Sometimes during load development you can fall back on the wisdom of the ages: even allowing for improved components, you don’t need to completely reinvent the wheel.
Such was the case with my 30-06, a rifle that was hugely popular decades before I was born–and still is. Lots of communal wisdom regarding pet loads out there.
note: some of these are affiliate links, which means that if you click the link and buy the referenced product, the vendor may pay me a fee. Your cost is unaffected.
However, if you find yourself experimenting with the latest in new calibers/chamberings, you might find yourself more or less on your own: limited choices in dies, components, and–important to those of us of a cautious bent–little or no published reloading guidance.
That was my experience as an early adopter of the 6mm ARC.
The trick, then, is to choose a cartridge that reflects state-of-the-art shooting technology, but that’s been around long enough for someone else to have done all the heavy lifting.
I was hoping that was the case when I replaced all my old bolt guns with two new ones: a 6.5 and 300 PRC.
After shooting a few boxes of Hornady factory ammunition through both of my new rifles during barrel break-in, I decided to develop loads for each using Hornady’s ELD-X, Barnes’ LRX, and Berger’s new Elite Hunter bullets.
I’ve had good luck with these brands in other rifles and hoped to repeat those experiences here.
6.5 PRC
While this Tikka didn’t shoot lights out with factory ammo from the start like its predecessor (a T3x Varmint in 6.5 Creedmoor), I still had high hopes.
Load development is often a gradual, trial and error process: the last thing you want to do is burden yourself with artificial time constraints like “Oh Lordy, I’m taking this rifle on a trip in less than a month and my brothers will make fun of me if it doesn’t shoot!”
So naturally, I did exactly that.
I decided to start with Barnes bullets in both the 6.5 and 300 PRC, hoping to get lucky with their excellent offerings before I ran out of time.
Barnes 127 grain LRX
Barnes offers one LRX bullet weight for 6.5 mm barrels: 127 grains. Although my Tikka’s 1:8″ twist barrel can stabilize much heavier bullets, all-copper projectiles like the LRX tend to be long for caliber but light for their size.
I shot some Barnes VOR-TX factory ammo loaded with this bullet first to make sure it wasn’t a complete non-starter (for reasons I don’t pretend to understand, some barrels and some bullets just don’t seem to get along).
I got consistent velocity with the factory ammunition but accuracy was just OK: a little over 1 MOA.
Not a problem–the point of reloading is that you can adjust loads until they shoot better than factory. As I’ve mentioned before, it’s not really fair: they have to make ammunition shoot well in everyone’s rifle, whereas you only have to make it shoot well in yours.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t happening here.
The closest thing to a “group”–an inch and a quarter at 100 yards–was with 57.5 grains of Hodgdon H1000 powder and magnum primers. Velocities for that load were similar to factory rounds, but slightly more consistent (i.e., with a lower standard deviation).
For the powder test I’d seated the bullets at the same length as factory bullets, which worked out to be about .100″ off the lands of my rifle’s chamber.
I followed up with Barnes’ recommended seating test, starting at .050″ off the lands, then going up in increments of .025″ to see if I could improve the groups. I also cheated and shot a group at .030″ off the lands just in case…
The group seated .100″ off the lands (upper right target) shot a little worse this time, with a flier basically doubling the group size.
note: you can find my (attempted) justification of these tiny, statistically invalid sample sizes here.
The .030″ group was best of this pitiful bunch at an uninspiring inch and a third (approximately 1.3 MOA), and the velocities varied accordingly.
In this case the Barnes website recommends testing even longer jumps–out to .200″ off the lands or more–before switching powders, etc.
But sometimes just giving up is the better part of valor.
I’ll come back and try this bullet with a different powder/primer combination later: for now, I was out of time.
Hornady 143 grain ELD-X
This bullet was crazy accurate in my 6.5 Creedmoor (but I gave that rifle to my brother).
I shot Hornady factory ammo loaded with these same 143 gr ELD-X bullets while breaking in the new Tikka.
Tikka says they don’t require a barrel break in regimen (and I think the whole concept is overrated, anyway). However, new barrels do “smooth out” and increase muzzle velocities after 50-100 shots: you can prove this to yourself with a chronograph.
Be that as it may, the best this factory ammo shot during break in was three into an inch at 100 yards.
Despite this mediocre accuracy I decided to give the ELD-X bullets another try, this time with Hodgdon H4831SC powder (mainly because I had a bunch of it left over from loading for my old 270 –which I gave to yet another brother).
Hornady’s data predicted slightly slower speeds than with H1000, but I decided I could live with that. I was more interested in their recommendation of regular primers.
I thought–perhaps illogically–that the use of magnum primers in the Barnes data had adversely affected precision at these charge weights, and was happy to run a test without them, albeit with a different powder, bullet, etc….
The 53.0 grain load grouped at less than an inch, as did the 53.5 except for the one flier. I didn’t think that flier was me, but since both groups had consistent velocities I decided to just split the difference and press on.
I planned to test seating depths of .010″, .050″, .090″, and .130″ off the lands, but first I wanted to get started on a load for…
300 PRC
At this point attentive readers are saying “Hang on, is that a Christensen Arms rifle? Doesn’t he know that using reloaded ammunition voids their warranty?!”
I do know that, and waited until after finishing the laborious CA barrel break-in procedure before deciding the rifle was a keeper. At that point I assumed responsibility and began developing loads.
I heard a rumor that to make their 1 MOA accuracy guarantee work, CA reams chambers on the snug side–your cartridges won’t be rattling around lost in there. While visiting a local gunsmith for another issue, I asked him to check the rifle’s chamber.
Nope, everything was well within normal parameters.
Nonetheless, it’s extremely important that you watch for pressure signs while testing your loads in any firearm.
The 3.7″ magazine box in the Mesa LR definitely limited seating depth options. I figured I’d manage acceptable magazine-length loads for two of the bullets I was testing, but since I had especially high hopes for the Berger Elite Hunters I decided to go with longer, single-feed cartridges for those.
I may eventually convert to a Wyatt’s Outdoors extended magazine (like I did with my 30-06, above) to gain the extra eighth of an inch I need to fit those longer loads.
Barnes 208 grain LRX
As with the 6.5 PRC, this was a quick attempt at putting together a solid load under self-imposed time constraints.
It was simplified by the fact that the long-for-caliber 208 grain LRX bullets–the largest my 1:8 barrel could stabilize–were already .125″ off the lands in my rifle at magazine length.
I normally test Barnes bullets for seating between .030″ and .125″ off the lands, but with this magazine that wasn’t an option. My plan, therefore, was to load to magazine length, evaluate powder charges, and leave seating depth alone.
I started with H1000 powder, along with the usual suspects: Lapua brass and Federal large rifle magnum match primers.
Because I’d waited until the last minute I went to our range on a crowded, breezy day (you can see where I taped over 9mm holes shot into my target by helpful neighbors on either side).
I was pleased to see a decent group at 77.0 grains of H1000. I’m willing to take credit for the low/left flyer that puts it right at 1 MOA vs. comfortably under (but then again, it could have been wind. Or solar flares. Also, I had a rock in my shoe).
At an average of 2918 feet per second, muzzle velocities for that group were slightly slower than factory ammo (2935 fps in this rifle). However, my velocities (granted, small sample size) were much more consistent, with a standard deviation right at 10 fps.
A load that I could shoot without being cruelly mocked by the brothers, if not a prizewinner.
Degree of difficulty
Having managed to develop one load for each rifle thus far, I decided at this point to further complicate things by ordering a suppressor.
My brother is a huge fan of these gadgets, owning several, but I’d always been put off by the lengthy delay between paying for a suppressor and receiving government approval to actually take it home.
However, the ATF’s Ben Hiller turned that process around in 2024, radically improving turn times. So after extensive research I broke down and ordered one.
From now on I’d develop loads for my new rifles with the suppressor installed, but since hanging a pound of titanium off the end of the barrel affects harmonics in unpredictable ways, I definitely needed to recheck these first two loads.
What do you think?