6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

[Buckoman]

Ok I'm betting this has already been covered but my search came up empty. So does anyone have any data on the 142smk vs 139 scenar?

BC's would be a good start and moreso, how finiky are each one to load. I know the bergers are really picky on seating depth, the SMK's I've used before with great success, but what about the Scenars. Are they picky if not is there a reason to spend the extra 10 bucks a box on them?

thanks,

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

I don't; but that's mainly because I'm a Cheep Bastich.

Using the 139's in a 24" .260 at 1Km, I can say that the 139's are <span style="font-style: italic">quite</span> accurate. But so are the 142's; and they don't tend to get pressure-peaky, like the 139's did for me. Nowadays I use the 142's and 140 A-Max pretty interchangeably.

Greg

 

[Wade]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

142's are a little more slippery in the air but not by much. They both can shoot very well. The price difference is reduced considerably if you buy the scenars in bulk.

 

[25MAN]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

The 142SMKs have the better BC but not by much...both shoot extremely well out of my 24 inch 1:8 twist...but based on the better BC, as good of accuracy, and more reasonably priced I went with 142 SMKs.

 

[Deisel]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

The 139gr Scenars are not touchy about being jumped, at least in my experience.

 

[Rob01]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Nowadays I use the 142's and 140 A-Max pretty interchangeably.

Greg</div></div>

140 AMAX is another bullet you should put in the mix as it's very accurate and also less money than the 142 SMK. Here are the average BCs for the three bullets per Litz's book

139 Scenar- G1 .557 G7 .285
142 SMK- G1 .588 G7 .301
140 AMAX- G1 .584 G7 .299

 

[Buckoman]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

Hmm you got me thinking about the Amax. Is that a better hunting round than the SMK? If so that may be the best all around bullet for what I'm after then huh?

 

[jcallan]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

Another option is the Nosler Custom competition 140grn. They are alot cheaper and shoot the same in my gun as the 142 SMK and Scenars at intermediate ranges. Usually around $60 for a 250 count box from Midway.

 

[glock24]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

I found the A-Max to be picky about seating depth. I needed to kiss or jam the lands, much like a Berger. The 142g SMK doesn't care.

 

[Buckoman]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

ive had bad luck with the Nosler custom in 308, but worth a shot with the 6.5. Thanks for the info on the seating depth on the Amax Glock24

 

[dvdt]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: glock24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I found the A-Max to be picky about seating depth. I needed to kiss or jam the lands, much like a Berger. The 142g SMK doesn't care.

</div></div>

Thanks for posting this up. I was actually trying to do the same research myself.

I'm currently running 139gr scenars in my 6.5CM but plan to switch to the 142SMKs. I just want to find a shit load of them and buy a considerable amount all at one whack. I'm thinking Powder Valley?

 

[Rob01]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

I have never seated the 140 AMAX into or even touching the lands. When I load they are .020" off and when I shoot factory ammo, which is at all matches, they are much more than that and shoot great.

 

[65nut]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

+1 on Rob01.
I have never had the 140 amaxs be fussy in my 260, or in the 6.5 CM i used to have. i have used 123 amaxs, 123 smk bthps, 142 smks, 140 amaxs, 130 grain accubonds in both 6.5 cm and 260 rem. and to be honest, neither rifle was really fussy on loads or projectile type or seating depth.

 

[ply1951guy]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

I have shot both the 123 Amax and 140 Amax through my DPMS LR-260. Both bullets loaded to mag length in my chamber were jumping at least 75 thou, and both bullets had good shooting loads for a gas gun (3/8 MOA). I have never heard of anyone having to jam the Amax bullets in any caliber.

 

[glock24]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

I guess I'm the only one who can't shoot A-maxs without jamming them, but I've had little luck jumping them in 223 Rem, 6.5 Lapua, 7mmRM, and 308 Win. Hornady does advertise the A-Max as having a secent ogive just like Berger VLDs, so it seems reasonable they would act similarly.

Maybe I'm just not jumping them far enough, but all my rifles have long throats, so I tend to try and keep my bullets up in the neck as far as possible.

 

[cuffm4615]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rob01</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Nowadays I use the 142's and 140 A-Max pretty interchangeably.

Greg</div></div>

140 AMAX is another bullet you should put in the mix as it's very accurate and also less money than the 142 SMK. Here are the average BCs for the three bullets per Litz's book

139 Scenar- G1 .557 G7 .285
142 SMK- G1 .588 G7 .301
140 AMAX- G1 .584 G7 .299</div></div>

TAG !! I've been looking for this. Thanks

 

[cuffm4615]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

BTW I've seen many pet loads but does anyone have the min to max powder range for 139 scenars and 142 SMK in a 260rem using H4350?

 

[supratt96]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

According to Hogdon, 44.5gr H4350 is max for 142gr SMK. I have loaded them to this myself without issue. I'm not sure what published max for 139s is, But I have gone to 44.0 without pressure signs. However, best accurac has come at 43.5gr. Subtract 15% for minimum loads.

 

[shoepop]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

LW and I both have 260 TRG's and my rifle will not take anywhere near 44.5 H4350 with 142 SMK's. I attribute to powder lot so heed his -15%. I never could get 142's to shoot but that's my rifle. With the 139 Scenar I have gone to 44 H4350 without problem but settled on 43.2 that gives me 2851 FPS, SD 6 and I shot my first 260 1/2" moa 5 shot @ 1000 with it. Only one so far but it will do it. NO MORE testing for me.

 

[CoCaDoRi]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

They are extremely consistent in weight and bearing surface length. I never had to sort them so that's where my justification for the extra money came in.

Here's what they do from a 6.5X284 at 1000 yards. There are 3-5 shot groups here .. you can tell which one was shot just before the mirage acted up ;-)

 

[psinclair]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

Lots of holes in the blue! Well done!

 

[CoCaDoRi]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

Yeah I won that match straight away... It was a good day for me and the stars aligned well.

That 4.1" group had me pretty juiced up. Then the mirage kicked my butt. Easy to see what a tad bit of mirage will do at 1K yards.

If I ever get another 6.5 cal. I'll be runnin' scenar's no doubt.

 

[CoCaDoRi]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

Here's the same load at 1200 yards.


FWIW. This was a moderate load of RL 22 and the 139's were kissin' the lands.

 

[supratt96]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mark S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LW and I both have 260 TRG's and my rifle will not take anywhere near 44.5 H4350 with 142 SMK's. I attribute to powder lot so heed his -15%. I never could get 142's to shoot but that's my rifle. With the 139 Scenar I have gone to 44 H4350 without problem but settled on 43.2 that gives me 2851 FPS, SD 6 and I shot my first 260 1/2" moa 5 shot @ 1000 with it. Only one so far but it will do it. NO MORE testing for me.</div></div>

Hey Mark, I shot my 139 Scenar load in a 600yd match last weekend and it did very well. I won 3 out of 4 matches including high aggregate and managed a 578-23x. Seems to be a rock solid LR load. Not bad for a tactical rifle off a Harris bipod.

 

[shoepop]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lakeway</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mark S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LW and I both have 260 TRG's and my rifle will not take anywhere near 44.5 H4350 with 142 SMK's. I attribute to powder lot so heed his -15%. I never could get 142's to shoot but that's my rifle. With the 139 Scenar I have gone to 44 H4350 without problem but settled on 43.2 that gives me 2851 FPS, SD 6 and I shot my first 260 1/2" moa 5 shot @ 1000 with it. Only one so far but it will do it. NO MORE testing for me.</div></div>

Hey Mark, I shot my 139 Scenar load in a 600yd match last weekend and it did very well. I won 3 out of 4 matches including high aggregate and managed a 578-23x. Seems to be a rock solid LR load. Not bad for a tactical rifle off a Harris bipod. </div></div>

Excellent LW good job. You know I have tried a LOT of combo's and 139 is it. Not the best BC or cheapest but they work at least in our TRG's at distance and that was what I was developing for. I had a lot of loads that looked very good @ 300 but went to hell past. What are you getting for velocity?

 

[JWV]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

I have used nearly all of them. I now shoot exclusively 140 gr amax. I tested the scenars, 142 smks, 140bergers, and the amax. I loved the amax and it is cheap. I have shot 5 shot groups in the teens at 100 of my flcass rest set up. And a .55inch group at 300 during testing.

 

[shoepop]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JWV</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have used nearly all of them. I now shoot exclusively 140 gr amax. I tested the scenars, 142 smks, 140bergers, and the amax. I loved the amax and it is cheap. I have shot 5 shot groups in the teens at 100 of my flcass rest set up. And a .55inch group at 300 during testing. </div></div>

That's some dang good group's, I like that 300. I wish mine would shoot Amax's to .55 @ 3. What rifle, twist and load data if you care to share.

 

[supratt96]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mark S</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lakeway</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mark S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LW and I both have 260 TRG's and my rifle will not take anywhere near 44.5 H4350 with 142 SMK's. I attribute to powder lot so heed his -15%. I never could get 142's to shoot but that's my rifle. With the 139 Scenar I have gone to 44 H4350 without problem but settled on 43.2 that gives me 2851 FPS, SD 6 and I shot my first 260 1/2" moa 5 shot @ 1000 with it. Only one so far but it will do it. NO MORE testing for me.</div></div>

Hey Mark, I shot my 139 Scenar load in a 600yd match last weekend and it did very well. I won 3 out of 4 matches including high aggregate and managed a 578-23x. Seems to be a rock solid LR load. Not bad for a tactical rifle off a Harris bipod. </div></div>

Excellent LW good job. You know I have tried a LOT of combo's and 139 is it. Not the best BC or cheapest but they work at least in our TRG's at distance and that was what I was developing for. I had a lot of loads that looked very good @ 300 but went to hell past. What are you getting for velocity?</div></div>

Velocity has ranged between 2830 and 2875, depending on temperature. H4350 isn't supposed to be temperature sensative, but I guess they men in relative terms compared to other powders.

 

[shoepop]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lakeway</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mark S</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lakeway</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mark S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LW and I both have 260 TRG's and my rifle will not take anywhere near 44.5 H4350 with 142 SMK's. I attribute to powder lot so heed his -15%. I never could get 142's to shoot but that's my rifle. With the 139 Scenar I have gone to 44 H4350 without problem but settled on 43.2 that gives me 2851 FPS, SD 6 and I shot my first 260 1/2" moa 5 shot @ 1000 with it. Only one so far but it will do it. NO MORE testing for me.</div></div>

Hey Mark, I shot my 139 Scenar load in a 600yd match last weekend and it did very well. I won 3 out of 4 matches including high aggregate and managed a 578-23x. Seems to be a rock solid LR load. Not bad for a tactical rifle off a Harris bipod. </div></div>

Excellent LW good job. You know I have tried a LOT of combo's and 139 is it. Not the best BC or cheapest but they work at least in our TRG's at distance and that was what I was developing for. I had a lot of loads that looked very good @ 300 but went to hell past. What are you getting for velocity?</div></div>

Velocity has ranged between 2830 and 2875, depending on temperature. H4350 isn't supposed to be temperature sensative, but I guess they men in relative terms compared to other powders. </div></div>

My 43.2 139 Scenar 2851 ave was shot @ 97F, 7520' DA' 26% hum.

 

[JWV]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mark S</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JWV</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have used nearly all of them. I now shoot exclusively 140 gr amax. I tested the scenars, 142 smks, 140bergers, and the amax. I loved the amax and it is cheap. I have shot 5 shot groups in the teens at 100 of my flcass rest set up. And a .55inch group at 300 during testing. </div></div>

That's some dang good group's, I like that 300. I wish mine would shoot Amax's to .55 @ 3. What rifle, twist and load data if you care to share. </div></div>

Savage action
blueprinted
Criterion barrel in 260AI
PDC stock
Rifle Basix Sav 2 trigger
Lapua case
47.5gr 4831sc
140amax seated just off lands

Its a very accurate setup that will shoot 200 at 600 assuming the driver has his head in it.

 

[Trental]

Re: 6.5mm 142smk vs 139 scenar

I made this speadsheet up a little while back to help me price and compair 6.5mm bullets. I saw that the OP asked the BCs of the 142smk and the 139 Lapua Scenar. This list has almost all the 6.5mm bullets, their BCs and current pricing.

Maybe it'll help others. I made it in both Excel and as a PDF. There are TWO pages. One page for Match bullets and another page for Hunting bullets.


PDF File


Excel File