Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Question for John Barsness on the TSX

I hope you are not getting tired of these questions and maybe you have answered this one before.

You have said the TSX needs speed to kill quickly. Does that include the larger calibers from .35 up? All mine of that caliber and up are relatively slow except for the .375 and that may be too slow. I don't doubt they will kill with these bullets, however.

Any thoughts

Actually what I have suggested is that the size of the hole created by any bullet is the major criteria of "killing power." This is the consensus of so-called forensic ballisticians, and from what I have seen it's true.

This doesn't mean, however, that there will always be a direct correlation between the size of the hole in the vitals and how quickly an animal goes down. But on average it works that way.

TSX's create longer but narrower holes than many other bullets. This is simple physics. Bullets that expand quickly and lose some weight make bigger holes, and on broadside shots these bigger holes are in the vitals.

The two ways to make TSX's create bigger holes are more velocity or bigger diameter. Of course we can combine the two as well, but in general most of us do not like to shoot 250-grain bullets at 3300 fps. Yet I have still seen animals hit with really fast TSX's and pretty fat TSX's go a ways. This is just the nature of super deep-penetrating bullets.

The latest was a buck pronghorn I shot two days ago at around 250 yards with a .257 Weatherby, the bullet the 100 TSX started at over 3500 fps. The bullet went through both lungs, about halfway up the body, but the buck went 150 yards before keeling over. The damage was certainly sufficient to kill surely, but....

This doesn't mean I'm not a fan of TSX's. I definitely am. But they are not magic, and do not defy the laws of physics.

JB,

Given the opportunity to step into the same river twice, would you choose a different bullet for that pronghorn? which one?

Antelope, it seems to me, do have the tenacity for life that larger game animals exhibit. I have used Nosler BT's on them exclusively with great results. I do not use that bullet on any other game as I deem it too frangible, but on the "lopes", it quite effective!

I have taken quite a few head of game with the 180 grain TSX bullet in 30 cal at various ranges all the way out to 777 yards and all have gone down very quickly. The TSX is a very deadly projecticle in my experience. I have seen many more tasken with TSX bullets in 7mm Cal 375 cal and I have also used them in 338 cal and I love thier performance.

On smaller animals, such as Pronghorns and Whitetails up to about 150 pounds, what about the TTSX? On a broadside shot on animals of this size, you wouldn't need as much penetration, but would the TTSX create a larger wound chanel?

At about 3000 to 3100 FPS MV in either a 7 M/M or .30 caliber, out to about 300 yards, could some one suggest a bullet weight that would perform best in these 2 calibers at the velocity range stated?

I know MV performance would be different then 300 yard performance, but I am asking about something that would be satisfactory at both ranges.

Thanks John

As I'm sure John would agree, a single observation doesn't equate to a scientific study. My pronghorn was shot this year at 263 yards with a 100 gr. TSX with a muzzle velocity of 3450 from my .25 WSM. The mature buck traveled - zero feet horizonal and approximately 18 inches vertical - Bang/Flop.

Clearly it is a tradeoff of bullet penetration verses wound channel size. A bullet only has so much kenetic energy to expend, so it comes down to which bullet you choose.

For me, I go with the greater penetration because I'm given the opportunity for different size animals and there is little hunting pressure/competition. This year I had tags for deer, antelope and elk with the season running concurrent for some time.

Robert, in answer to your question, the clearly obviously bullet selection is 140 gr for the 7mm and 165 gr. for the .30 caliber.

Boise:

But which one, the TSX or the TTSX, for the conditions I described?

Where I hunt, most times, the deer is out of sight in about one leap. I timed one once, and he went from 0 to 93 MPH in about 20 feet, and was completely out of sight in that one leap, because of the thickness of the underbrush. I found him, but the blood trail was very light.

What I want is, preferbly, a bang flop, but if that doesn't happen, I want a big enough hole so that lots of blood leaks out.

I sent you a PM a few weeks ago. You must have been gone huntin'.

Robert

IN my expiereance the exit holes made by TSX are small to the point that very little blood spills out.
IMO if your goin to give up wound channel size for the sake of penetration and have the exit hole just above caliber size, whats the point?

TTSX.

It doesnt expand any wider so what difference will it make?

I'd probably mix some running gear/bone if I was all caught up in having an animal go as short a distance as possible with a bullet that doesn't open "as large" in lung tissue; Then again, the DRT everytime is elusive at best.

The last Partitions I saw ( 4 358cal. 250gr.) only had a very small amount of blood from entrance wounds....what could that mean? (grins)

A small exit hole in the hide may be common because the bullet holds together well. That does not, unless you're just plain stupid, equal a small wound channel.

A fawn shot a couple weeks ago with a TTSX had a caliber size entrance hole in the side and a quarter size exit hole in the hide on the other side. What went on in between is what you would expect out of 130 grains moving at 3000 FPS. With the hide off you could reach through with your fist.

The exit holes in the hide tend to be smaller because the bullet holds together well. That's a fact of life with any tough bullet. If you want a bullet that doesn't hold together well you're going to live with the baggage it brings like deflection on bone and frequent failure to exit which for damn sure will make less blood spill out.

According to the reports I've heard so far, the TTSX DOES open wider than the TSX. That hollow cavity is different on the TTSX. It's obviously wider, but I suspect that it's longer as well. I'll dissect one soon enough and see for myself.

Of course it doesnt.
Unless your plain stupid its no stretch to figure out that mono metal bullets penetrate more at the expense of wound channel size.
Jordan, the sectioned ones I have seen looked to have the same depth cavity. The expanded ones I saw seem to bare this out as well.

Or too stupid to figure out that you get the penetration courtesy of the weight retention which is virtually always 100% vs 60% for a cup and core. Holding bullets together has always been the big part of what gives you penetration and fragmenting them alwys the big part of what cause lacking penetration.

Or too stupid to realize that Weight retention has less impact on penetration than frontal area. Witness a Hornady Interbond or Swift Scirocco 1. Both expand to very wide frontal areas and retain a large percentage of there weight, but neither will penetrate as far as a Nosler Partition which loses a fair percentage of its weight.

IME the TSX bullets in 7mm cal and up (I have nos experience with smaller) totally destroy the internal organs and do not leave small wound channels as the hole in this Zebras heart will attest;

338 Federal with 210 grain TSX range approximately 100 yards


Exit hole in the hide was not large, but the wound channel was and always is IME