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

A post full of factual data and supportive arguments as is typical of all your posts. Another thread bites the dust.


Oh well. Argue with the gnome fellas. I am done.

I've guided and observed a lot more than the average hunter, and I'll take empirical observations and first-hand witnessing over theory and reports viewed at a desk, but whatever floats your boat.

As compared to your posts w/ faked test data?

David

άλλος μαλάκας

Ένας ψεύτης και λίγο σκύλα

David

A bitch Dave????? maybe. But not a liar.



I like your input though! Proves you studied.


Greek is a must know language for intellectuals sir!

I am happy!

Fotis, the good news is, you can flesh out your ignore list.

Being "bee-less" is no way to be so I have a 257 in the works on a 66' 700 action.

Wonder how fast I can push that 80 gr TTSX ? Got it touching 4000 in a 30" 25-06. Killed like Thor's hammer with 100% penetration (breaking a goat's hip and shoulder).

Barneses work and nothing but a mono metal can be pushed as hard, shoot well and stay together. But, I also like 160 gr Hornady RNSP bullets in my 6.5x55.

Keep the faith !

Dave is learning Greek......

He is cussing me out in Greek.

Is there another Faith?????


I am elated


BTW I think in a couple of weeks I should get my 6.5 Bee from the custom shop.

porsche1600s,

I heard about and purchased some bullets from a new company called Hammer. These are 6.5mm solid copper hollow points with a slightly higher BC than the Barnes. I plan on trying them as soon as my Weatherby is back in my hands.

Should be interesting.

My 6.5 was made in 1899 and is set up for 160 gr round nose bullets. It will shoot them sub moa but any spitzers are 1.5 moa or more.

I know I'm late to the party, and I've had some very good experiences with them.

I've also seen beyond the 'glow' they seem to have for many.




120 TSX - 200 yard caribou, 7mm-08



235 TSX (#2)- 150 yard moose, 375-350 Rem Mag




100 XFB - 200 yards caribou x2, 7mm-08



225 XFB - 125 yards caribou, 340 Weatherby



85 XBT - 300-400 yards caribou, 6mm



225 XFB - 495 meters moose, 340 Weatherby

Most have zipped through, most have been effective quite quickly. But copper is always going to be hard. Sometimes it just doesn't open as well and penetrate as well as we hope.

Fotis,
I watched 4, factory 6mm scirocco's (2's?) from a 243 at 325 yards zip through an antelope with what seemed like zero expansion. It just stood there and slowly laid down over a few minute period. Thankfully it didn't take a step. Damage was minimal inside. Stuff does happen with all bullets.

Klik,

We've seen most of those pics before, and there is no doubt that bullets do weird things on occasion, but in their current TTSX/LRX configuration, I think Barnes has most of the expansion quirks figured out.

Despite my positive experiences using Barnes bullets, they certainly aren't my first choice for long-range applications where impact velocity drops off. This is mostly because the structural virtues of monos are no longer needed once IV's drop down to 2000fps, and slippery but regular C&C bullets do fine when they impact at those speeds.

Vabo

Scirocco 1 or 2. I have also heard similar issues but only with the 1's.

Yep, all posted somewhere around here previously. Some folks just seem to think that copper won't stop and/or doubt that it is harder and tougher than lead typically is. A lot of the copper I've used has worked very well. And it took me awhile to believe that they weren't actually working as they were intended by design. But several incidents left me realizing that sometimes it's better to be good than lucky, and there are bullets which generally suited by purposes better.

That said, I don't have any recovered 140 XFBs and I used one variation of them in my 7mm-08 on quite a few animals with many quick flops and no bullet recoveries, even at some good distances for the speed of the cartridge.

I've shot more of the TTSXs in tests than I have on game, but both seem to suggest that this variation on the X design kind of completes the circle (by getting back to some petal losses like the early versions were criticized for). But I like reliable expansion of my bullets in those early inches of penetration and they seem to be doing that more consistently.

I shot a wolf at 710yds with a 168ttsx out of my 300saum. Did it's job.

so what am I missing in the picture posted? So how is that a bullet the has expanded to 1.7 times caliber and retained 99% of weight is a failure, when the other two bullets in the comparison expanded almost the exact same amount and didn't retain near the weight? Maybe I am a dumbphuck or something, but that does not even begin to make any sense to me.

As to the barnes, they are good bullets and I use them, but I also use the accubonds, interbonds, GMX, Sierra BTHP gamekings, and lots of other cup n core bullets and as long as I do my job and put the bullet in the right place, I have yet to have a dead animal bitch at me that I didn't shoot it with bullet xyz........

Which one is the TTSX?

Different bullet so hard to make a meaningful comparison.

Also wondering what's wrong with the 300 yard picture.
Weight retention is good. Penetration is good. Expansion is good.
So what is so bad? The idea of Clean prop of blender blade zipping though the vitals is awesome!
Maybe because it didn't melt down half way like the other two it looks like bad expansion?
To each his own.

Deer heart. 270win 130ttsx