Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Re-visiting the Barnes TSX Bullet

Big Stick, Mule Deer, Dr Howell, or anyone else.

My question is copper fowling with the Barnes TSX bullet. I've heard some say the copper used by Barnes is so soft that it can coat and ruin the rifling of a rifle. In several of my rifles, I dont notice this shooting the TSX, however, I clean after 20 -40 shots, or less.

My question is simple, Has Barnes eliminated the fowling issues associated with the original x bullet in your opinion?

Fowling issues? The birds won't cooperate? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Dave

whatever, fouling...........there.

I'm sorry if I seemed pedantic, I was just funnin' ya. How's that for grammar?

Dave

I never could spell anyway...........LOL

The reason I asked the question about the TSX's is I still run into people claiming they didnt solve the fouling in the barrel issue, but I sure havent had any problems in either my 240 wby or 257 wby. I spoke with a guy the other day who claims Barnes bullets copper is so soft, it permanantly coats and destroys the rifling in a barrel.

Was just asking the experts to chime in. No problem on the comment, hey I can be outspoken also.....like I load the Accubond, but I truely think the Scirocco is a better bullet. I also think of all 3 of the new bonded bullets the accubond penetrates the least, and retains the least amount of weight. That doesnt mean it is a bad bullet, just reflects reality in what I have read.

Aggiedog

Think about it- the copper is so soft, yet it is able to destroy steel rifling! Who ever stated that is an idiot! My Rem 700classic in 6.5X55 shot its smallest group sub 1/2" MOA after it was copper fouled with the original X bullet.Just because you can see copper fouling does not mean accuracy will suffer.All it really means is that cleaning takes a little longer, actually once a load is found it is better to leave a little copper fouling than cleaning back to bare metal as the zero has already been established with the fouled barrel.

All the B.S. that is stated about the X bullet is just that- one of my favorites is that it "just penciled right through without expanding" I'll bet that anyone who has made that statement did not butcher their own, for if they did they would find a path of total destruction thats almost amazing.

While im not an expert i would not hesitate to say that the X bullet and TSX are perfect designs.Its hard for things to go wrong with a monolithic bullet, there are no parts(ie; jacket or steel inserts) that can become unbalanced or non-concentric.The copper used in X bullets is heat treated to make it harder than conventional copper, but like all rifles, each is a world unto itself.In other words, some rifles will copper foul with X's and others will not, but i do not believe either condition helps or hinders performance, you just have to shoot em to see.

I wanted others take because I like them also, and I have yet to have experienced any copper fouling problems, yet keep hearing all of this stuff.

Well, I still haven't had the opportunity to try the TSX bullet yet, I am busy using up the XBTs in my 257 Roberts. I am just finishing load development, and if they foul spectacularly, I haven't noticed. I just fill the bore with Wipe Out and let it sit. And, if the bullet's performance on game is half as good as it's performance on paper- well, them ND whitetails had better stay hidden!

CAL9

If a barrel fouls with TSX's, it's likely to foul with everything else. I don't think they foul any more than a Nosler, Hornady, Speer, or any other tradtional bullet.

Personally, I think the fouling issue is a myth held over from way back when there was reports of "inconsistent" copper being used. I have found that individual barrels are far more liekly to be the culprit when ti comes to fouling than any particular bullet.

Has anyone used the 130 tsx in 264? I just got some and haven't tried them yet.

The only version I have used & can get a good comparison is the 200 TSX & 180 TSX vs. 200 "X" (moly coated) in a 300 winmag.
The TSX fouled less than the moly'd "X" & about the same or even less than the Sierra 200 SPBT. these (200 gr.) are moving just a skosh less than 3000 fps, the 180 TSX around 3100.
IMHO-Kinda think Barnes has solved the fouling problem.

Cal9 - I like WipeOut also. One thing that I haven't been able to figure out is how to keep it from billowing out the muzzle when it is full. Have you come up with anything?
Everybody - Has anyone come up with anything solid on load data for the TSX? Barnes just says to start with the data for the uncoated bullets, but I was wondering if anyone had come up with any sort of rule of thumb on the matter. Thanks

Seeing as how I have a box of 140gr TSX's in .277 on my bench just itching to be loaded, I would like to hear other's experiences with them--try, just try and keep it semi-objective <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

When the X's first came out, I figured them to be the answer to my prayers for a deep penetrating bullet. But...
I developed loads for 8 different rifles in 4 calibers with the early X bullets. My experience lived up to the X's reputation of being finicky in terms of accuracy and velocity--regardless if it was one of my factory or custom barrel rigs and regardless of seating depth. Although they invariably shot better with HOT loads. I also found their performance on critters to be rather inconsistent. Sometimes they appeared to pass through without expanding, sometimes they shed their petals and passed through, sometimes they performed just like they allegedly were intended to. I am well aware the monolithics are all about penetration--but a little more consistency in the expansion would've been nice.

Casey

I don't think they foul as bad as the original X's but they do seem to foul more than regular pills... regardless, my cleaning method is to do as little of it as possible until accuracy begins to fall off... I hate cleaning barrels more than handloading...

Whelenman,

I've used the 130 gr TSX in my 260 Rem. Shot great, RL19/45 gave me 1" groups at 2743 fps. It will go deer hunting this fall, for sure! No excessive fouling either.

I have 104 molyed TSX's (130 grain)down the spout so far of my Tikka 270 & have only dry brushed with a nylon brush. Accuracy hasn't suffered yet & I can't see any copper streaking on the rifling. I guess thats OK <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

badger

So far my experience with them regarding fouling has been good also. That is why I wanted to bring this back up as I think there still are people who are saddling the tsx with past history.

All barrels are a law unto themselves. I have a 7MM Rem Mag that almost refuses to foul with the TSX, while partitions leave fouling that is noticeable.

Chuck

Great googamooga, the nonsense one hears! I am not a fan of the original X-bullets (erratic pressures--but the TSX seem to be perfect. Spectacular accuracy, tremendous penetration and good expansion, and good velocity. If they do copper foul, so what? That's why Brownell's sells G-B Non-Imbedding Bore Cleaner. The only problem I've had with the TSXs is that they squirt out the bore so easily you have to use a lot more powder than standard to get them up to speed. Just follow the instuctions in the Barnes loading manual and smile a lot.

I've shot TSX's in a about a dozen rifles now. Only one refused to shoot them (which seems about like the average for any bullet) and on average fouling has been about like any standard gilding-metal-jacketed bullet.

One .300 WSM barrel does foul really badly with them, but it fouls with everything, the TSX's just a little more so. I expect this to diminish once the barrel is really broken in (mostly by scrubbing with JB, which is a lot cheaper and quicker than shooting 30 rounds and cleaning between each).

Whelenman--

I tried the 6.5mm 130 TSX in the .264 Winchester, an original Winchester Model 70 Westerner with 26" barrel. Best load was 66.5 grains Accurate MagPro for 3326 fps and groups well under an inch.

If you subscribed to HANDLOADER you would have read about it more than a month ago.

MD