Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Barnes TSX/TTSX

I am hoping to do a moose hunt in Newfoundland, and will use my Remington 700 .300 Winchester Mag. I used Nosler Partitions on an elk hunt last year and they did their job fine on that hunt, but I'm intrigued by these Barnes bullets and would like to try the,. Does anyone have any doubt that they would not kill a moose in my rifle (dumb question, I'm sure), provided they shoot well enough? Also, is there any real difference between the TSX and the TTSX in performance? From what I have seen the tipped bullet has a little better BC, but in actual on game performance is there any difference?

Part of the reason I am asking is when I was hunting in WY, a hunter came in while I was there and shot a bull elk with them in a .338 RUM, and the bullet was literally stopped on the shoulder of the elk. The hunter and his guide were scratching their heads on that one,it was a good shot and was confirmed when they skinned the bull, but that was after a lengthy follow up and several more shots. I believe it was a 225-grain TTSX that the hunter had the failure with. It was a failure, too- the guide was convinced after the bull was down that it would not have killed the elk given the penetration from the initial shot. I know "stuff" happens, but I just wanted to make sure this was an isolated incident, before I spend much time finding a load my rifle likes with these bullets.

That elk story sounds like a fish story. You're not going to have any trouble with a Barnes. I've read that the plastic tip initiates expansion better, so might be better at the longest ranges where velocity is falling off. In theory.

I’ve put somewhere over a dozen XFBs and TSXs into or through various moose in the making of meat. I still have the very first one I killed a moose with - after breaking both shoulders with a 225 XFB from a 340 Weatherby. They’re a very good bullet when they work right, and they are an excellent choice when shooting bone or when using one of the faster cartridges. The TTSX is the way I’d go though for moose which are heavier obstacles, either will undoubtedly work. Be not afraid to shoot bones with these bullets; (it’ll do nothing but make them work even better.) Don’t be surprised if you catch a bullet though. I’ve had over half a dozen Barnes monos stay inside various moose I’ve killed.

The ttsx is my favorite bullet these days - it shoots accurately in my rifles and breaks bone if needed. From a 7mm RM my 150 broke spine and shoulder on a large boar at a little over 500 yards. I've had them penetrate end to end on an elk facing me and drop them in their tracks from better angles. I don't think you will be disappointed with them.

First time Ive heard of a failure with ANY TTSX....Hmmmmmm...


That said, Im a fan. Load them up and go slay a moose!

I find it hard to reason how a 225gr .338" diameter solid piece of copper might have been stopped in its tracks on the near side shoulder, unless perhaps buddy had a squib load and didn't realize it.

Anyway, yes the TTSX is among the best bullets in existence for use from your .300WM on moose.

How, exactly, did the 225 grain .338" fail? If it did not expand, I can't see any way at all that bullet didn't zip through like an FMJ without it being a severe squib load or the equivalent at extremely long range. If it expanded and stopped, then the same velocity issue is the only way I can see that happening.

Also, define "good shot"? A broadside shoulder shot just doesn't make sense with that little penetration (see above). Now, if it was a raking shot through the "rear shoulder" forward and the bullet stopped after that much penetration, then that's a different story.

Something just doesn't make sense.

Yeah...... since this was secondhand heresay..I have real doubts.
I couldn't tell you how many Nosler Partitions Ive heard of that have "failed".....all second hand. Never seen one myself.

Same with this .338 TTSX...I'd have to see it to believe it.

I don't know the exact angle of the shot because I wasn't with them, the bullet did expand, they showed me the bullet they pulled out of the shoulder bone. Maybe it was a squib load, they said the shot sounded ok, like I said- they were scratching their heads on that one too, couldn't explain it. I just wanted to make sure it was a freak thing, because I really would like to try them out on my next hunt, I'm definitely not knocking the bullet because before that, I heard pretty much nothing but good about them.

I'm curious if he bounced the TTSX into the elk.

Even is smaller bores they do well.

In my 26 Nos, the 120 TAC-X is the most accurate bullet, half MOA at 400 yds. And, at 3,400 fps, they do impressive damage to hogs and WT's.

I'd probably go with a bigger bore for big critters, but think this one would take one out, pronto.

DF

The Barnes are some of my favorites but, man, if it ain't broken.........

Yep.

OK spelling nazi, is that supposed to be hearsay, or heresy?

Would you believe spelchek let that one slip by?.......

Below is the first big game animal I took with a Barnes 168 tsx out of a 300 wsm back in 2004. One shot quartering away bullet under a pocket of skin on opposite shoulder. Bullet weight was 167 grains after recovery, heck might of been that before but one way or the other it's pretty good retention.

I have used nothing but tsx, ttsx, and lrx since then all with the same boring outstanding results. Different game, different cartridges, different distances, different conditions it all ends the same for me.

I even included a pic of a 225 grain ttsx out of a 338 win mag from a bear a few years ago.

I'm not worried about any failures.

Nice looking bullets. The 338 bullet worked just fine on that bear.

210 ttsx, 338-06 not at top speeds, moose at about 125 yards, broke neck, through scapula on off side, found under skin

210 grains.

No doubts in my mind...

130 grain TSX out of a 270WBY MAG at 3500 fps kills everything I put one through. Shoots as flat as the 26 Nosler, don't know my they think they reinvented the wheel.

Yes, because it let spelchek (sic) slip by...