New Peregrine VLR4 Bullet

[stokesrj]

I received a package in the mail from Peregrine USA CEO Hermann Weidemann, an unsolicited sample pack of their new 126 grain 6.5mm Very Long Range (VLR) 4 Creedmoor bullets, along with a request to test them for BC and terminal performance.

IMG_0144.jpg

Packed with the bullets was a sales brochure but what caught my eye was the Tips and Tricks section. You can see a pic of the tips and tricks above, but a couple of items I'll point out. First they encourage the use of copper reducing powders such as CFE-223, RL-23, RL-26 and I would add the IMR Enduron lines. That's pretty straight forward and logical. But what I didn't expect to see was a warning not to shoot Peregrine Bullets after shooting jacketed bullets but only from completely clean barrel that have been polished with Iosso or JB/Kroil bore paste. I found this very humerous

Most of you know I'm a fan of the 6.5 diameter rifle calibers so it will be fun to see how these do. Unfortunately I'm leaving for Europe this weekend and won't be able to get to testing these until later in March.

[Corjack]

I guess I will not shoot anymore peregrines, if I gotta use JB.

[stokesrj]

I don't know why they would be any different than Barnes. But who knows really, I'll test them fro both a clean bore and a copper fouled bore and see what the difference is if there is a difference.

[7x57]

I guess I will not shoot anymore peregrines, if I gotta use JB.

Chuck could become the Australian distributor

[Corjack]

I guess I will not shoot anymore peregrines, if I gotta use JB.

Chuck could become the Australian distributor

Get a tub of JB, with the purchase of a hundred bullets.

[mchughcb]

Lol I just about died choking of laughter. Let us know how they perform and how many strokes to clean the bore.

[stokesrj]

Here is the Peregrine 126 VLR4 on the right compared to the Barnes 127 LRX. Note the longer boat tail on the Peregrine.

[stokesrj]

Comparing the Peregrine 6.5mm 126 grain VLR4 on the right to the Barnes 6.5mm 127 grain LRX on the left it is obvious to the eye that the Peregrine has a less sharp point and a longer boat tail. It is also obvious that the Peregrine has a larger number of groves for bullet material to move into, which is displaced by rifling , as the bullet travels down the bore. Those four grooves in the Peregrine are also more shallow than the two groves in the Barnes, measuring .010" for the Peregrine and .015" for the Barnes. The Peregrine is also .040" shorter than the Barnes as again can be seen by the eye. The Peregrine is 1.360" long compared to 1.400" for the Barnes.

So the question becomes how will each bullet behave as it travels to the intended target? Will the longer boat tail of the Peregrine make up for it's wider point profile? A trip to the range should help determine the answer to this question.

Perusing the Barnes loading data it was noted that the most accurate powder tested with the 127 grain LRX was Hodgdon Superformance and that the maximum load was determined to be 45.0 grains of this powder when fired from a 6.5mm Creedmoor. This data was collected using a Bartelein 24" barrel utilizing a 1:8" twist rate. I chose a slightly reduced from max load of 44.5 grains of Superformance, Federal GM210M primer, Hornady case and a COL of 2.720" and my 6.5 Creedmoor barrel for my R8 which is a McGowen 1:8" twist also 24" long. I loaded ten rounds of each bullet with this load and headed to the Wyoming Antelope Club range to see what it would do.

Muzzle velocities as measured with my Lab Radar were very close. The Peregrine measured 2,799 FPS and the Barnes measured 2,805 FPS, virtually identical. But what about accuracy, how did they group?

To answer the question, I fired three groups of three shots each at 100 yards from my Sinclair Competition front rest and Edgewood Gator rear bag carefully set up to track in a straight line. For a sight I chose a Swarovski Z4 set on 12X using the 4W reticle because it was handy, and already set up in Blaser mounts to fit this rifle. The first three shot group fired with the Peregrine produced a group with all shots touching in a vertical stack measuring .425" center to center which is very respectable. The composite of all three groups is also a very respectable .553". I consider this very accurate for a nine shot group.

The Barnes also did not disappoint in the accuracy department. The tightest three shot group measured a bench rest quality .174" but the composite nine shot group opened up things to .624". In spite of the exceptionally tight group put up by the Barnes I consider the accuracy of both bullets equal and exceptionally accurate. Either one could outshoot the other on any given day.

One of the great benefits of the Lab radar is that it measures the velocity of the bullet as it travels down range which allows for a more precise calculation of the ballistic coefficient. I find the actual measured BC to differ from the bullet manufacturers advertised BC and usually the BC stated by the manufacturer is overly optimistic. The only manufacturer that seems to refrain from this practice is Hornady, and even with them it is the more recent bullets that have a published BC that matches my findings. Many of their older bullets carry the same wishful thinking BC values.

The Barnes LRX has an advertised BC of .468 and my measured BC is .434. This is actually pretty close compared to the difference I find in many bullets advertised BC and what I measure. But the real question here is how does the Peregrine compare to the Barnes? There is no published BC for the Peregrine bullet yet, there is a calculated BC but they sent them to me to measure before they publish the calculated BC. I don't think they will like my answer, I measured a BC of only .347.

So what exactly does a BC of .347 mean? To many of us hunters it's just a number, it doesn't mean much except that a higher number is better. Let's see if we can make some sense out of this.

First, if you are not a long range hunter and keep your shots on big game at 200 meters or less, it matters little at all. But if you are a long range hunter then it matters a great deal. Let's for a moment use the commonly accepted energy threshold of 1,000 foot/pounds of energy needed to cleanly take a deer. I don't personally buy this number, I've taken far to many with less energy to believe strongly this is the right threshold, but it is accepted by most. This would mean that your 6.5 Creedmoor using the 127 LRX you could take a deer out to 450 yards at which point it drops below the magical 1,000 foot/pounds required to do the job. Using the Peregrine 126 VLR4 at the same muzzle velocity that range would be reduced to 350 yards, quite a difference.

But lets say you believe like I do, that there is no magic threshold and that precise bullet placement is more important than if the bullet is traveling along with 1,200 ft/lbs or 850 ft/lbs. Then you would have to dope the wind pretty accurately to use either bullet at extended range, for instance 600 yards. At this distance the Barnes LRX will drift 33.6" with a full value ten mile per hour cross wind. That same wind will blow the Peregrine VLR4 45.0" or right at one foot more. That is quite a difference as well. I wouldn't even attempt a shot like that unless the animal was wounded and risking escape or it was near calm conditions.

Of course, there is also the terminal performance of the bullet to consider, and there is a threshold below which speed either bullet will fail to expand and act like a solid. This doesn't mean it won't kill the animal but it does mean the animal will die slowly and may be able to flee for a long distance and may leave little blood. Barnes claims the LRX minimum threshold for expansion is 1,500 fps. Hopefully I will be able to test this on both bullets soon, but for now let's assume they are both 1,500 fps thresholds. The Barnes LRX falls below this speed at 700 yards and the Peregrine VLR4 falls below at 550 yards. Again quite a difference.

I know the Barnes LRX tracks straight through muscle and bone, it did the best of all bullets I tested out of my 6.5 STW. I don't know how the Peregrine will track. It doesn't have the striations along the nose like the Barnes does, this is what causes the famous X pattern of expansion seen with the Barns bullets. The Peregrine expands with a more traditional mushroom shape which means it will push a bigger shock wave ahead of and to the sides of the path of the bullet. Hopefully I'll get a chance to test this in ballistic gel soon.

Until then my conclusion is that at 300 yards and beyond, the Barnes 127 grain LRX is the superior bullet.

IMG_0251.jpg

IMG_0252.jpg

[RexMundi]

Do you still have that R8 system for sale? You could bring it to Europe!

[stokesrj]

Do you still have that R8 system for sale? You could bring it to Europe!

I usually buy guns in Europe but have never sold one there

[stokesrj]

I forgot to mention that these groups were from a clean cold bore, that I had cleaned down to bare metal with JB bore polish. I left the bore fouled to see how it does next time from a fouled bore.

[Ringo]

I'd like to shoot that LRX in my R8 6.5x55 barrel, but I don't think the 1:8.66 twist will stabilize it. Barnes insists that 1:8 is the slowest tolerable in all conditions.

[SPEEDY]

I guess I will not shoot anymore peregrines, if I gotta use JB.

You could get away with KG-12, it's going to be a problem with different coppers in the barrel and not a problem with the barrel.

[stokesrj]

I'd like to shoot that LRX in my R8 6.5x55 barrel, but I don't think the 1:8.66 twist will stabilize it. Barnes insists that 1:8 is the slowest tolerable in all conditions.

I shoot the Barnes LRX out of my 6.5x55 R8 and my 6.5-284. Both stabilize it just fine. They go through the paper at 600 yards with no yaw and group tight. They are not kind to gongs, making deep pock marks rather than splash marks like lead bullets do.