Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Longer range TTSX performance?

Seriously?

Are seriously saying that initial velocity has no bearing on the terminal velocity at 300yds?

Davis

Uh ..... no. What he is saying is that these three bullets performed as shown, at the noted velocity in wet newsprint.

You may launch them at the shown velocity or a lot faster. At some point they will reach the tested velocities and perform in wet newsprint as shown.

All that launching them faster does is extend the killing zone farther out.

Hope this helps.

It's no news or surprise that a solid copper bullet expands less aggressively than fairly soft lead-core alternatives. The whole point behind using a mono, is that you can drive them faster, with higher impact velocities, without them coming apart. Which can't be said for the other 2 bullets shown, as I've seen first hand.

So while the pic is accurate, it fails to mention that the impact distance on that TTSX would be quite a bit further than heavier lead-core hunting bullets started slower, like the AB and PH, given equal impact velocities.

The caption for the picture reads "300 yard Expansion Testing" - clearly that is NOT what is being shown, so a false impression of the TTSX is being given.

David

30cal 168tsx shot from a 308 at 2740fps. at about 450 yards length wise in a fairly big whitetail buck and recover the bullet just under the hide and it looked like a text book expansion pic

The 30cal 168TTSX's are "softer", like the LRX's. According to Barnes they should expand properly down to 1600fps.

David

DUDE!!!!!! How obtuse are you??? Screw initial velocity. Deal with the fact that the aforementioned bullet struck at 2000 plus velocity and did crappy! We are examining what that bullet did at 2000 fps striking velocity. That is it. I do not care if it was launched at 4000 fps and connected at 2000 yards or 2700 and connected at 300 yards.

Dude

You're the retard that posted the 300 yard expansion test. If that's not what it is, then post it w/ a correct caption. As I stated w/ my first post - it ain't news to anybody that TTSX's typically don't expand well at 2000fps and below. Pretending that's the expected expansion of a 120TTSX at 300yds is misleading at best.

David

Boy you are a myopic bastard ain't you?

The point (ONCE AGAIN) is this is what the bullet does at 2000 fps. Now go pump the neighbors cat. Evidently hat is all you're good for.


READ THINK AND THEN ANSWER but not on my posts.

Fotis

I'll post wherever I please - you're not the nanny here. All bullets have a velocity performance window. You're deliberately posting misleading information to make a point. And getting your undies in a bunch when you're called on it.

David

Once again he communication process breaks down. This is what the TSX did striking at 2000 fps,

This is a fact,

Fotis

How do you know that is fact?

There are known errors in the text captioning that picture - how do you know the velocity for any of the projectiles is accurate?

David

I have handloaded TSX bullets and shot them at 1800 to 2000 fps in wet newsprint and they looked like that after recovery. Granted the did not have the rotational velocity but that has been proven not to make a diff,

Most all of them looked like this

So you have no idea.

Got it.

David

Most of the professional ballisticians I’ve spoken with agree that a projectile’s rotational velocity has little effect on impact expansion. However, some point out that since rotational velocity maintains itself much longer than downrange velocity, it must, to some extent, affect expansion via centrifugal force.

Therefore, rather than simply loading down to simulate 400-yard impact velocities (which has the unavoidable side effect of reducing rotational velocity), we set gel blocks out at 400 yards and shot them.


http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammo/ballistics-test-best-300-win-mag-loads-market/

I can't help but notice how much better the Barnes TTSX bullets expansion looks in their 400yd test vs your 300yd test.

David

Looks to me like the barnes expanded just as wide as the others give or take a few .010 thousandths. Penetrated as far or farther than the other as well. So I dont see the issue. Maybe Im dense.

this was TSX not TTSX From what I've seen the TTSX do open open more/better. I figured it was cause of a lot larger hole (under tip) than the TSX softer? has there been a hardness test ?

ld,

Sorry, I misread your post. Don't know if the 30cal 168's are supposed to open easier than other TSX's. I'll shoot Barnes an e-mail and see what they say.

Regards,

David

As per Barnes, the 168 TTSX opens own to 1500 fps. The 168 TSX opens down to 1800 FPS. I send them an email any time I'm looking at a new diameter.

Good information.

Thanks,

David