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

How is your experience objective when it is obviously biased in the other direction? Your posts prove your obvious bias against TSXs.

I have been loading my own ammunition for 52 years. I have been killing deer with that ammo for 48 years. I carefully examine every single one of them. When I started many bullets were much less reliable. Accuracy wise it was bad enough. Performance wise they sucked. Core lokts came along. Partitions came along. Neither were all that good at first. I have everything available today and I have no bias other than I want the best I can get. I Use TSXs and TTSXs because I don't find anything better. I can match the accuracy. I can match the performance most of the time. I cannot match it all and get non-toxic loads any other way.

When I can take a little 85 grain TSX and put it in behind the diaphragm taking two ribs on the way in and then perfectly lay open the heart to expose all four chambers and valves and destroy the lung to the point of no remaining recognizable lung tissue and still have enough starch to take the first two ribs one the way out of the chest and make it most of the way up the neck before it exits, about 30 inches of penetration, I recognize it for what it is. I have seen enough bullets hit ribs like that and not penetrate the body but instead just slide around outside just under the skin. I have seen enough bullets come undone hitting rib much less heavier bone. I have seen enough bullets fail to expand.

I don't consider Barnes bullets magic. I don't consider them perfect. But, I do recognize the best bullet anyone has yet offered me and I recognize enough ignorant BS from people with their head so far up their backside they are looking at the world with a belly button perspective on life. I don't give a tinkers damn whether some fool wants to use something else. I use other bullets when they are better for the job at hand.

For big animals I intend to eat there is nothing even close. For big animals that may well do you harm if you don't kill them they are the bullet of choice by the people who know what they are about. Not all of them maybe, but certainly most.

We live in a world full of opinionated fools who have no idea of what they are about. Some of them don't believe lead is poison. Some believe all manner of nonsense. Every time they run their mouths they influence more fools, and sometime people who just haven't been around long enough to know what they are looking at.

Barnes has led the way and given us something good enough to make the other bullet makers follow. That will make things better yet. It will make Hornady better. It will make Speer better. It will make Nosler better. It will make them all better. It will make us better.

You don't like them? Don't use them. I like them and I like what they have done and are doing to bullet technology. You think lead in your food is harmless, well maybe you ought to consider whether you might have already had too much.

I like the Win. FailSafe. Lead is good; just don't eat it, or green meat........but then I am around lead 24/7 so take it (advice) FWIW.

Precisely... The TSX is one of if not the finest hunting bullet for rifles on the market and any one that claims that they don't shread the vitials is most certainly full of it.

For big bore handguns the wide meplat flat point hard cast still rien supreme other than for the magnificent Punch bullet

Hawk the Failsafe was a great bullet and it's replacement is a lesser bullet

Muledeer,
I could not agree with you more.
Many people relate the appearance of a recovered bullet to killing power believing that the prettier it looks the better it kills.
Others relate killing power to penetration, strictly.
I love to have so many options, and I constantly try this bullet or the other, but I have shot too many animals in the ribs with "soft" bullets that produced instant kills to think a monolityc is the only way to go.
Regards,
BBerg

You dont see me hyping any bullet companies.
And I dont dislike the TSX. I am just aware of where all that penetration comes from and its a trade off I dont want to make for a deer bullet.

No, I haven't seen you hype any bullets, but I also haven't seen you miss a chance to bash the TSX or any other Barnes bullet for that matter. The opportunity presents itself and you don't hesitate to let it rip.

Perhaps,

I have never fired one; I still have a good stock of FS's.

Do you have any pictures to back up your BS?
Your posts are always of a negative nature..

I agree with this one; Many do not like the way many lead cores, even the premium ones, lose weight (because it can sacrifice penetration).

I have a 338/250 NP Gold recovered from media that retained about 85% of its weight and penetrated a lot of dry newsprint. (Sorry, not very scientific). A 358 250 cast softnose (lower S.D., lower speed) penetrated just as deep but did not have a nose left; it "spent" itself creating the wound channel. Alas, it did the same work, actually it created a larger "wound" at its greatest point, because it has no jacket....but recovery style is everything.

Personally, the Barnes bullets I have used/seen in action have created wounds to vital organs that were never lacking; I don't put much creedence in creating the largest possible wounds, just adequate ones. The use of 224's on deer sized game generally points this out, as does 270 v. 338 on elk arguments...

Wow - Some of you guys get pretty serious regarding these Barnes bullets. Me I tried the original X and was less than impressed. I have not dropped any game with the new TSX or TTSX. Have to say for game up to caribou I have never felt lacking with any good cup/core bullets. Elk and up have been handled just fine thank you with Nosler Partitions and Bearclaws. I just may have to try the Barnes again.

My posts simply point out the design trade offs of the TSX. That is to say they trade of wound channel width for penetration and ultimately kill thin skinned game less decisively than a cup and core.
Its the cheerleading squad that takes this as negative, but it is 100% factual.

Now that doesn't make any sense.

Of course you are apparently blind and can't see any of the pictures of the massive damage to the vital organs.


Here one for you and this wound was created by a flat point solid from a 454 notice that the leg is missing, it pulled off during skining. The poor hog when down instantly

It's funny, just a couple of days ago I hit a very large bodied buck (probably close to 280lbs live weight) with a 100gr TSX out of my .25-06. Of course, you probably would predict that he ran for 100 yards or more before dying, because of the "trade-off" in a quick kill for penetration, that you associate with this bullet.

Well, that buck just reared up on his hind legs and fell over backwards, kicked a couple of times, and lay still. It was all over in about 2 or 3 seconds. The bullet did, indeed, exit the off-side of the buck, so there's your penetration. However, inside the ribcage of the buck was lung soup. There were no significant chunks of lung left, and the entire cavity was like a stew, full of blood and chunkies.

How much quicker of a kill can you ask for?

Yes, TSX's will kill quickly. All bullets will, on some animals. Often this is helped by rib fragments. But examples of one don't prove anything.

What I am talking about is the average kill, over dozens or even hundreds of animals. Eventually, if enough animals are shot with bullets that don't expand very widely or lose some weight (fragments) during that expansion, then some animals will go quite a ways before dropping. I have seen this fairly often with TSX's, as well as some other super-penetrating bullets.

One example is the pronghorn buck mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Despite a good hit through both lungs with a .25 100-grain TSX started at over 3500 fps, he went around 150 yards before falling. That's the farthest I've seen any animal go after a good hit with a TSX and similar bullets, but have seen quite a few go 50-100 yards before falling from solid heart/lung hits. The percentage of such long death runs I've see is higher with petal-type bullets than with "softer" bullets. And that is to be expected.

This does not mean I don't thionk TSX's (or any other similar bullets) aren't good bullets. I do, and use them a lot. But they have their limitations, like any other bullet. And the limitation of such bullets is the relatively small frontal expansion, with no extra damage done from secondary bullet fragments.

I have shot all sorts of bullets into both animals and test media, and the biggest factor in penetration is NOT retained weight, but frontal area. And frontal "area" is not just the width of the mushroom, but the overall area. X's and similar bullets have spaces between the petals. This overall smaller frontal area is the biggest factor that allows such bullets to penetrate deeper, NOT retained weight.

As an example, Wooldleigh Weld-Cores are designed to open up very widely, and retain 90% of their weight or more. During a bullet test on cull animals, I once observed my friend Ron Spomer shooting a 100-pound deer with a .416 wildcat using a 360-grain Woodleigh started at 2650 fps. Ron wanted to see what penetration would be like, so took a rear angling shot. The bullet hit just behind the rear of the rib cage on the right side--and we found it under the hide just inside the left shoulder. It retained around 92% of its weight, but it also opened up to about 2.5 times it's original .416 diameter. And THAT is why it didn't exit.

I have done many, many bullet tests with Nosler Partitions, which as many of us know, tend to lose the front end on expansion, leaving a relatively small mushroon. Often the weight loss is 35% or even more. Yet Partitions will generally penetrate almost as deeply as TSX's of the same diameter and weight in media--and also penetrate very deeply in game. The reason? Relatively small frontal area, which is more important in penetration that weight retention (see Woodleigh example).

Partitions do tend to stop under the hide more than TSX's. I suspect, however, that this is because of the more rounded mushroom of an expanded Partition, rather than the petal-front of a TSX (or E-Tip, or whatever). I have seen too many Partitions go lengthwise or close to it on deer and elk to believe they don't penetrate a LOT. Yet many hunters assume they won't because of the lower retained weight, because we've been told (especially by some gun writers, who should know better) that retained weight is the only factor in penetration.

Many, many shooters fail to realize that designing ANY expanding bullet is a series of compromises. The laws of physics make it so. There is no bullet made that opens up widely AND penetrates deeply. Those are mutually exclusive things.

That is also there is no such thing as the perfect bullet. That doesn't stop most of us from deciding there is, usually based on a handful of animals--or even one.

Jordan, I was going to reply to your post, but I think JB sumed it up pretty well.
I might also say that I have shot several deer with my 25-06 AI using the 100 gr TSX. One ran a significant distance despite a good hit, the other two ran about fifty yards or so. All hits where heart/lung shots.

Not that you need any support for what you have already stated on numerous occasions in this regard. However, I had a classic case of what you state here on a moose I shot - several times - with 140 grain bullets out of a 6.5X55. Two were Partitons, two were A-Frames. The shots were all broadside from the left side, all through the ribs, all including muscle of, but no bone of the leg(s).

The Partitions were both stopped by hide on the far side.



...with some obvious weight loss. The A-Frames, which I didn't recover, were both in the muscle of the offside leg, presumably a bit heavier - and broader- than the Partitions.




Very true. And I think those of us who have been disappointed by certain bullets at times, have been so because we may have been a bit too enamoured by them initially - speaking for myself anyway.

I appreciate the breadth and depth of the experiences you relate so well!

Thanks!

In the tests I (and others) have made with A-Frames and Partitions, in general they both penetrate to about the same depth, everything else being equal. The A-Frames generally have a larger frontal area (which tends to stop them when they run into the far-side hide) but retain more weight.

Or at least they do in lighter weights. As I have written before, the biggest Nosler Partitions have the partition mocved forward, and are designed to retain 90% of their weight, give or take 5% or so. This now applies to all of them of 9.3mm or larger, and may to some smaller ones as well. One 225 .338 Partition I shot into a musk ox retained around 85% of its weight, and all except a small fragment of the front core was gone.

As a good friend who also tests a lot of bullets once said to me, "The more I do this, the more variables turn up!"

One thing we can count on, though: bullet placement is still by far the biggest variable in the whole equation.

Now that we are comparing frontal areas of expanding bullets and quickness of kills, is it safe to say a 338 will kill deer sized game quicker than say a 257 Roberts or 270, all else being equal?