Hadn't seen much on this ammo out there so I decided to put it through some of my old clear ballistics gel.    

Performance wise, it seemed to work about like any other Fusion bullet in gel tests I've seen.   Retained weight was great (149gr) and the expansion was good expansion even at the lower velocities that result with a 300BLK loading especially in a 9'' barrel as I used in the test here.   FWIW, the 9'' barrel was producing over 1,700 FPS on average.

Test video:

Do you know the expansion threshold for that bullet?

Thanks for posting your results.  It penetrated a bit deep for my tastes but maybe out of a 10.5" barrel it would gain enough velocity to expand faster and penetrate less.

1700fps is extremely disappointing to me from a 9" barrel. Maybe it's a weak load with a heavy for caliber bullet but man, you'd think they could do better. If that turns out be the consistent MV for this round, they won't get any of my money for it.

This kind of reinforces my belief that Federal wanted to add a .300 BLK to the Fusion lineup without doing any R&D so they slapped a 150gr .308 Fusion bullet into a BLK case and called it good.

ETA: Really appreciate the test!

Thanks Mike! Been looking at this for awhile. Was really hoping this load would be in the 90-100gr range but looks like it performed well anyway.  With those penetration numbers would be a good hunting load.

Anything in the 90-120gr range would have required Federal to put time (money) into R&D. It's glaringly obvious they didn't do that with this load.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE their .223 62gr MSR load and I look forward to testing their new Grendel load, but this BLK load is a result of laziness, apathy and greed.

Ask me how I really feel

I agree with both posts above.

A 90-100g fusion or gold dot would be ideal in 300.

What were you hoping for from a factory load out of a 9" barrel with a 150gr bullet?  Even most handload data from powder manufactures I looked at was only around 2000 fps and that was out of a 16" barrel.

This load will ballistically match the AE plinking load that they offer.  A .308 Fusion bullet would not have functioned in gel like the one shown in the video.  It would have likely went straight through both gel blocks with very little deformation.

ETA: 16" barrel clarification.

I've chrono'd a few 147-150gr BLK loads that were in the 1780-1850 range from an 8" barrel. Granted its not apples to apples but I can only imagine those numbers would be in the range of 1830-1880 from a 9" ~1000" ASL. That's a HUGE difference at the velocities we're talking about. ~1700 is pretty poor for a factory round that's already marginal in that bullet weight IMHO.

Has anyone found info on how Federal built this bullet? Have they even released anything?

Like I said, I'd much rather see an MSR load with a light bullet in the ballpark of 100gr, where performance seems to be optimal.

Out of curiosity, which BLK loads were you running through a chrono?  Most of the 150gr offerings that I've seen have been around 1900-1925 or lower out of a 16" barrel.  (The exception being Sellier & Beloit @2077 fps.)  That puts Federal in the ballpark of the majority of the commercially loaded 150gr offerings on the market.   Faster would be great but they have to load conservatively enough that every barrel on the market will run it without issues.

As far as I know, the construction of the bullet is the same as the standard Fusion but tuned to expand at a lower velocity.  Someone could try to contact Federal and see if the customer service folks can provide that number.

It would be very difficult to get a standard jacketed bullet to around 100gr and make it loadable in a factory environment.  The bullet itself would be quite short and the bearing surface that would sit in the neck of the case would be small and setback may become an issue.  I spoke to one of their people at some show a while back about this and they said that the liability from setback causing a high pressure situation and damaging rifles was a concern that drove the choice of the 150gr bullets.  This was brought up after I pointed out that Speer had the 125gr TNT bullet that reloaders were having success with already.  Another option would be alternative materials that are less dense than lead, such as copper or zinc.  However cost of an all copper projectile could potentially be high and zinc may not function well enough in game.

Barnes has an OTFB 90gr load and there are numerous offerings under 115gr that work quite well. I reload .300blk and there's plenty of bearing surface with the 110gr bullets.

150gr was a poor choice and is the worst weight range for 300. Too fast to be subsonic and too slow for 99% of 150gr bullets to perform.

Ideal super range is 100-120 IMO.

The two that come to mind are:

Sellier & Bellot 147gr FMJ
1833 ES 33 FPS
1823 AVG 1824 FPS
1847
1835
1814
1820
1818
1821
1813
1819

PNW 'Range' 147gr FMJ
1754 ES 45 FPS
1761 AVG 1745 FPS
1755
1774
1753
1672
1754
1749
1753
1729

Also for comparison, from a test on the same day:

Hornady 110gr VMAX
2158 ES 66 FPS
2092 AVG 2124 FPS
2142
2100
2119
2122
2118
2105
2146
2135

Barnes 110gr TAC-TX
2097 ES 29 FPS
2113 AVG 2112 FPS
2113
2118
2118
2107
2126
2120
2099
2106

Link to archived thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/695357_.html&page=1

This leads me to believe that "light" or "average" for caliber bullets are vastly superior to 150gr in the .300 BLK.

This round is more of a smash round where it is heavy and slow moving meaning it will smash better than create large wound cavities.

The vast majority of hunters use either a 110gr bullet or 125. Very few use the heavier bullets except for plinking as that is where the mil surplus is.

The 110gr Barnes Black tips are going to be one of the best 300BLK bullets out there for hunting or supersonic home defense. It was made to penetrate up to 20 inches of ballistics gel while getting full expansion of 1/2 inch at 300 yards.

That Barnes load is a zinc-cored bullet with a copper jacket and is not meant for hunting.  Zinc is a third less dense than lead so a similar sized projectile will be lighter than a lead-based counterpart.  

Reloading vs. production is a whole different animal when it comes to making ammunition.  For instance, if you reload ammo and (God forbid) there's a catastrophic failure because of a mistake then it's on you.  If ammo companies reload ammo and there's an issue that somehow gets past QC, it's on them and they're going to have to replace guns and face any possible lawsuits and litigation if personal injury occurs.  The longer and, unfortunately, heavier bullets appears to be how Federal is avoiding these potential issues.  While I don't agree with this type of approach, I can at least understand it.

On a side note, I reached out to Federal and they indicated that this bullet IS specifically designed for 300 BLK and SBR-level velocities.  The load was designed to expand out to 100 yards from an 8" barrel.

It's good to have this data point, if its true (not questioning you, questioning them). Did they happen to give you the actual minimum expansion threshold the bullet was designed for?

Seems like a great option if you primarily shoot 150 grain plinking loads. Sounds like it will duplicate ballistics fairly well for minimal POI shift.

I would like to see a 150 grain projectile moving closer to 2000 FPS out of an SBR barrel myself, but I have lots of Barnes ammo.

May pick up some Fusion for my Handi rifle though

Unfortunately, no.  The person I was dealing with didn't have any info other than the barrel length & expansion distance.

Well if its 100y and we know what the threshold is once we punch the numbers in a calc. My guess is maybe 1500-1600 I'm expecting 150y minimum from the 10.5 I have.  

I do appreciate you contacting Fed and posting though.  I just wish they'd gone with what is somewhat of a standard weight now with the 110gr. I'd like to see a 300y expansion window for the Fusion/GD loading, 100 can't compete with the Barnes or CC or even the Vmax in effective range.

Maybe they'll offer multiple loadings?

I believe that there are two loadings for the 6.8 SPC

I agree, a 110-125 grain bullet that does 2300 FPS out of a 10 inchish barrel and expands out to 300 yards would be ideal

..did they really just put their lightest .30 cal 150gr fusion bullet in a 300blk cartridge and call it close enough? I'm not saying I could do better, but that seems lazy. I'd have loved this to be a lighter 110gr-ish projectile with a lowered expansion velocity threshold, I'd love for some competition in the Barnes black tip arena.

There must be some difference due to the difference in BC. The BLK load lists it at .33 while the 150gr .308 is listed at .414. With that said, I'll provisionally retract my statement above that they just shoved their standard .308 Fusion bullet in a Blackout case.

I really hope more info comes out about the construction differences between the two but I still think Federal would be well served to create a direct competitor to the venerable 110gr TAC-TX or relative newcomer Lehigh's 115gr CC.

This 150gr load still does pretty much nothing for me though since there are so many good options in the 100-125gr range, but all of my Blackout guns are short barreled rifles or pistols.

Technically, no.  Federal makes a 123gr Fusion bullet for the 7.62x39 that could be made to work.  They chose the 150gr but did lower the velocity threshold to be more compatible with 300 BLK velocities.  I'd love to see a 125-ish grain load myself but it's not in the cards.

What is this one's expansion velocity? I'm looking for a good 300 hunting load for the fall, it looks like I'm still going to be using black tips.

If you're asking about the 150gr Fusion, see my posts above.  If asking about the 123gr Fusion for 7.62x39, then I don't know.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it

Well, from the gel test we have a 2" neck prior to expansion - which seems to indicate we are getting pretty close to the expansion threshold; generally the earlier the round expands/fragments, the further away you are from the threshold. Also at 1700fps, you are getting at the limit of "rifle velocity."

Many rifle projectiles advertise a 1600-1800fps expansion threshold.

The exception to this is the Nosler ABLR (1300fps threshold), Barnes TAC-TX (1400fps) and Lehigh Controlled Chaos Copper (1400fps.) Sadly the ABLR is not in any .300 applicable weights (nor is their a .224 version, much to my chagrin.)

While Federal may say this 150gr is designed for .300blk - that really strains credulity given that a) 150gr is one of the worst weights for .300 b) Federal has a 150gr .308 Fusion load.

Whats far more probable is that the .308 Fusion expands to 1600fps, so they just stuck the .308 projectile onto the .300 BLK, launched it at 1700fps, and called it a day.

If they actually did design a purpose built .300 blk 150gr projectile...that honestly would be even worse as it makes no sense at all.

Great deer round!

By "rifle velocity" , do you mean the speed needed to make a permanent stretch cavity?

I'm being sincere in asking this.

It seems everyone has a different velocity # or equation as the bottom threshold for "rifle velocity" or "rifle ballistics".

Yes, that was what I was referring to.

I agree, everyone does seem to have a different metric by which that is determined.

I go by 1700fps, as some hunters using 5.7x28 SS197 V-MAX 40gr @1750fps out of the FsN were seeing rifle like effects on hogs and badgers they shot with it. Likewise, some .30 Carbine JSP's were producing rifle like effects at 1800fps.

"With expanding projectiles, the .30 caliber M1 Carbine creates a temporary cavity stretch that is slightly larger than that produced by heavy expanding .357 Magnum hunting loads and may be able to produce permanent splitting, tearing, and rupture injuries in tissues susceptible to stretch insults, such as the liver, kidney, spleen, pancreas, brain, and completely full fluid or gas filled hollow organs, such as the bladder. The best ammunition choices for the M1 Carbine are the Remington 110 gr JSP (R30CAR) and the Corbon 110 gr JHP DPX loading using the all copper Barnes X bullet. The Remington load has an average velocity of 1864 f/s, expands to around .54” to .58” and penetrates 13” to 16” whether in bare gelatin, through automobile windshields, or Level IIIa body armor. This is comparable intermediate barrier performance to many good .223 loads. Likewise, the Corbon DPX load penetrates 18.9" and expands to 0.56" in bare gelatin."
https://pistol-forum.com/archive/index.php/t-4339.html

However, I am increasingly suspect of the entire premise of "rifle velocity" - how does "velocity" effect flesh? Velocity is not how any other thing is effected in the universe as far as I know - it's all about Energy. Energy is the capacity to do work, not velocity. So why would flesh be this unique, velocity dependent but energy agnostic medium?

What I think really matters is the ft/lbs of energy divided by the length of travel - more energy in a shorter travel distance is going to produce a higher pressure wave, likely leading to a permanent stretch cavity. This is known as the "ballisitc pressure wave" hypothesis, and can be readily seen in gel tests.

Here is a fantastic example with .357 Underwood - 125gr vs 158gr, both with nearly identical energy:

125gr @ 1500fps/625ftlbs - blows the block off the table with 16" penetration and .573" expansion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S37mDA_myNw

158gr @ 1213fps /525ftlbs - 20.9" penetration, 0.612" expansion. Block just wiggles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjHg26zycWg

There was a great study on this that found 500-600ft/lbs of energy dumped into a 12" penetration tract had the strongest correlation to blood pressure spikes in the brain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock_(firearms)#Energy_transfer_required_for_remote_neural_effects

So in general, I think most of what "rifle like" effect is not really due to velocity, but rather the fact that rifles have much more energy than handguns, and that when they fragment or expand at high velocity, they tend to dump their energy "explosively" with a tremendous pressure wave. At lower velocities, they are more likely to dump their energy across a longer wound track, generating less of a pressure wave.

But, until that can be confirmed, I use 1700fps as the floor - as that typically corresponds to the minimum expansion/frag velocity of many higher end rifle projectiles.

I also agree that velocity is only a part of the equation.

Excellent hypothesis, Spyder.

Thank you.

I suppose you could be correct and the person at Federal who I dealt with straight out lied to me...that doesn't explain how the listed ballistic coefficients are so vastly different.  

For them, a 150gr made sense because a) it is a ballistic match to the existing American Eagle FMJ load and b) it likely mitigates the liability of a bullet being setback into the case if the round is accidentally chambered in a 5.56 chamber.  I know, that would NEVER happen....

(Not specifically pointed to the person I quoted, more of a general question)  If the bullet functions in the barrel length you would be using in the distance that you would be hunting in, then what would make a 150gr projectile so much worse compared to a lighter one?

If the 150gr projectile actually can't be chambered in 5.56 (but 110-120gr could) that would be a great reason, and one I hand't considered. Is that actually the case? Because 147gr FMJ will chamber.

Per the American Eagle thing - both the AE .308 and .300BLK use the same 150gr FMJ-BT projectile. Which is shear laziness. And makes me believe that is what is going on with the 150gr Fusion.

The BC could be different due to the velocity - the higher the velocity, the higher the BC for the same projectile. For example, the MK262 77gr is often misquoted as having a .372 G1 BC, which is wrong, as it needs to be traveling 3000fps or more for that BC. Any slower and it drops to .362. And at 1700fps and below it's down to .343 G1 BC.

The Fusion .308 BC is from 2820fps. The Fusion is listed at 1900fps from the factory. That alone will account for a good drop in BC.

150gr is bad because the .300 blackout is already a really slow rifle cartridge. This is exacerbated by it being frequently fired from short barrels. And rifle bullets require velocity - not mass - in order to expand effectively. The heavier and slower the round, the shorter the range of expansion will be. Given the fact that 110-120gr is the optimal weight for .300blk (what it was literally designed for) and given that these weights have a proven track record of being effective on game, there is no reason ballistically to use a 150gr. You get less effective range, more drop, and no benefit.

Since there is no ballistic rationale for 150gr, it's purpose is either a) to recycle the same Fusion projectile b) to thwart any accidental mischambering in 5.56 (even though 147gr chambers fine) or c) Federal is all about the mass for reasons unknown.

I love the 62g fusion, will definitely check out the grendel load.  I will pass on the 300black out.  Not slow enough for subsonic use, not fast enough for rifle performance.  Seems like a parts bin round to me.

So found some more data to suggest that it really is the same .308 projectile, despite the different listed BC's.

Here is Sierra's 150gr SMK - .417 BC @ 2800fps; .355 BC @ 1800fps and below. Same bullet, just different BC's due to velocity.
https://www.sierrabullets.com/store/product.cfm/sn/2190/308-dia-150-gr-HPBT-MatchKing

If the 150gr Fusion has a .414 BC @ 2800fps, then .33 @1900fps seems pretty in line with the above, especially when we consider that as a jacketed soft point has a worse form factor then the SMK and it's BC will be more effected by lower velocity.

Sounds feasible to me. How did I forget about velocity bands for BC I should know better.

Hey it's an easy enough mistake to make. If I hadn't been looking at Sierra's website I never would have known about the phenomenon, as they are one of the only manufacturers who list the shifting BC of the projectile relative to velocity.

Should have used a 150 interlock instead of the fmj. Am going to test some I have to see if they will expand at BO supersonic speed out of my 16 inch barrel. I have loaded a bunch of the 150 FMJ for my 12.5 inch barreled 308 with good results. Wouldn't use these in a BO.

Is that bullet a hornady 150 FMJ? If not, what bullet is that? Says soft point so now not sure on my response. Will still try out the hornady 150 interlock on a phone book to see what it does.