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

Wow. That was not only unnecessary, but rather pathetic. To what length will you go to discount the photos posted by jwp? If there is one thing I know about him, he is not a liar and I suspect you would be feeling his size 10 if you even suggested that he is a liar in his company. I think it is rather sad that grown men (I can assume that most of you aren't teenagers posting on this thread) cannot discuss without it regressing to what this has become. BWalker, have you ever shot a zebra? Have you really used TSXs? Well then, let's see the photos. Anyone this interested in bullet performance and this invested in proving the ineffectiveness of Barnes bullets surely has made the effort to document their findings in the field. Right?

This might be one of the worst topic/threads I've read so far.

That Zebra heart fell on a tail gate of a truck??

That Zebra heart fell on a tail gate of a truck??
Whitworth, once again I have used TSX and am currently using them. I dont get off by taking pictures of gut piles though. As I said previously our deer season opens tomorrow and I will be sure to take some gut pics just for the cheerleading squad.

Yes BWalker they did. Since the Zebra was hanging and the skiners were standing in the bed of the truck

Isn't it quite apparent that hte skinner (that's the guy holding the knife with the rubber glove on) is bent over holding his knife for size comparison

Yes, it is. Its also apparent how close the camera was and that the lung is pulled over to the right hand side of the pic. Even if you discount both of these points its still not very impressive.

That is correct. However, it has been out of production in that exact form for only about four years, maybe five. And the bullet which replaces it is virtually identical in construction except it has grooves to help it shoot better.



I have never argued it was anything different. My argument is that having equal momentum at one point does not mean two objects will always retain the same momentum. My point in that thread was that I had my doubts that the material (copper) may not be carrying that momentum well enough for a target as resistant to penetration as moose can be. I further doubt that a smaller bullet of similar material and construction would be better. I was not attempting to discredit the XFB, XBT, XLC, TSX, or TTSX. I happen to think the old 225 grain .338 XFB was a pretty darned good bullet. But I also have some doubts about the distance which was being considered. Would another bullet have worked better in that exact situation? I don't know. It's farther than I like to begin shooting at moose with anything I use nor would I recommend it. That particular shot distance was a misjudgemnet on my part. My mistake IOW and I feel responsible for the bullet not working better because I should not have taken a shot. Still, the bullet neither penetrated well nor did it create much trauma - other than slicing an artery- in its unexpanded condition.




FWIW, I liked the original X versions very much and they worked very well nearly every time I used them on dozens of animals, large and smaller. In fact, there was a time when I might have been considered a "cheerleader" for them. And at that time JJHACK was poo-poohing them loudly. Obviously that has changed. Some of my favorites simply vanished and, being tired of getting something different whenever I had loads worked up, I simply decided to stop messing with them for awhile. I have shot some TSXs and they do seem to shoot well easier than the old grooveless bullets. I have yet to shot any animals though and probably won't until I see where they're going in their designs - and I've done more tests. The X design does have a bigger window of "workability" than many bullets do - and I like that. But, of course, no one likes what happens on the fringes of that window regardless what bullet is being discussed.

I suspect the TTSX may be the culminating product in the design with fewer later tweaks.



I think Barnes knows some things they don't make a lot of waves about. And, likely, the TTSX is an answer to that.

(But refering back to the "308" thread, I'd still like to see what such a bullet does on smaller stuff "way out there" before it gets touted as an "all distances, all purpose" bullet.)

Momentum for cooper of the same weight is the same as lead of the same weight momentum of any material of the same weight and speed is the same no matter what the material

Of course, but having equal momentum at a given moment does not mean that two different objects will still be equal in their momentum at a later point in time. The shape and density of the objects affects that. Even aluminum - or styrene foam- have the same momentum for a given object weight and speed. That doesn't mean they will all be carrying the same momentum after some distance of travel.

Less dense objects will always have momentum issues which denser ones don't have. While the hardness and toughness of copper, and the design and construction of the X bullet design combine to mask that problem within the "window of performance," it still is a physical limitation. I happen to believe, based on what I saw and attempted to communicate, that that copper slug no longer carried enough speed, momentum, power, or what-have-you, that it needed either to penetrate well or to expand. That was why I had issues with the use of the similarly constructed 150 TTSX in 30 caliber for that distance and target. I could be wrong, but until I see some evidence to the contrary - which no one has offered in that thread or elsewhere that I have seen- I am still going to stand with erring toward caution. It has nothing at all to do with my saying TSX or TTSXs are not good in general. That is neither intended nor implied.

Dude,

Get a 458 Winny and 450 North Fork solids....

Your going to have issues with almost any expanding bullet sooner or later if tumbling and deflection are your criteria...stuff that gets a fat face can deflect, genuflect, and not go straight; just plain nature of the beast...when they still kill despite that, well?

Yes, of course and that's precisely the point. From the outside of the animal I am shooting at the heart/lungs. Deflection means I miss what I was aiming at. Like the lead poisoning, it's not a question of if, but one of how much. The problems arise when the bullets deflect enough to kill poorly or not at all. Both of which I have seen more of than I would like to have.

So you are going the 458/solid route? Seems the best way to minimize your issues.

I use the old 90 and 95 gr X bullets and the 85gr TSX in my 243 with 35gr IMR 4350 and whitetails go straight down. i have never measured the exit hole on a deer i have taken with one, but if my memory serves me right i would say it would be between 1-2 inch wide exit holes, and thats pretty good for a little 6mm in my book.

I think I might go to a 375 of some sort first. If that doesn't work good enough then I have a reason to get a 500.

Didn't find the answer to my question regarding the comparison of wound channels created by a lighter and faster X bullet vs a heavier and slower standard bullet (such as an interlock) when fired from the same rifle, but page 22 really made me laugh. Spit my coffee on my desk. The words reminded me of the board meeting during Jim Carey's Liar Liar ......Dick head etc.
dan

For what it`s worth, I found on the web, extensive results on wound channels done by the US Army, with corresponding charts etc. If you enjoy that type reading and associated data, it might be worth looking up. Answeres or addresses many issues broched on the topic here. I did find it interesting, proving some old-wifes tales to be just that..tales.

As for me, JBs` statement in part about a large hole equating to killing power fits well with experience in using my 45x110x500 74 Sharps,1250 fps, which dose make a big hole and on deer and lopes, killed very quickly.