Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Alaska .270 gr TSX vs. 300 gr. TSX

Getting loaded for a 2015 Kodiak bear hunt. Any recommendations on the better triple shock bullet?

Bears speak to me of heavy bullets.

Though in TSX I wouldn't feel uncomfortable with a 270, if I was buying for that specifically would be 300s and break some bones.

Bear bones are considerably softer and less massive than say moose bone. They are incredible tough, but not not so that a bullet would notice.

I have sent quite a large number of 270gr Barnes through brown bears, mostly Kodiaks, and have never recovered a single bullet, including a number that went lengthwise through extremely big bears.

I like the old XLCs, but had to switch to TSX when I ran out.

270 is not gay in this case...

Either one would do the job if bullet is placed right. Which one shoots the best is the one to use. If I am going to hunt something that could bite back it would be the Woodleigh 350gr.PP bullet. Thinking about loading some up for the Ruger 375 Guide Gun.

Used 270 gr TSX on Kodiak this spring. I picked the 270 over the 300 as I felt the 300 was over kill. I like speed and a flatter trajectory if I used the rifle elsewhere. My shot was at 25 yards, but my buddy's was close to 300 yards. Can't go wrong with either.

I'd do the 270gr. Shots in AK can be longer than you might imagine. I usually hunt in the mountains, and took my Brownie at 381 yards, and my Moose at 423. Might be different circumstances on Kodiak.

I agree with Sitka deer 270 TSX is plenty.

I watched a fella shoot a 235ttsx through an 8.5'er one spring out of a plain vanilla 375 h&h. Broke bone on both sides and exited. I'd go 270 out of your choices but if you're hand loading don't overlook the 250 and 235 ttsx offerings, less recoil and still plenty of penetration.

This place gets funny sometimes. There are plenty of advocates for 120 TSX variations out of the 7mm-08 on our big old moose, yet we ponder whether a 270 TSX is 'enough' for bears????

well, yea...

Never shot a BB, so I have no idea what you mean by that statement. Care to explain?

Being "soft" and "tough" doesn't make sense to me.

I have repeatedly posted a photo of the scapula from a Kodiak bear shot by OlBlue. In it you can clearly see the outline and color of a knife held on the opposite side of the bare bone.

They are not at all thick and heavy bones. Moose bones are much thicker.

Caribou bones are not particularly heavy but the bone itself is VERY hard. Mountain goats have very heavy-walled bone, but it is not quite as hard as caribou, but harder than moose.

These examples just to show different critters use different mechanisms to produce bones that work best for their needs.

Bears obviously stress their bones a tremendous amount in many different ways. They need to give a little to reduce impacts and so on when they are fighting other bears and such.

I have saved brown bear bone and dried it to use for knife handles and such. It is not hard and does not polish well because it is soft. Yet that same fairly soft bone does not usually break when a bear well over 1,000 pounds swats an equally large bear while fighting.

That is not fair, you know what you are talking about!

As others have posted, the 270 TSX is a much better choice than the 300. You could consider using something lighter than the 270 TSX if you want to experiment.

I used a 270gr TSX to kill a brown bear back in '07. I won't bother looking for something better, because I doubt such a thing exists.

Seeing that a posters son here killed one with an 80 ttsx, its not what can be done, but more like tell me how much better a 270 is than a 300 and not just that, but WHY.

Flatter trajectory? By how much at what distance?

Something that can bite back I'd just be happier with more displacement....

That being said my buddy that guides the big bears, his guide gun has been 338 win mag and 225 Barnes for years.

I just am thinking along the lines when I gear up for somethign big and dangerous you want everything on your side, for the worst case scenario.
Its not quite like shooting a moose. At least IMHO.

That being said they can be done in with almost anything as noted in my first sentence.

TSXs thrive on speed, and 270 grains can be pushed faster than 300.

following that train of thought, I'd likely use my .375 RUM/235 gr. TSX/106.5 gr 7828 which yields ~3185 fps in a thinly veiled attempt to justify having a .375 RUM

but Scenarshooter shot his with a .260 without drama, IIRC

Art has shot the 270 length wise through 9' bear with an exit, how much more penetration is needed?

When it becomes a 'can' deal rather than leaning toward more 'certainty', the hunt has become about 'us' rather than the quarry. I don't buy the idea that a bear deserves it any more than does a moose, or goat, or caribou. In the case of the 270 vs the 300, while the question has merit when thinking of softer, more expansive bullets like those constructed of lead, I almost wonder if the 300 TSX (along with the 250 TSX in .338 and the 200 TSX in .308) is an answer to a question that isn't asked in North America. Moose paunches and knuckle bones might stop them, as might several inches of spinal column from a variety of different animals. Other than that, I don't see their 'why', and I am not one to advocate 'how light/small' can we go?; (seen enough of that to satisfy already).

Actually the bear in '12 was significantly over 9' and much as I hate to post such a thing because folks will start getting the idea there are a lot of them... it was also over 10' by every legitimate measure.

Not only did 4 270gr TSXs go full length and exit, but so did 3 210gr TSXs from a 338WM.

Must have been a hunting party of clerics, huh? (Sure sounds like a 'holy' project anyway. )

I did leave out the original broadside shot. That was two more holes... Holier than thou, obviously...

NUff said for me if they will do that. Thats big bears for sure.

Hard to argue with success for sure.

OlBlue shot a smaller Kodiak bear some years back that turned after the first shot. Second shot entered a ham and went full length, exiting perfectly through the ear hole without damaging the hide at all.

That was a 300gr NPT from the 375H&H...

That was my favorite round when I owned my M70 375 H&H, it's a devastating bullet.

To me that was an exceptional thing, not ordinary... The Xs have come to be absolutely reliable and the reason I dote on them...

I want every bullet shot at a bear to find dirt on the other side...

I know you're not a fan of the Partition and that's fine. I will continue to use them as they have never failed me, not once.

Me Too --- Mel

The guy also killed bull elk and bison with a .220 Swift.

The guy is a great shot, no doubt, but I'm not sure his choices should set the standard for others to go by.

I don't think thats a fair statement but the partitions do loose weight, they are designed to. And the Barnes is a better way to do it, accomplish the same and generally at little to no weight loss.

Being that weight is part of the formula for penetration, I'd say I"m allowed to say Partition was the holy grail of its day, and rightfully so compared to standard cup and core bullets.
But that Barnes is the holy grail of today by far.

I"d rather trail it a bit longer if need but but always have two holes..

The partition of 180s in a 300 wtyb failed to exit on a frontal shot on a whitetail of about 150 pounds live weight, shot in the front of the chest facing me and found in the hindquarter.

That was my go to elk load if I ever got the chance.... after the deer and some similiar instances on Nilgai, no way.

Though to be fair John B has told me if I"d have gone to 200 partitions IO"d have been fine.

No problem, found Barnes and don't have to worry at all anymore.

My bullet this year out of the measly 338-06, 210 ttsx, broke the neck, and shoulder of that moose, and was almost able to exit the hide on the off side. That was something I don't think a partition would have made it that far penetration wise.

Of course the first thing either bullet would have done was break the neck so it wouldn't have been an issue...

Oh yeah, last partition example, same load as above, 225 pound live weight white tail. Only target I had at 125 ish yards was his neck. Bullet broke it, but was siting there out of energy peeled open on THIS side of the vertebrae.... Never made it even through the vertebrae. That was about the last test of the 180s for me...

Yes!!! I turned a TSX thread into a NPT bashing!

The beauty of the 375 is you're shooting enough bullet, and the velocities are sedate enough that your harder pressed to pick a bad bullet than to big a good one. Monometal, cup/core, partition, bonded, 270, 300... put it where it matters and it's up to the task.

Congrats?

NP never were a bad bullet at all to me. Just that there are better, at least ones that perform more the way I want a bullet to...

At a time when the internet naysayers probably greatly outnumbered their advocates, I was definitely in the latter Barnes camp. That was before I opened my eyes and realized that Barnes X iterations have issues just like all the rest. I have caught the likes of the 225 from the 340 Weatherby in caribou at around 100 yards. The most meat damage/loss I've ever had on moose came from the same bullet which failed to expand, the wound bleeding for an extended period of time via a main artery into the muscles layers; no bone broken, no exit. The last X types I've used, a 120 in the 7mm-08 and a 235 in a 375 wildcat both failed to exit and neither broke any significant bone. The latter did hit the hide based on the fact that the hole stopped right beneath the hide, while the bullet evidently rebounded back in as it was several inches inside the wound.

Good bullets? Yes. Magic? No, and bullets one must use with some discretion. The Partition is still an excellent benchmark bullet that is a standard by which others are measured. It may not exceed many of the more recent ones in things that they are best at, but it is still a bullet that does more things well -- reliably, something very few others can do. It seems no small irony that the tipped TSX (TTSX) has arrived at or close to the pinnacle of 'X-perfection' by imitating the Partition in many respects.

tell me about this '.375 wildcat'?

It's nothing more than the 350 Rem Mag necked up to .375. It pushes a 300 grain bullet @ 2300, a 270 @ 2400, and the 235 TSX @ 2600 (out of my 20" Pac-Nor barrel). I'm sure a bolder more daring individual might lean on it harder but those numbers were what I was hoping to see so I stopped there.



It's a handy little package.

nice. I like it.

Klik,

Nice rifle!

You think the cartridge might also work if necked down to 9.3mm?

Now why didn't I think of that? I might have saved a pile of dough��.and perhaps have been able to shoot factory loads - paper patched with masking tape of course- if I ever got in a bind.


�or NOT!

If marriage, kids, and looniness didn't conflict so much, I could seen even having a similar rifle made up with Waters' 416 Express (which was written up in an older issue of Rifle magazine I believe.) But how many just-in-case, bear guns does a person need anyway?

Count me as another vote for the 270 gr TSX. In the .375 it is my favorite for our the big bears. Unlike the TSX in many of the smaller calibers, it has a large enough hollow point to make it 100% reliable.
As good as it is however there is no need to throw away your Partitions, A-Frames, North Forks or CEB's.

Phil, just curious, what makes the 270 gr TSX more favorable than the 300 gr TSX?

Other than maybe having a little more experience with large bears I am no different than most of the others on this forum. I have used and seen used the 270 TSX on big bears more than any other brand and know how well it works.

I'm not Phil, but I cast my vote for the 270 so I'll say why. The penetration from both bullets will be extreme. Expansion in the TSX generally improves with increased velocity. Therefore, you'll get greater (and more consistent) expansion with the lighter slug, while finding similar penetration between them. That's why I'd choose the lighter of the two bullets in question........

How would the 250gr TTSX fit in the equation?

Bears, especially unwounded ones, are usually susceptible to shock from higher velocity. So as long as penetration is sufficient a little extra velocity certainly doesn't hurt.

My brown bear experience is scant. I don't get to do expensive hunts like that every year.

I stuck a 270 gr Nosler Partition from a 375 H&H through the lungs of my first one. There was a blood trail you could follow by feel,and a substantial exit. I'd expect a Barnes 270 to do the same.

But a bigger one was hit with the 250 gr BBC at over 2900 fps.Of three shots,two exited, one through shoulders,another through lungs that blew a pie sized gout of bear clockwork onto a peeled log behind him,and an exit that would impress anyone.I sure would not hesitate to use a 250 gr TTSX from a 375 H&H.

Have only seen one killed with a 180 Partition from a 300 Weatherby but he was dead very quickly.

I think there are "better" bullets than a Nosler Partition today but the animals have not changed much and I have killed so many with the Partition that I'm not ready to scrap them yet.

In the pre Barnes TSX days of Alaska, it seems the famous bear guides I've read about liked the lighter weight bullets.

Pinell and Talifson were fans of the Remington Corelokt 270 gr in .375 H&H.

Runyon liked the 270 weight in the various .375's that he used. He moved on to various .40 wildcats using the old Barnes lead and copper "thin jacket" ( .32 ?).
I believe he also used a .350 Remington Mag as a loaner and used the 200 gr. Remington factory ammo.

Using the 270 Barnes TSX we have today would be win, win I think.

I've always wanted to try the 270gr Nosler Partition of days gone by. Read several times on innernet that they were the best.

Dave that is what I read about Runyon,too...he liked 40 caliber and dramatic bullet upset.


WBill...my 270 screw machine NPT's are all gone.



I think!

I'm sure the 260 gr Partition will be an excellent replacement for the old 270 gr PT.

As for the Barnes the 250 gr TTSX seems to be getting a really good reputation as a top 375 cal bullet.

gerrygoat I think you are right on both counts.

No personal Experience here, but I research a lot on the 375 and up calibers. Everything I've been told and read has pointed to the 270gn tsx as being a great bear bullet. Generally with TSX, you can drop down in weight a little and still get just as good of penetration. The 300 should work fine, but if the 270 isn't lacking at all, why not use it and match a 30-06 trajectory better encase of longer shots. I'm sure the 270 would hold up fine for close shots too. the TSX is a tough bullet.

Did I mention, in every 375 caliber I've owned, the 270 TSX has been the most accurate bullet every time. I've shot it into logs, mud, hard dirt, soft dirt, pure water, and deer. They always hold together and at most I've only ever seen one loose a petal when shot into dirt mixed with lots of rocks. I personally would hunt everything in the world with a 270 TSX out of a 375 except maybe, elephant, rhino, or hippo.

Oddly enough the 270 gr TSX was one bullet that wouldn't shoot well out of the 375 Ruger I had, it loved both weights of Accubonds and the 235 gr Speer.