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

S, your going to ignore the data... Fine by me.

Accubond.

What was the question again? <grin>

Miles I have no dog in this fight, but when I was testing bullets for my .25-06, I shot a variety of bullets into the bullet test tube and the wound cavity volumes were as follows as measured:

1.TBBC-24.5
2.NBT- 17.6
3.HIB- 16.9
4.HV - 14.8 -GS Custom HV
5.NAB- 14.3
6.NP - 11.8
7.TSX- 9.3
8.LRT- 1.5 -Lost River Technologies

Those were measured values, taking length of cavity multiplied by width by height (the last two being the same number).

Not knocking the TSX, I thing they are good bullets, just in my testing other things made bigger holes.

And yes, I have pictures.

Dont bother him with facts...

Show me the pictures. Show me the measurement methodology.

Show me the load data. Show me the test methodology.

Ok BWalker he's your chance.

Your data has a scale attached to each photo. I don't expect you to do the integration to calculate the cavity volume. I do expect you to be able to choose a criteria for beginning of wound cavity, a criteria for end of wound cavity and use simple geometry to calculate the conic volume of the beginning of the wound cavity, the cylindrical volume of the body of the wound cavity and the conic volume of the end of the wound cavity with your data. Use the photos you think prove your case. Show the beginning and end criteria you are using show the numbers you use for diameters.

Give me facts with a basis that allows a comparison and not some dip wad thing like Penetration Potential when you have an actual penetration test.

Simple multiplication. Simple design of measurements. The photos are good enough that you can get within 10% of the actual measurement. I will stipulate that you author did not manipulate the scale of the photos, that he placed the scale identically for each photo.

Show me the facts. Shut me TFU.

Doesn't that tube use wax as a medium? Doesn't seem to me to me to be a reasonable facsimile of flesh. JMHO.

What is a reasonable facsimile of flesh?

I simply stated I shot the bullets into a test medium and measure the cavity volume.

How do you measure cavity volumes in flesh?

Don't ge your blood pressure up. I necropsy virtually all of the animals I kill to see what kind of damage my bullet has produced. I would think that wax is a bit on the soft side to get an accurate idea how a bullet will behave when it hits flesh and bone. Just thinking out loud, and not attacking your test methodology.

Wax might not be a ideal test media( gelatin isnt either), but what it does is allow one to measure the resulting cavity.
Miles, I suppose you should get a hold of MR. Mann for the info you are requesting.
I suppose Mr Mann also is part of a wide ranging conspiracy to spread the idea that TSX's trade wound channel volume for penetration......

If I'd seen penetration (or rather lack of it) to be a PROBLEM with hunting bullets, then I suppose I'd be all over the X-bullet SOLUTION.

But I haven't, so I'm not.

Barnes gives these examples to refute the real-world examples that people have of these bullets not opening. It probably doesn't happen often. However, it doesn't take "often" to mess with one's confidence in a bullet.

FWIW, the Barnes X has been working very well, accuracy problems acknowledged in the early versions, most of the time. But if large wound cavities are what they have resorted to to get more reliable expansion, then there are plenty of other good choices which will work without destroying everything. One of the main reasons I used the X from the very beginning was the fact that they didn't create such huge trauma (though that can be very effective as a killing method). They have always worked great for me when getting bones involved.

Dirt ball marketing 101...
The minimal expansion that bullet shows would lead to very little damage and the permanent wound channel would be small.

... I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this... but doesn't that bullet, in the picture above, look a whole lot like the bullet the gentleman recovered from the SECOND warthog killed with it? The thread from a few months ago?

That bullet hardly opened up at an estimated 2700 fps impact speed on TWO warthogs.

Hat's off to Barnes for pioneering a new bullet, and I have no doubt they kill well, but the fact is that most X users are just plain zealots (dare I say "cult" <grin>) and that's what gets things stirred up on these threads. The bullet can do no wrong. It's perfect, and everything else sucks. Etc.

It's true, that bullet looks like some of Barnes early efforts, versions I never shot at game due to the minimal expansion they showed in testing. It is a rather decent amount of expansion though for the thickness and speed involved. The real proof, however, would be in what might happen in "real stuff".

The only dirt ball info is the info that you are spewing. ..............Here are real world results from TSX bullets not speculation or wax media results


Zebra Heart 338 Federal 210 TSX shot from approximately 100 yards





Bull Elk liver 180 grain TSX 30 Cal.





Pig shot at a lasered 350 yards 180 grain 30 cal. TSX





Eit hole from 180 grain TSX



TSX recovbered from acctual game






An 8mm CorLoc recovered from a Moose. This picture was originally posted by Canuck on Accurate Reloading.com

[img]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/jwp475/8mmFailedCoreloc.jpg[/img]


Of course those with an agenda will ignore these results. These aren't small wound channels by any stretch of the imagination

Not impressed..... We got a zebra heart that has the lungs splayed open to make the wound appear larger, a pig with a raking shot that essentialy unzipped it( any bullet would do this) and a gut shot that clipped the liver with unimpressive amount of damage.

Ignorance='s not being exposed to the infomation

Stupid ='s not being able to comprehend the infomation

I couldnt agree more..hint, hint....

Look in the Mirror