Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Barnes vs Partitions vs Ballistic Tips

I havent read all 8+ pages of comments on this thread. Seems like a waste. Bullets are very good these days. Pick the one that shoots best in your rifle and be done with it. You will kill plenty of game.

If I have to choose, give me the Barnes TTSX, but I`d hunt with any of them.

No, NRAWC is about 3-1/2 hours from here. Don't get there often enough but love the steel range.

good on you!
use what works

Nice post and I love shrapnel's contribution as it still has me chuckling to myself. Basically to me it shows the futility of most of the arguments on here concerning bullet performance. What I actually see in the illustrations is 6 very dead deer and filled tags.

Maybe I missed it... at what range were these gel tests made? Which is to ask, the pictures illustrate expected results at what range?

I'm a little late to the party, but here goes: Speaking in terms of energy transfer, I'm with Coyote on this -- which is to say that I'm on the side of physical science.

According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, all energy within a closed system is constant -- it cannot be created or destroyed (only transferred). The reason that we don't hunt with FMJ spire points is not because they don't expand...that would be putting effect before cause. It's because they transfer very little energy to the surrounding tissue. Barring an impact with bone, they make pencil-thin entry and exit wounds. They lose so little energy, in fact, that they easily have sufficient remaining momentum to penetrate fully in almost every case.

Wounding is caused by energy transfer, and it cannot happen any other way. Now, how or where that wounding occurs -- and whether it's sufficient to cause quick death -- is another matter. I tend to put monometal bullets in the upper shoulder because I want to ensure that sufficient energy is transferred to the parts that matter. They still penetrate 9 times out of 10, and energy remaining in the bullet after it passed through the far side is of no use to me.

I agree but I would like to point out that because a bullet does not exit you cannot assume that all its energy has been transfered to the animal, as a substantial part of the energy the bullet carries may be spent in the bullet deformation/fragmentation.
Also, you cannot assume that all the energy that is transfered to the animal is spent in destroying tissue as, again, a substantial part of its energy maybe wasted in the form of heat transfered to the animal with no lethal effect whatsoever.
BBerg

As Richardca99 states:

"Wounding is caused by energy transfer, and it cannot happen any other way. Now, how or where that wounding occurs -- and whether it's sufficient to cause quick death -- is another matter. "

That is exactly the point I've been trying to make and ricardaca99 states it well and succinctly.

BBerg, we disagree, but only on one subtle point. If a bullet comes to rest inside an animal, it most certainly expended all of its energy into the animal during the process of transit and deformation (save whatever miniscule amount of potential energy remains as a result of gravity and its distance from the ground at rest -- sorry, couldn't resist).

All energy would be expended into the animal as a result of inelastic collision; some is transferred to kinetic energy (tissue damage), some is lost as heat, some acts as momentum, etc. You are absolutely correct that not all of it is "useful" in killing the animal, however.

As hunters, we get to decide how that energy is expended by selecting our bullet type, velocity, and shot placement. At nominal velocities, I like a cup-and-core to go into the lungs; I like a monometal for high shoulder shots, and I'll put a Partition absolutely anywhere! In a way, I'm choosing to expend a particular bullet's energy in a way that I think will be most destructive/useful for the game at hand.

tag

Geez not this again... ..... the physics of energy transfer leaves my eyes glazed over.i haven't looked at an energy table in years......

The mechanics don't.

Energy figures don't take into account the expansion characteristics of the bullet,which will vary with its construction(wide or narrow expansion,penetration,etc),velocity level at impact,and the part of the animal it strikes(ribs, lungs, shoulder bones muscles etc),all of which in the aggragate determine the size and nature of the wound channel.Its a different discussion for every single hit due to all the variables involved.

I fail to see how the bullet being stopped against the off side rubbery hide,somehow makes it a better killer than the one that punches an exit hole;or vice versa... so long as the vitals are scrambled in the process.


Let the games begin! Popcorn?

FORMID-

i think you have a good idea here but some of your choices are flawed seriously...

why would i shoot a 168 TSX at 308win velocities at a deer?

thats just not taking true advantage of the TTSX bullet design...

the consensus on ttsx (whcih open more reliably and faster than the tsx) is shoot light for caliber and drive as fast as possible


i would bet your finding with the 130 TTSX out of the 308win at 3100 fps or the 110 TTSX at 3400fps would differ from the 168 TSX at pedestrian speeds..

i welcome your thoughts on this but from my seat the study was designed for the barnes to lose...a 168 CNC and a 168 mono are different animals

Good post Sako, right on point.

SAKO75,

On the other hand, I've shot big game animals with both the .30-06 and .300 Winchester Magnum using the 168 TSX and the 168 Berger VLD. The muzzle velocity from the .30-06 was about 2900 fps, and from the .300 Winchester 3150. The Berger crated a MUCH bigger wound channel, whether it was started at 2900 or 3150, than the 168 TSX. The same could be said of the 185 Berger VLD at 2750 from the .30-06.

Md-

Not doubting the VLD makes a bigger wound channel...

I'm doubting that 168 tsx at 2620 leaves the Same footprint on deer as the 130 ttsx at 3100 or the 110 at 3350

In your case, you examined the Barnes wound channel thus you had a dead animal so the channel was big enough apparently

If we are talking deer here, most folks live in states where they can take several. I don't see meat damage as a big issue in states where you can take multiple deer, beside, there is really not much meat at all on deer ribs.

When I use a Barnes they are light for caliber. Matter of fact I would probably choose the 110gr Blackout bullet in both. 308's and 300 WM if I wanted a Barnes in 30cal. However I choose bullets that will work across the entire spectrum of a particular rifles range. That means at least 600 yards for big game rounds. The BC and terminal ballistics of Barnes bullets is not optimum for lower velocity impacts nor do the kill as quickly as others at any range.

I agree, I would not use Barnes for longer distance with my 308, I would look to the 168 BT or a VLD in 168 or 175

Your diagrams at the beginning of the post show 168 tsx and 308 ...
That's why I mentioned it in my thread. I think you would agree that monos driven super fast and impacting at highe speeds or impacting bone are better than slow speeds and or no bone

I must say.... I don't know how you measure that?
I've killed 5 deer all within 50 yards with the 130 ttsx out of 308 win
Results:
1 ran 20 yards
1 ran 10 yards
3 bang flops, didn't take a step

5 deer total of 30 yards between all of them.... 6 yards Per deer average

I guess their is a chance that one could run 50-100 yards but I haven't seen it....

I used the same bullet weights for all to keep things even/fair. All else being equal a TSX/GMX/etc will have a long, relatively narrow wound channel in comparison to other bullets.


I have shot hundreds and have witnessed many more than that killed, and deer on average travel much farther when shot with hard bullets such as Barnes than with bullet such as NBT's, Amax's, Bergers, Etc. Which makes sense of course since those bullets create a bigger wound channel.