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

Here is a thread that doesn't like TSX bullets because they produce too much damage complete with picture to back up his statements. This thread was started by an African PH


http://www.go-on-safari.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1102&start=0

And your acctual personal experience on game with TSX bullets is?

We can probably ALL agree that the "failure mode" for the TSX is to underexpand, and still penetrate.

And that the failure mode for many or most other bullets is to overexpand and not penetrate.

I'm not the saltiest pretzel in the bag, having only killed around 20 big game animals, but dang... overexpansion and lack of penetration is just not something I've EVER seen, with bullets including Corelokt, Silvertips, Interlocks, Ballistic Tips, Accubonds, Partitions, and whatever Federal loads in their .32 WS Classic load. Calibers to include 30-30, 30-06, .358, .325 WSM, .32 WS, 7mm-08... I've only recovered ONE bullet and that was this year, on a buck shot at 40 yards with a magnum rifle, where the bullet smashed right through the hip joint and then went 39" and ended up under the bucks chin. That was an Accubond.

So, if I saw the NEED for a bullet who's failure mode was to underexpand, and yet would pretty much always penetrate, I'd load TSX's happily. They tend to shoot great. But I just don't see the need.

I reserve the right to change my opinion if personal observations warrant it, though <g>.

John, read what I said again. I don't need to have killed with a TSX, in order to fail to see the NEED for more penetration. I'm getting PLENTY of penetration! So then, I look for other attributes in a bullet- such as wound channel volume, etc.

Hell we'll all be shooting copper bullets soon enough for environmental reasons, so you'll win this one in the end, John!

Nice elk by the way!

He hasnt used them because he hasnt needed to, at least that is what I am reading him as saying.

Not sure why his experience with the bullet has anything to do with his statement.

NAB work for him, therefore doesnt need the penetration of the TSX.

His statement says nothing else.

It is statements by those that have no experience with them and them make statements like " TSX's leave small wound channels" is what gets these things stirred up as they continue to spout off BS with nop proof and or experience to back up thier claims

Except, I have used them and am currently using them. I just do not have the blinders of brand loyalty on...

That's exactly it. I have not seen the need for a super-penetrator that sometimes fails to open up, on 18 deer and 2 elk. There are plenty of great bullets out there- the Accubond being one that I personally like, the TSX being another that I just have not seen any rational NEED for.

Now, put me on a caribou hunt with grizzlies in the area and I'd probably run TSX's in my .325. There'd be a reasonable NEED for that kind of overpenetration.

John, I don't want to fight with you. I will concede that my "cult" statement was a little out there. I apologize for that. I meant it to be funny but you guys are well past fun and games in this thread <g>.

Jeepers Creepers guys, hunting season ain't even OVER yet and we are already starting this [bleep]! It's gonna be a long, cold winter...

Crap! Gotta run. You guys will have to beat up on each without me...

You have to be a member to access that link, but here are the photos. The PH is a friend of mine. The rifle in question is a 7 mag and the ammo was Federal with 150 (?) grain TSXs.

This is a dik dik shot at 55 yard.



This is a gerenuk shot at 80 yards.



Lastly, this is the soulder of a lesser kudu shot at 110 yards.



These animals were all taken by the same hunter, on the same safari, with te same rifle/ammo combination. Now, someone please explain to me about how the TSX makes a smaller wound channel than more conventional cup and core bullets.......

I have no blinders of loyality, but I can observe the rests... To claim that the wound channels are small is laughable

Those pics are both amazing and appalling. I have never seen such carnage in the dozens of X shots I have viewed the results of. (Nor would I have produced dozens of such kills since that kind of trauma is one of the main things I shot the Barnes bullet for lack of.) I liked the long, fairly narrow bullet track they made either through flesh or bone, until they used up their momentum; not a pencil hole, not a balloon, just a decent long hole. That works.

I sure havent seen anything like that with TSX's or X's..

I have a fraction of the experience of most of you. I've only been hunting for a few years. I've always used TSXs, and now I have to as I hunt in the Condor range of central CA, no lead zone. I've shot several pigs, and this year a cow elk. All have been one shot kills with a .308, between 100-400 yds, mostly because of my incredible marksmanship skills ;), none of the animals were "blown up", or had excessive tissue damage. My friend made a frontal shot with a .308 on a cow elk that entered at the second rib, traveled lengthwise through the animal, and lodged in the back leg. The bullet was recovered, and it looked like something that should be on the cover of the Barnes catalog. Perfect!

One of my mentors, a guide for over 30 years, and a big fan of the TSX, put it to me in very simple terms, "when a lead and copper bullet expands, it acts like a fist because it just flattens out, when a TSX expands, it acts like a broadhead with its sharp petals". All the science and physics aside, could this simple fact have anything to do with anything?

Gee, I go away for a week on a hunting trip and this thread takes on a life of its own.

There seems to be a lot of speculation here.

I have personally shot several dozen animals with TSX's of various sizes, and seen a lot more animals shot from various rifles. All of these animals were opened up to see the results. The bullets have ranged from .224 to .375 in diameter, and muzzle velocities have ranged from 2500 to nearly 4000 fps. In all cases the bullets expanded, as I have yet to see a TSX fail to do so. The animals ranged from 25 to 1500 pounds in size, and ranges anywhere from just off the muzzle to around 500 yards. I have also observed some fairly similar bullets in action, including a lot of Fail Safes, E-Tips, etc. So there is quite a bit of hunting data in my bank.

I have also shot TSX's (and similar bullets) into a lot of different kinds of "media," from dry newspaper to ballistic gelatin to Test Tube wax. The last, by the way, holds the "permanent wound channel" much better than any other kind of media I've encountered so far, hence this is easily measured by pouring water into the cavity until it's filled. While no kind of media perfectly matches animal tissue (since animals are made up of several kinds of tissue), testing in various media does show some trends.

My observations are not just the personal observations of one hunter, since I have read much of scientific literature on bullet wounds.

It is simple physics that deep penetration is purchased at the price of the size of the initial wound channel, which is in turn mostly controlled by the MAXIMUM expansion of the bullet. This is not always the FINAL expansion width, by the way.

The easiest way to demonstrate this is by comparing a bullet that almost totally disintegrates (such as a fragile varmint bullet) with one that doesn't expand at all (a solid). The varmint bullet penetrates very little, but makes a wide hole. The solid penetrates deeply, but makes a narrow hole. All expanding bullets perform somewhere between these two extremes.

Yes, TSX's can create enormous tissue destruction, especially if they hit bone or even an area of looser skin and/or fat. I have seen a 140 TSX from a .270 Winchester almost blow a coyote in half--and the same load, from the same rifle, at just about the same 200-yard range, punch a 3/4" hole through a spike bull elk a couple of days later. The elk just stood there for quite a while, obviously hard hit but just as obviously not falling. It could not be shot again because a cow elk had moved up behind it. Eventually the cow moved, and the spike was shot through the shoulders, which dropped it. Even then it didn't die, but lay there with its head up for at least half a minute. The first shot was through both lungs and the top of the heart--and yes, the bullet expanded. Or at least it appeared to. A 3/4" hole (.75 inch) is a LOT bigger than a .277" hole.

In general TSX's kill somewhat quicker than on that elk, but there is always a variation between individual animals. On average, however, bullets that shed some weight do create bigger immediate wound channels and hence do kill quicker that bullets that retain all their weight, like the TSX and several others. This is indeed simple physics, and is (once more) ON AVERAGE. Hence when I read of TSX's dropping every game animal on impact, I know that the observer is shooting for shoulder/spine shots, or has shot very few animals, or is engaged in some sort of selective memory.

Also, evidently some folks think that there is some substantial difference in how quickly various expanding bullet take to expand fully. There is not. Almost all designs will fully expand by the time their full length has entered either game or test media.

The only exception I have seen is the Berger VLD, which normally doesn't start to expand for 1.5 to 2.0 inches after hitting game.
Then they generally disintegrate--and yes, VLD's have ON AVERAGE resulted in the largest number of very quick kills with typical chest shots on big game. This is because they make the biggest holes of any bullet out there, through disintegration.

Thank you for your lucidity, Mule Deer.

I like how Accubonds work. Blow up early, then keep on digging. My sample of 2 deer and 4 elk has shown remarkable consistency that way, and several of those animals had major bone involvement early on. Does that jibe with what you've seen, MD, or is my sample size still too small?

Great post MD!

Gee, isnt that what I said all along. Miles, JW and the rest of the Barnes cheer leading crew can choke on that..

Why do you seem so angry?

I am not angry at all, just think the Barnes cheer leading squad is full of crap.

One could say that those who dismiss Barnes bullets outright are even more full of crap in the face of so much hard evidence to their effectiveness. There are way too many myths circulating, but that is the nature of the internet. Lots of the TSX supporters here have used them extensively before they drew their conclusions, not basing them on one anomoly.