Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting Calling you Barnes TTSX experts

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjL4vGkwZfRAhUD9WMKHeYXBcMQFggfMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhuntingwithnonlead.org%2FPDFs_Main%2FWI%2520DNR%2520Copper%2520Bullet%2520Study.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFyGVxgwRxh4lzPSs83pRcpeGBGVw

Granted this is media, but it jives with what I have seen.
I might also add many mention "eat up to the hole", "drop a weight", "shoot for bone", etc. Why do you suppose that is?

I am going to happily keep shooting bergers and scenars at about everything I eat. I have 0 concerns about lead contamination in any meat products I shoot.

Hmmm, which one to believe? Heck if I know, but I'll keep using Barnes for close-up shots, just in case. Long, deliberate shots get something with lead in it...

Jordan, there are several studies that correlate the same as the one I posted.
In regards to your mention of the wound channel dynamics of a TTSX vs a lead a copper bullet. The intial part of the wound channel is where much of the damage is done. As the bullet slows cavitation drops off. So even though a ttsx might dig a few inches deeper it isn't doing much damage. And this is a big maybe as certain lead and copper bullets penetrate in a similar manner.
I would also mention that the link I posted above clearly shows this.

Yeah, I've seen that article before. I've also seen a lot of other tests performed with water jugs, ballistic media gel, etc, but I trust what I've witnessed on about 135 BG animals with mono bullets over what these synthesized experiments conclude.

As to your other rules of thumb- "eat up to the hole" refers to the fact that mono bullets often cause less bloodshot peripheral tissue than lead-cored bullets, IME. That doesn't mean that the permanent wound cavity is any different, just that the temporary wound cavity causes less hematoma in flesh surrounding the bullet's cavitation. We've all seen blood shot meat several inches away from the bullet's path. With mono bullets I've seen less of that. Not to say that mono's don't ever produce bloodshot meat, because they certainly can when they impact fast enough and cause secondary projectiles with bone fragments, etc, but it's less common.

"Drop a weight" is simply because copper is harder than lead, and requires more impact resistance to expand the bullet properly than an equivalent lead-cored bullet would. No mystery there, and no condemnation, either. A lighter bullet that is going faster, penetrates as deeply, and causes as much damage out to the distance where velocity falls off to near the level of the heavier bullet, works just as well.

"Shoot for bone" is also simple and logical. What hunter wouldn't break down the skeletal structure of his quarry if there were no adverse effects? If it consistently dropped the animal quicker, caused little to no extra ruined meat, etc, why wouldn't you? Well mono's seem to ruin less meat than C&C bullets, and major bone hits drop animals faster, so it makes a lot of sense to take that shot with a mono.

Anyway, we could debate this back and forth all day, but the fact is that you've seen enough deer killed with Barnes bullets to have a firmly-planted opinion of them, and I've seen enough BG animals from antelope to moose killed with Barnes bullets to have a similarly firm opinion. I suspect neither of us would be swayed or convinced by the logical arguments of the other, since observation of empirical results trumps theory and discussion

As to point #1 less bloodshot indicates less violent expansion and the damage that results. This really can't be argued in a rational manner.
As to the second and third points Both are an attempt to increase wounding or to compensate for longer times between being hit and going down.
The fact of the matter is the larger the permanent wound cavity the faster the animal expires. Monometal bullets often times have smaller permanent wound cavities. This is simply a fact of the design as their frontal areas are often less and they do not as a rule shed fragments like lead and copper bullets do.

Point #1- Sure it can. Bloodshot and expansion/damage do not necessarily have a causal relationship, nor do those terms indicate a singular meaning. Bullet expansion and the resulting damage can certainly occur without the muscle tissue becoming bloodshot, or bruised. This is affected by the mechanism in which the bullet does the damage, as well as the location that the damage is done. Bullets that form petals when expanded tend to cut through tissue more than blunt "mushroomed" bullets. And no, I'm not saying that Barnes bullets are like a propeller travelling through the animal, but rather that petals tend to cut more than crush. Tissue that is crushed tends to exhibit more internal bleeding and bruising. Secondly, bullets that expand and do their damage in the vital area rather than in the muscular tissue, result in relatively little bloodshot meat. The VLD's I've used have borne this out. Tiny pencil holes through the onside muscle groups, massive damage inside the thoracic cavity, and moderate to no damage to the offside muscle groups. Very little bloodshot because of where the bullet does the damage.

The second and third points have nothing to do with increasing wounding or decreasing run time, and have everything to do with modifying the methodology to best suit the type of tool (bullet) being used. We use specific shot placement and starting velocity with mono's, C&C bullets, VLD's, etc. The goal is the same with all these bullets- to penetrate enough, and do enough/plenty of damage to the vitals/skeletal structure/CNS. The MO with the various bullets varies depending on the intended expansion mechanism.

To suggest that there is a simple rule of thumb between all mono bullets is incorrect. Some are designed to shed fragments (CE Raptor), others are designed to expand into a "round" mushroom (Hornady GMX), Barnes TTSX bullets are designed to expand quite wide and into 4 petals, and many models (.243 80, .257 100, 7mm 140, .308 130, etc) often shed those petals.

I'm not saying that there aren't different bullet designs that are meant to do more damage within a shallower permanent wound channel, just that IME animals shot with X, TSX, and TTSX bullets haven't gone significantly farther after a lethal hit than animals shot with any other bullet. In fact, the last handful of deer and elk that I shot were killed with Hornady A-Max, HPBT, and VLD bullets. Aside from a head-shot doe, all went farther after vital hits than many, many animals I've seen shot with Barnes bullets, and all had vitals that were absolutely demolished.

When it comes to living things, vitality, will to live, physiology at the time of the shot, and other factors make it very hard to come up with firm rules of thumb.

While I had inconsistent results with the Barnes 'X' type bullets, the TTSX (and its MRX predecessor) have performed very well for everyone in my hunting group that uses them. That includes a 100g/.257Bob, 140g/7mmRM, 130g/.308, 168g/30-06 and 180g/.300WM combinations. We have yet to recover one.

After giving it a lot of thought, we selected a 130g TTSX for Daughter #1 to use in her .308 Win. She didn't get her elk this year but she did take her antelope at 360+ yards where it was still packing a calculated 2165fps and 1356fpe. (Think "30-30/150g @ 100 yards".)

We have yet to see signs of failure to expand with the TTSX or MRX.

Only elk killed were with the 168TTSX IN 300 wby. Both dropped at the shot. One at 200 and the other at 100, both big 6x6's. My guide went straight to his Camelas and ordered some for his wby as soon as we got to his house.

In my limited experience the TTSX can make a mess of shoulders. In particular, one bull elk and one waterbuck I shot at close range with a .338 160 TTSX launched at ~3050 left little usable meat in the area I hit. However, neither went far either. For killing ability I see no reason to not use TTSXs.
I have no idea what the real effects of lead are, but I have never read a study that indicates it's good for you.

You can almost count on loss of some meat when the TTSX meets bone.

I'm no expert but my Kimber Montana in 7/08 likes the Barnes Vor-Tex ammo with the 120 grain pill. The only other Barnes that I shoot is in a 375 Ruger with a 250 grain bullet.

I've not put a TSX in an elk, but I've killed many moose with them and have never seen a problem using the lighter TSX bullets. The .284 120 grain TSX is a very fine killing bullet and I'm not sure you can improve upon it for ranges inside 400 yards.

Shot 2 bulls less than 75 yards this year with factory Barnes 30-06 150g ttsx and both dropped immediately.

Multiple dead elk and big deer with 120gr ttsx in 7mm-08 at 3050fps and all through and though.Also dead elk with 100gr 257 bullets and the bullets went through also.

Isn't that true of most bullets?

Where did they hit and where did they exit?

Many elk with Barnes tsx bullets in different calibers. 100 gr tsx in 257 weatherby, 120 gr ttsx in 7mm/08, and 130 gr tsx in 270 weatherby All perfect performance and not one stayed in elk.

What do you guys think about TTSX bullet weights for elk in the 338 WM?


Okie John