Hornady has 165 at 3200 and 180 at 3000. Speer data on the other hand is similar to Barnes with 165 at 3103 and 180 at 3055.

Roskoe, I know you use the sciroccos in your 300, what velocity you getting with you loads and what is that load, I know you have krieger and hart barrels, and different gunshave different velocitys, but what are you getting.

I never really worry much about weight as long as they shoot good and its acceptable for the my game.

For instance, when I go for moose, I want bullets between 180-200gr to work out for me. If I had a very accurate load at 180 over the 200gr, I would use it. And depending on the bullet, I might even use 165gr if it shot good enough.

For deer, I would use anything that shot well between 150-200gr.

I have had krieger barrels and they do build pressure quicker than any factory barrel I have had.

Why are you getting angry?I guess that comes with being delusional and living in a dream world wherefull sizeweatherby mark V actions weigh less than 2 pounds.It sounds like you getyour load data from the same source as your action weights.

I agree that it sounds wrong, but there are times when a heavier bullet will get more velocity and energy out of a given amount of powder than will a lighter one having less inertia and bore friction. This may well be one example of such an instance.

The data might be quite correct for the rifle used to develop the load, and be very far out of whack in YOUR RIFLE. In fact, it would be a miracle if it were NOT!!

As Bob Hagel said, "a load that proves to be maximum in one rifle might be quite mild in another, AND VICE-VERSA."

Get a chronograph, and test the data in your rifle. Then you will be closer to a correct answer, and not just speculating, or worse yet, depending upon the speculations of others!!

Boy Stubble you are not going to like this!!!

http://www.weatherby.com/products/performance/markv_action.asp

Humina Humina Humina
Who is delusional???
Insert foot?

Well, gee whiz! What would you expect the Weatherby boys to say about Father Roy's action design, eh?

Remington had the "three rings of steel" first, a'la 721-722. And, I am aware of some Mark V actions that have had less that all nine lugs actually bearing in the receiver ring when the bolt was closed. Two lugs are all that are really needed.

Even so, the Mark V is a great action. However, I personally prefer one with the Mauser 98-type claw extractor and controlled-round feed. (In a bolt action, that is. Actually, I prefer a good single-shot!)

I think you may have missed the point of the link. The link shows the Weatherby Magnum on a digital scale with the weight of the action and bolt displayed at 35.9 ounces. Stubblejumper said the following about me in aquote:

"I guess that comes with being delusional and living in a dream world wherefull sizeweatherby mark V actions weigh less than 2 pounds.It sounds like you getyour load data from the same source as your action weights. "

I thought it was kind of comical to make such a strong statement and have it backfire on him.