REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Reloading equipment, methods, load data, powder and projectile information.

REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by SpudLee » 27 Sep 2022, 10:15 am

Hi guys anyone had any experience with these projectiles there a VLD will be running in my tikka Super varmint 223 with a 1 and 8 twist

Update
I've ordered some 62's to try will let you know how thay go... hopefully they shoot great then I would be able to buy Australian made
Last edited by SpudLee on 28 Sep 2022, 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
SpudLee
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 7
Western Australia

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 27 Sep 2022, 4:23 pm

I've never heard of them but they look the goods.

Interesting that the home page has a disclaimer that they won't be held responsible for injury or death caused by using their products.

Perhaps it's just a sign of the litigious times.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by SCJ429 » 27 Sep 2022, 7:20 pm

What do you want to do with these projectiles? If it is for long range target work, there are better options.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by SpudLee » 27 Sep 2022, 10:08 pm

Medium range fox hunting
SpudLee
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 7
Western Australia

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Ausmade » 28 Sep 2022, 9:14 am

I have used both the 52gn and 69gn in my Howa 223 mini action with a 1:8 twist. The groupings for both were about MOA or so but that was using 2206H. I reckon there is a lot better accuracy in them so I want to have a crack with them using 2208 as well as putting the 52's in my Tikka 22-250 HB to see how they go. They are very well made projectiles and James from Rexem is great to deal with.
User avatar
Ausmade
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 44
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by SCJ429 » 28 Sep 2022, 7:44 pm

I have a Tikka super varmint in 223 and have shot hundreds of foxes with it using 55 grain VMax, some out past 300 metres. Super accurate and explosive. Your other best budget options are Speer TNT or the Sierra Blitzing which are both excellent.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 29 Sep 2022, 7:20 am

I spoke to James yesterday, got some 62gn on the way.
From all the reviews they are excellent
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by SpudLee » 29 Sep 2022, 10:56 am

Lazarus wrote:I spoke to James yesterday, got some 62gn on the way.
From all the reviews they are excellent

I got some coming as well... Will post more results
SpudLee
Recruit
Recruit
 
Posts: 7
Western Australia

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 08 Oct 2022, 10:19 am

I have been doing some ballistic gel testing of various projectiles over the last month or so, from .22lr to .223 and 12g.

I have just completed testing the REXEM 62gn F-Bombs.

I was impressed with the damage that OO buckshot did to my 30kg gel block from 20m, it split it in two.

I have seen nothing that comes close to the damage these REXEM F-Bombs do though, they destroyed the block completely.

My first pleasant surprise was how accurate they are.
I didn't bother looking for the "ideal" load, just put the minimum, 23gn of 2206H under them and got the 5 round group below at 100m.
The flyer is doubtless my doing.
bf3d836534a57e6ed0911032aab6fdd2b17a444a_2_930x1000.jpeg
bf3d836534a57e6ed0911032aab6fdd2b17a444a_2_930x1000.jpeg (57.12 KiB) Viewed 4013 times


I did two tests, in the first test the block was somewhat dehydrated from sitting for over a week waiting for a break in the rain and I attributed the extra damage to brittleness from dehydration.
The results were quite impressive as below, with the projectile expanding explosively on impact and leaving a 20cm permanent wound cavity and the main body of the projectile travelling 36cm into the 41cm long block.

f13c78575cb28b938896c5fe7ae7b60a00b09d9b_2_1380x990 (1).jpeg
f13c78575cb28b938896c5fe7ae7b60a00b09d9b_2_1380x990 (1).jpeg (319.66 KiB) Viewed 4013 times

748912b119dd653a1ce570ecdaa1e7bb92df664b_2_1188x1000 (1).jpeg
748912b119dd653a1ce570ecdaa1e7bb92df664b_2_1188x1000 (1).jpeg (89.62 KiB) Viewed 4013 times

7573ed33a58d3a78afdbd5690c0d10be25f7dccb_2_1130x1000.jpeg
7573ed33a58d3a78afdbd5690c0d10be25f7dccb_2_1130x1000.jpeg (127.49 KiB) Viewed 4013 times


After rehydrating the block and giving it 2 days to set, I tested again today.

I didn't think I could have been more impressed than with the last result, but today's blew both the block and me away.
36268f012a9e016f2ad621ce28f8926e2d939dd9_2_1380x828.jpeg
36268f012a9e016f2ad621ce28f8926e2d939dd9_2_1380x828.jpeg (224.63 KiB) Viewed 4013 times

efda8512b9d5efe5971959245224c76c42d98051_2_1380x976.jpeg
efda8512b9d5efe5971959245224c76c42d98051_2_1380x976.jpeg (246.93 KiB) Viewed 4013 times


These are the most accurate and destructive projectiles I've ever used and I can't recommend them them highly enough.

Thanks to James at REXEM for providing the projectiles for this test and kudos for creating something so astounding.
Last edited by Lazarus on 10 Oct 2022, 2:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Medic » 08 Oct 2022, 8:09 pm

Bloody unreal! Love to see Aussie made kicking goals!
Medic
Private
Private
 
Posts: 74
Queensland

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 10 Oct 2022, 2:21 pm

For the record, and thanks to SpudLee for asking and getting me thinking, the load for this round was NOT the minimum but the maximum.

I've been trying to work out how I made the error and have it.
Instead of looking at the ADI load chart for 62gn projectiles, I referred to my range notes for the ADI 62gn SS109 because it was, to my mind the closest.
The best load for that turned out to be the maximum of 23gn 2206H.

My apologies for any confusion.

Perhaps I should take up lawn bowls. :roll:
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by SCJ429 » 10 Oct 2022, 7:15 pm

How do you know it was the maximum load? Were you getting a sticky bolt and flattened primers?
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 11 Oct 2022, 6:29 am

SCJ429 wrote:How do you know it was the maximum load? Were you getting a sticky bolt and flattened primers?


No, just going by the ADI load chart for the nearest equivalent using 2206H
I'm not into pushing limits, it was also the most accurate in my rifle.

SmartSelect_20221010_145644.jpg
SmartSelect_20221010_145644.jpg (189.02 KiB) Viewed 3899 times
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 11 Oct 2022, 6:10 pm

I tested the REXEM 62gn F-Bombs at 200m today.

Despite ~20kph of crosswind they only drifted about 3/4".

They once again delivered an amazing hit, creating a permanent wound cavity over 20cm long

9158aa1fb4a94e41cf0401eb3ee27b673240ac6e_2_1380x580.jpeg
9158aa1fb4a94e41cf0401eb3ee27b673240ac6e_2_1380x580.jpeg (71.57 KiB) Viewed 3882 times


984e120601d928f3a357cb2609d93abdf146caef_2_1380x920.jpeg
984e120601d928f3a357cb2609d93abdf146caef_2_1380x920.jpeg (358.45 KiB) Viewed 3882 times


b1543a1a56695fccfa48faf68e8d569eb33cea5f_2_1246x998.jpeg
b1543a1a56695fccfa48faf68e8d569eb33cea5f_2_1246x998.jpeg (306.2 KiB) Viewed 3882 times


71746d949cad2fbfe08b32cb6164f62dd35961ec_2_1380x976.jpeg
71746d949cad2fbfe08b32cb6164f62dd35961ec_2_1380x976.jpeg (194.92 KiB) Viewed 3882 times


The pictures say more than I could.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by SCJ429 » 11 Oct 2022, 6:18 pm

Live a Little and test past what the advertised load data tells you. You might be surprised what you can achieve.
Have you tried some similar weighted Sierra Blitzkings or Hornady VMax on you gel for comparison?
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 11 Oct 2022, 6:48 pm

SCJ429 wrote:Live a Little and test past what the advertised load data tells you. You might be surprised what you can achieve.
Have you tried some similar weighted Sierra Blitzkings or Hornady VMax on you gel for comparison?


So far I've tested .177 air rifle, .22lr subsonic and HV, 12g OO buckshot and Brenneke slugs, Hornady 35gn Vmax, B&T Energetics 40gn frangibles, Nosler 50gn Varmint BT, Hornady 55gn RooMax, ADI SS109 62gn, Hornady 62gn TAP, 68gn BTHP and Nosler 70gn RDF match as well as the REXEM.
Last edited by Lazarus on 11 Oct 2022, 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by in2anity » 11 Oct 2022, 7:38 pm

23gr 06H is far from the max load under a 62gr - that load is for the swift scirocco, which is unusually long for a 62gr. For that data, length mag length is probably the limiting factor, which probs eats into the powder space. But serious you could work up to 25gr I’m sure
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by bladeracer » 11 Oct 2022, 8:00 pm

Lazarus wrote:
SCJ429 wrote:How do you know it was the maximum load? Were you getting a sticky bolt and flattened primers?


No, just going by the ADI load chart for the nearest equivalent using 2206H
I'm not into pushing limits, it was also the most accurate in my rifle.

SmartSelect_20221010_145644.jpg


The Swift Scirroco bullet has such a heavy jacket I would use load data for copper bullets rather than jacketed bullets. As far as I understand the Rexem is a jacketed bullet so try the 63gn SP data.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by bladeracer » 11 Oct 2022, 8:03 pm

Lazarus wrote:
SCJ429 wrote:Live a Little and test past what the advertised load data tells you. You might be surprised what you can achieve.
Have you tried some similar weighted Sierra Blitzkings or Hornady VMax on you gel for comparison?


So far I've tested .177 air rifle, .22lr subsonic and HV, 12g OO buckshot and Brenneke slugs, Hornady 35gn Vmax, B&T Energetics 40gn frangibles, Nosler 50gn Varmint BT, Hornady 55gn RooMax, ADI SS109 62gn, Hornady 68gn BTHP and Nosler 70gn RDF match as well as the REXEM.


What is you recipe for the gel? It looks very dense?
The only value to gel is that it gives you results you can compare to other people's results, anywhere in the world. But only if you use the standard recipe's. Using your own recipe only gives you results you can compare with other bullets in the same gel.
Gel does not replicate flesh at all.
Practice Strict Gun Control - Precision Counts!
User avatar
bladeracer
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 12655
Victoria

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 11 Oct 2022, 8:05 pm

in2anity wrote:23gr 06H is far from the max load under a 62gr - that load is for the swift scirocco, which is unusually long for a 62gr. For that data, length mag length is probably the limiting factor, which probs eats into the powder space. But serious you could work up to 25gr I’m sure


You are no doubt right, I use 24gn under the much longer 70gn RDF, but to what end?
The group above is good enough for my purposes.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 11 Oct 2022, 8:21 pm

bladeracer wrote:
Lazarus wrote:
SCJ429 wrote:Live a Little and test past what the advertised load data tells you. You might be surprised what you can achieve.
Have you tried some similar weighted Sierra Blitzkings or Hornady VMax on you gel for comparison?


So far I've tested .177 air rifle, .22lr subsonic and HV, 12g OO buckshot and Brenneke slugs, Hornady 35gn Vmax, B&T Energetics 40gn frangibles, Nosler 50gn Varmint BT, Hornady 55gn RooMax, ADI SS109 62gn, Hornady 68gn BTHP and Nosler 70gn RDF match as well as the REXEM.


What is you recipe for the gel? It looks very dense?
The only value to gel is that it gives you results you can compare to other people's results, anywhere in the world. But only if you use the standard recipe's. Using your own recipe only gives you results you can compare with other bullets in the same gel.
Gel does not replicate flesh at all.


My gel is 10%.
3kg of food grade gelatin in 30lt of water.
From what I've read, 10% is the standard density.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by in2anity » 12 Oct 2022, 7:53 am

Lazarus wrote:You are no doubt right, I use 24gn under the much longer 70gn RDF, but to what end?
The group above is good enough for my purposes.


Very true Lazarus, very true. Was just pointing out the ADI tables were a bit misleading around 62gr and 06H. Don't worry, I'm also a big advocate for running my target rifles "just hot enough" where I can get away with it. For the various Australian Service Rifle comps (often limited to less than 500m), there's little need to run maximum loads; the group size is far more important...

Meanwhile the rexem 69gr concept has piqued my interest, because the venerable 69gr SMK is currently not available in Australia - which is my bread and butter :thumbsdown: I'm keeping a tab on this; but it seems rexem uncovered a big problem yesterday? (11/10/22)
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 12 Oct 2022, 9:12 am

What problem?

I'm hoping it's not supply
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by in2anity » 12 Oct 2022, 9:19 am

look at the latest vlog https://www.facebook.com/watch/Rexemaustralia/ all is not lost
At what point does lack of maintenance become patina?
User avatar
in2anity
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3048
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 12 Oct 2022, 9:56 am

in2anity wrote:look at the latest vlog https://www.facebook.com/watch/Rexemaustralia/ all is not lost


I'm not a faceplant member so searching it is problematic, but the latest I could find was 6 Sep. but that was pretty awsome.

After seeing what the 62gn did to the gel, I have no doubt they should work or Porky.
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 12 Oct 2022, 1:04 pm

bladeracer wrote:
Lazarus wrote:
SCJ429 wrote:Live a Little and test past what the advertised load data tells you. You might be surprised what you can achieve.
Have you tried some similar weighted Sierra Blitzkings or Hornady VMax on you gel for comparison?


So far I've tested .177 air rifle, .22lr subsonic and HV, 12g OO buckshot and Brenneke slugs, Hornady 35gn Vmax, B&T Energetics 40gn frangibles, Nosler 50gn Varmint BT, Hornady 55gn RooMax, ADI SS109 62gn, Hornady 68gn BTHP and Nosler 70gn RDF match as well as the REXEM.


What is you recipe for the gel? It looks very dense?
The only value to gel is that it gives you results you can compare to other people's results, anywhere in the world. But only if you use the standard recipe's. Using your own recipe only gives you results you can compare with other bullets in the same gel.
Gel does not replicate flesh at all.


Further to my above reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_gelatin
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by SCJ429 » 12 Oct 2022, 6:23 pm

Lazarus wrote:
SCJ429 wrote:Live a Little and test past what the advertised load data tells you. You might be surprised what you can achieve.
Have you tried some similar weighted Sierra Blitzkings or Hornady VMax on you gel for comparison?


So far I've tested .177 air rifle, .22lr subsonic and HV, 12g OO buckshot and Brenneke slugs, Hornady 35gn Vmax, B&T Energetics 40gn frangibles, Nosler 50gn Varmint BT, Hornady 55gn RooMax, ADI SS109 62gn, Hornady 62gn TAP, 68gn BTHP and Nosler 70gn RDF match as well as the REXEM.

Cool, what did the tiny 35 grain VMax do to your gel?
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 13 Oct 2022, 7:49 am

SCJ429 wrote:
Lazarus wrote:
SCJ429 wrote:Live a Little and test past what the advertised load data tells you. You might be surprised what you can achieve.
Have you tried some similar weighted Sierra Blitzkings or Hornady VMax on you gel for comparison?


So far I've tested .177 air rifle, .22lr subsonic and HV, 12g OO buckshot and Brenneke slugs, Hornady 35gn Vmax, B&T Energetics 40gn frangibles, Nosler 50gn Varmint BT, Hornady 55gn RooMax, ADI SS109 62gn, Hornady 62gn TAP, 68gn BTHP and Nosler 70gn RDF match as well as the REXEM.

Cool, what did the tiny 35 grain VMax do to your gel?


It hit pretty damn hard.
cf82c8003603d5d34fdcbd163931a985efd9aa6a_2_1380x966.jpeg
cf82c8003603d5d34fdcbd163931a985efd9aa6a_2_1380x966.jpeg (143.08 KiB) Viewed 3815 times


c2dfcfd249b81a39f78968de5b20c10d80280b02_2_1380x920.jpeg
c2dfcfd249b81a39f78968de5b20c10d80280b02_2_1380x920.jpeg (399.35 KiB) Viewed 3815 times


cde8cc2633497fc380373297223d9e8241fb0fbd_2_1380x914.jpeg
cde8cc2633497fc380373297223d9e8241fb0fbd_2_1380x914.jpeg (375.64 KiB) Viewed 3815 times
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by SCJ429 » 13 Oct 2022, 6:18 pm

Wow, that is pretty frangible. Thanks for sharing the pics.
SCJ429
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Posts: 3207
New South Wales

Re: REXEM 62 & 69gn 223

Post by Lazarus » 13 Oct 2022, 6:36 pm

SCJ429 wrote:Wow, that is pretty frangible. Thanks for sharing the pics.


My pleasure, if there are any of the others that interest you let me know :drinks:
Courage is knowing it might
hurt, and doing it anyway.
Stupidity is the same
.
And that's why life is hard
User avatar
Lazarus
Officer Cadet
Officer Cadet
 
Posts: 1917
New South Wales

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Reloading ammunition