Winchester Fail Safe's, Good Or Bad???
16 replies [Last post]
Tue, 2006-04-18 19:43
Wed, 2006-04-19 03:54#1
By the artcles I've read Winchester Fail Safe gets top marks. I really couldn't see any bullet maker marketing a inferior product in this day and age. I say
Wed, 2006-04-19 09:39#2
My only issue is that they need to improve the ballistic coefficient by adding a polymer tip and a boat tail. To get the same trajectory as a 180 gr Accubond in my .300 WSM, I need to go down to a 165 gr Fail Safe, and that leaves me with less energy downrange. What I don't know is how that translates into terminal performance on a moose. My experience has been that penetration is more a factor of weight rentention than of energy. Nosler claims that the Accubond was designed for 60-70% weight retention. I pulled one out of some wet mud at 100 yards awhile back and it weighed in right at 60% of its original weight, even though it mushroomed perfectly.
So that's the question. Which is better -- a 180 gr bullet that hits with more energy but loses 40% of its weight, or a 165 gr bullet that has less energy but holds almost all of its weight?
Right now I'm looking at option 3: the Barnes TSX. It's got a higher BC than the Accubond, but yet holds its weight like a Fail Safe. So I can get high weight retention and flat trajectory in a 180 gr bullet. I haven't shot any yet, though, so I don't know how accurate they are. Barnes makes a lot of claims, but weight for weight, a pure copper bullet is going to be longer than a conventional one and I don't know if it's significant enough to be a factor in my rifle.
Wed, 2006-04-19 15:02#3
Fail Safes are nasty.
Fri, 2006-04-21 08:14#4
steel cup inside
I shoot these out of a 270 a little over 3000fps 140 grain. The B.C. is not as great as others but I have never had a hunting bullet group so tight out of my 270. I am a big fan of the accubond. This fail safe is my elk round because it is so tough and accurate in my rifle. I have shot this down 1300fps -1500fps and exspansion is very minimal at best, but at the high end it holds together like a Barnes XXX without all the problems. I like em holds together well when hitting bone.
Fri, 2006-04-21 16:04#5
What problems have you had with Barnes?
Fri, 2006-04-21 18:08#6
Barnes sued Winchester over the fail safe and won big.
Sun, 2006-04-23 10:04#7
I don't know anything about this lawsuit? I am curious on how an all copper bullet can be infringed upon by a coated holow point with a steel cup inside? Please tell us more.
Sun, 2006-04-23 10:17#8
I was very excited about the Barnes bullet. I read and bought all the cleaning products that were sugested by the Barnes. Seated the bullets as Barnes said to do and of course played around with it. The calibre is the 257WM and rifle is a 60's era Weatherby with a 26 inch barrel (Krieger) I could get 1/2 groups with Ballistic tips partitions just a little bit wider. The Barnes opened up to 2 7/8 was the best I could get. I went back to my fav load of over 18 years and now it groups 2.5 inches. Not sure what happened. I used a bore scope and this has not told me much. I know one other person nearby that has the same story. Now my fav rifle hangs on the wall
Sun, 2006-04-23 10:51#9
Nosler is the founder and manufacture of the Fail Safe bullet for Winchester
Sun, 2006-04-23 11:52#10
give credit where credit is due
It is a combined effort aka the name Combined Tech.
Don't forget it is Winchester who holds the patent on the steel cup inside that bullet.