Reached out to hornady recently looking for re-enforcment on the idea that the 90 gr CX may make a fine deer load in the 6mm ARC. received the following response.
"Thank you for reaching out. You can use our reloading information in our 11th edition reloading manual for the 90gr GMX bullet for loading the CX bullet. Minimum impact velocity for maximum expansion is 2000 fps. Should see great results loading around 2950 fps range."
The 2950 fps suggested is quite achievable in the bolt action rifle application for the 6mm ARC. Looks like with a bolt action we may have as many as 7 propellants that may allow us to reach the 2950 FPS velocity range. Three of those propellants are quite high on my radar.
Unfortunately if 2950 is your velocity goal the gas gun may this may be non obtainable with an average length AR barrel.
My take away is 2950 may be Hornady's goal for a factory ammo. This may be generally not be achievable at safe gas gun pressures. Thus the likelihood of us seeing a factory load with this bullet in the 6mm ARC may not be very likely anytime soon.
(01-27-2023, 11:29 PM)CZ527 Guy Wrote: [ -> ]Reached out to hornady recently looking for re-enforcment on the idea that the 90 gr CX may make a fine deer load in the 6mm ARC. received the following response.
"Thank you for reaching out. You can use our reloading information in our 11th edition reloading manual for the 90gr GMX bullet for loading the CX bullet. Minimum impact velocity for maximum expansion is 2000 fps. Should see great results loading around 2950 fps range."
The 2950 fps suggested is quite achievable in the bolt action rifle application for the 6mm ARC. Looks like with a bolt action we may have as many as 7 propellants that may allow us to reach the 2950 FPS velocity range. Three of those propellants are quite high on my radar.
Unfortunately if 2950 is your velocity goal the gas gun may this may be non obtainable with an average length AR barrel.
My take away is 2950 may be Hornady's goal for a factory ammo. This may be generally not be achievable at safe gas gun pressures. Thus the likelihood of us seeing a factory load with this bullet in the 6mm ARC may not be very likely anytime soon.
This is where I struggle to understand reloading.
Factory hunting ammo shows 2800 fps at muzzle with the 103 eldx with 4 powders but nothing in the gas gun will push that.
But with the 90 Cx in bolt guns there are 7 powders that do it and again NONE in the gas gun section so how would putting out factory ammo in 90 cx differ from what they do now with the 103 eldx.
I would buy a factory 90 cx at 2950 fps tomorrow .
With the factory 103eldx , the deer I shot went down BUT if it had run off there was 0 blood trail. With my 6.5 CM the 120 cz goes thru and leaves a good blood trail. Not the same but makes me wonder if the 90 cx would do the same .
On the hunts I go on , you (mostly) have to wait for the landowner to come before looking for a shot deer and several have not been recovered. Above all I don't want to kill or hurt a deer and leave it. I hunt to put deer in the freezer and try to avoid any chance of a lost deer.
Hope my view is mistaken in regards that we may be unlikely to see a factory 90 grain CX load if 2950 is our goal; even in a 24" barreled gas gun.
A little more on my perspective to follow. Size & length of the 103 grain ELDX vs the 90 gr CX these bullets are nearly Identical. The weight difference is what stands out. I would expect a tailored propellent could be developed to allow the
6mm ARC to achieve the 2950 velocity at safe AR gas gun pressures. Though I suspect no current propellants would be up to the task.
The 103 gr ELDX load is already a compressed load.
On the other hand, if Hornady was able to utilize the lower bearing area or something similar, utilized with the 6mm 87 gr Absolute Hammer Id be more optimistic about achieving the 2950 velocity goal with current available propellants in the 6mm ARC to accommodate gas gun pressures. Patient considerations in place id expect this to be cost prohibitive.
I do wonder if there is anything substantial prohibiting Hammer bullets from utilizing a gilding metal monolithic as apposed to the pure copper material for their bullet material?
Made it out today to do little load testing on a sub zero -1 deg this evening withe 90 gr CX over 30.9 grains CFE 223. While I was not surprised results were less than stellar in terms of velocity spread. 5 shot string gave a velocity spread from 2860 1st cold bore shot to 2931. This was with a Rem 7.5 primer & Starling brass.
If i omit the 1st shot then the speed ranges from 2899 to 2931.
Was unsuccessful for the 2nd time trying to capture a bullet at the end of a series of water jugs. grr
Will try a similar test on a warmer day
(01-30-2023, 01:10 AM)CZ527 Guy Wrote: [ -> ]Made it out today to do little load testing on a sub zero -1 deg this evening withe 90 gr CX over 30.9 grains CFE 223. While I was not surprised results were less than stellar in terms of velocity spread. 5 shot string gave a velocity spread from 2860 1st cold bore shot to 2931. This was with a Rem 7.5 primer & Starling brass.
If i omit the 1st shot then the speed ranges from 2899 to 2931.
Was unsuccessful for the 2nd time trying to capture a bullet at the end of a series of water jugs. grr
Will try a similar test on a warmer day
It's been cold here too, had to wear socks with my sandals this week .
With the number of places going to lead free ammo , there is going to be a need for at least one cx style bullet or I fear the round will die out if we continue toward California requirements all over the country.
The biggest difference between a cup/core bullet, like the eldx, and a mono, like 90 cx, is that the mono is less compressible during the firing, it takes more force to score it with the grooves so chamber pressure goes up a lot compared to the cup/core. Now you would think that this higher pressure would also translate to higher MV, and some of the pressure probably goes there, but (and this is more my theory than seeing it in the literature), the mono has a higher friction factor, so some of the pressure energy is translated to barrel temperature (heat up).
The engraving pressure/higher chamber pressure is why the mfrs with both bullets on a load data sheet always have a caveat about the mono to start low and be careful in working it up.
idjits like that CA guv-who-would-be-kink have totally ruined what was a great state.
Sorry for the rant. well no not really!!!
ES with CFE 223 has been less than favorable with cold weather & the 90 gr CX. I expect H4895 would do considerably better in terms of E.S., though a velocity sacrifice is sure to be experienced. Would like to give H4895 a try, though my supply is out & she seems hard to find currently.
With the 90 gr CX in the 6mm ARC in mind; May there be other stable burning propellants I should be considering for this application?
On the hornady gas data, Varget has the same range as H4895... 2600/ 18" barrel.
I don't see Varget in the bolt action data, however.
Also keep in mind that Hornady uses private, bulk powder, not necessarily anything for sale to the public.
I just came back from shooting some 95 gr Bergers, in my 22", I got nowhere near 2950, but it's no worry to me, they're going fast enough and accurate enough for me.
The 90 cx being a mono, shouldn't come near to a cup/core 90, or even 95...
I did get some 90 Eldx's to go 2903 in my 22" bolt action. Using PPV.
Update, in the Hornady #11, 7 powders for bolt action show 2950+, in 24" barrel...
H335
Acc 2460
TAC
PPV
Lever
CFE
PP 2000 MR
(02-03-2023, 08:43 PM)grayfox Wrote: [ -> ]On the hornady gas data, Varget has the same range as H4895... 2600/ 18" barrel.
I don't see Varget in the bolt action data, however.
Also keep in mind that Hornady uses private, bulk powder, not necessarily anything for sale to the public.
I just came back from shooting some 95 gr Bergers, in my 22", I got nowhere near 2950, but it's no worry to me, they're going fast enough and accurate enough for me.
The 90 cx being a mono, shouldn't come near to a cup/core 90, or even 95...
I did get some 90 Eldx's to go 2903 in my 22" bolt action. Using PPV.
Update, in the Hornady #11, 7 powders for bolt action show 2950+, in 24" barrel...
H335
Acc 2460
TAC
PPV
Lever
CFE
PP 2000 MR
Well aware of the Hornady Load data here. Sorry to say the temp stability of all the Powders listed leaves me uneasy I suppose. We experience temperatures that range from -30 F to a bit over 100 F here. Granted most of my hunting is done in temps that range from 70 F to -5 F I suppose. If I am willing to give up some velocity, the propellants that stand out for me include IMR 4895, Accurate 2495 & perhaps IMR 4166
In Discord there's a sale on .243 CX's, the site's post says it is a closeout.
Picked up, a fair number of the Mid south 90 grain all copper factory 2nds that look very similar to the 90 grain CX for load work up. CFE 223 worked out to be a favorite propellant for this application. Expecting the primery difference in these bullets vs the 90 grain CX may be cosmetic. Frequently Hornady bullets may look almost too nice to shoot in terms of the finish on the bullets is looking similar to a shiny pice of jewelry. Not at all the case with these factory 2nds.
Tried the bullets similar to the 90 GR CX, factory 2nds on filling 2 whitetail antlerless tags this fall with a 22" barrel bolt action 6mm ARC. Shot placement on both deer happened to be heart shot. So no suprise that lethality left little to be desired. The terminal bullet path was quite adequate. Each deer stumbled/ran roughly 40 yards before coming to a stop. Exit wounds was larger than expected in with both deer.
