Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting .270 130grn ttsx vs 150grn ttsx

Just curious, does either one of these have an edge over the other. Is their anything to gain with useing a 150 ttsx over the 130. Im guessing when hunting in thick timber or brush the 150 would have it's advantages but what else? How about penetration ?

In brush no bullet has an advantage. The so called brush buster is a myth. It's been proven that most bullets will deflect equally off of brush. Get in the open for your shot.

That said, the 150 will shoot to nearly the same point of impact as the 130 out to well over 300 yds and it will hit harder and penetrate farther when it gets there. The 150 has all the advantage.

Rock chuck summed it up nicely!

Would that be for any 130 to 150 comparison? ? Or is this ttsx vs ttsx in your thoughts

Because if your comparing a 150 np to a 130 ttsx I would have to disagree as far as penetration is concerned

It will apply to any 130 vs 150 of the same bullet. I've shot a lot of elk with a 270 using 150gr NP's and Speer Hotcores. Results have been excellent with both. The 150's worked so well that I quit using 130's altogether and just stayed with the 150's for everything from antelope to elk.

I have used 277 TTSX bullets a lot. Both expand to the same frontal area. The higher velocity of the 130's outperforms the heavier TTSX bullets of the same diameter. My opinion is based on actual use, not on speculation or interpolation. Used on at least 150 African animals.

I agree with this. I would say with almost any other bullet, the 150 would perform better. But with the Barnes, I'd go with the lighter bullet and the higher velocity.

When did they start making a 150 TTSX?

Rin is right.

Yep. No way I'd run a 150TTSX in the 270.

Nobody would, because there isn't one. Hard to use a bullet that doesn't exist. There is a 150tsx but have never once heard of anyone running one.

Sorry about the confusion buddy.Must have been tsx in 150. Thx for pointing that out. Not interested in tsx. End of discussion

Definitely use the lighter mono bullet. What you should be comparing is the 110 versus 130 TTSX.

Thought it would be a little light on elk

Thinking back now, it appears the 150tsx might have been more of a marketing bullet. isn't the ttsx a superior bullet it would of made sense to continue making the 150 in a ttsx because of it being a superior bullet. Am I right???

So I thnk I answered my own question. Its not being made because it would be an inferior bullet to the 130grn. Otherwise we would have them.

So does the theory hold true?? Is the 130 in a .270 superior? It sure looks that way.

For my taste I meant

Once you needed a 100 gr bullet in the 243. Now a lighter, faster ttsx or gmx will do just as good.

Monos don't work quite like you might be used to. They tend to penetrate no matter what, so driving a light one faster yet tends to make up for just about any lost penetration you might have from the lighter bullet.

A 110TTSX driven hot from a 270 will kill anything that a 130TTSX will kill, though I don't think there really is much difference either way.

A lead bullet will lose at least 20% of it's initial weight at impact and often 50% or more depending on the bullet. Meaning a 150 gr lead bullet will end up weighing 75-120 gr after impact. The copper bullets retain 99%-100% of their weight after impact. That means a 110-130 gr copper bullet will actually weigh MORE after it impacts game and penetrate deeper than a 150 gr lead bullet.

The problem with heavier copper bullets is that they need lots of speed or they don't expand. A 150 gr copper bullet (if they made them) will be moving a lot slower than the 110 or 130 gr copper bullets and not expand enough, especially at longer ranges. Go light for best results with copper.

I've shot a couple decent sized bull elk with a 270 short mag with 130 grain triple shocks. Sure knocked the hell out of them. Same with animalopes and mule deer. Just sayin.

Barnes recommends using lighter for caliber bullets because they retain almost 100% of their loaded weight.
I used to use 165 gr. TTSX bullets in my 30.06 reloads, but I have now switched to the 150 TTSX I get the higher velocity of the 150's and they work just as well as the 165's & 180's I used to use. I even use the 80gr.6mm TTSX in my .243 and have killed elk with it.

I can tell you that on pigs a 110TTSX will go deeper than a 150 NP, just my experience but we piled up lots of piggys. I run a 140 Berger now while I am playing with more long range stuff but I would not hesitate to run the 110 for elk from a terminal standpoint.

Wealth of good info here, Havn't used Barnes on game yet, but going to alter my approach a tad !
Rich

I'll help beat the dead horse. It would be hard to imagine a 150 TSX being more effective than a 130 TTSX on elk, after watching my wife shoot completely through a cow bison bigger than any bull elk I've ever seen with a 130.

Like many other hunters, I've found monolithic bullets like the TSX/TTSX, Hornady GMX and Nosler E-Tip noticeably more effective in lighter weights and higher velocities. That doesn't mean a 130 TTSX will will elk "better" than a 150 Partition, since I've seen it do a marvelous job not only on elk but similar-sized African plains game, as well as moose. But I'd sure go with the 130 TTSX over the 150 TSX.

Great thread and as I get ready to use my 270 in the future, much appreciated. Is there another thread comparing the Barnes TTSX vs Federal Trophy Copper?

Thanks

I doubt that there will be much difference in penetration in the 2 weights. The 130 is faster and penetrates plenty.

This thread is really making me feel much better about my decision to take my 270 elk hunting this year. I'm going to be using a my Forbes 24b because it is much, much lighter than my M70 in 35 Whelen and I need to lighten my load after getting beat up last season. I'll look into the 130 gn TTSX.

You should be aware that the TTSX is designed to open faster than the TSX. Were I hunting Elk with a 270, I'd go with the TSX as there is no trajectory advantage to the TTSX within ethical hunting rages for Elk, <350 yards.

Secondly Barnes is very explicit about the 150 TSX requiring a 1 in 9 or faster twist. The usual 1 in 10 will not work well. I tried them and as usual, Barnes is right.

"Since its introduction in 2003, Barnes’ TSX Bullet has earned a reputation as “the perfect hunting bullet.” Now, Barnes has improved on perfection by adding a streamlined polymer tip. The new Tipped TSX features the same 100-percent copper body with multiple rings cut into the shank. It delivers the same gnat’s-eyelash accuracy and “dead right there” performance—but with an added polymer tip that boosts BC and improves long-range ballistics. The tip and a re-engineered nose cavity provide even faster expansion. Complete penetration, virtually 100-percent weight retention and four razor-sharp cutting petals that double bullet diameter means the new Tipped TSX creates more internal damage than any competing bullet. Instant expansion and perfect penetration ensures cleaner, quicker kills. The Barnes Tipped TSX—accept no imitations. "

Larry,

The question was to people that 1) actually hunt, and 2) that people here trust enough to listen to. You don't do the former and have no degree of trust from the latter.

myself i would prefer the 130 over the 150 in the 270 when it comes to the Barnes TXS for Elk or Deer. The last two Bulls i killed was with the Barnes 100 gr TSX 25 CAL Bullet

7x64FN,

Actually, Barnes suggests a 1-9.5" twist, not 1-9. And Berger's twist calculator says the 150 TSX will stabilize more than sufficiently at typical elk-hunting elevations in a 1-10 twist, even in very cold weather. Any problems you encountered must have been due to your lousy shooting.

But aside from proving you don't really know what you're talking about, once again, anybody who's had actual experience with lighter TTSX's knows the 130 will work great.

Bazinga

Actually Barnes says: "A 1:9.5” or faster twist is recommended for the 150-grain TSX."

in a 1 in 10 M 70, the 150s start tipping at 300+.

while the TTSX is a fine bullet Barnes says it is designed to open faster. My "lousy shooting" has put one Mulie and three Antelope in a 270 M70 with the 130 TTSX in the freezer.

IMHO a 270 will kill an Elk but is not as certain as a 180 TSX in a 300 H&H or a 9.3x62.

I enjoy your writing in the Wolfe publications. You might note my picture in the new Successful Hunter.

best to you and yours, Larry

Really Larry? Then why did you previously send this e-mail to nsaqam /Ken regarding Mr. Barsness?


Bookman1aol.com aka Larry "Douchebag" Root

Send email
Find email Add to contactsTo ump*****@*******.com
From: Bookman1aol.com
Sent: Sun 5/23/10 4:19 PM
To: ump*****@******.com


Blah blah blah...while holding up a has been like John Barns (I prefer that spelling as it reflects how full of [bleep] he is) who can only get an occassional piece in the Rifleman, got canned from Wolfe and has never written a book that has sold 1000 copies, is a perfect and clear indication of the "we're in charge" keyboard bully mentality.


Larry Root babbling...


Your "finding God" and act of "contrition" isn't fooling anyone Larry.... but please do continue.

A 180 TSX for the 9.3x62? That'd be a new one.

It doesn't sound like you have any experience with the 130 TTSX or 150 TTSX and elk. Go figure.

Larry,

If you didn't keep posting stuff revealing how little you know, while insisting how much you know, other Campfire members might not treat you the way they do.

If bullets are sufficiently stabilized out of the muzzle they do NOT "start tipping" at longer ranges, UNLESS velocity drops to the transonic range. That isn't happening to 150 TSX's from a .270 at 300 yards, because when started at 2900 fps or so they'll still be going 2200-2300 fps at 300, around 1000 fps above the speed of sound.

Instead, rifle bullets become MORE stable as they slow down, because air pressure on the front of the bullet (which is what causes instability) decreases rapidly, while the rate of spin decreases far more slowly.

IMHO a .270 will kill an elk (or moose or any similar-sized African plains game) quite certainly, because I've seen it happen over and over again. The quickest-deadest elk I've ever seen taken was killed with one 100-grain Tipped TSX from a .257 Roberts, and the quickest-deadest moose I've ever seen taken was killed with one 150-grain Nosler Partition from a .270 Winchester.

Both were basic lung shots on quartering-away animals, and both went right down. Both were shot by my wife, and I've already mentioned how she killed a cow bison bigger than any bull elk I've seen on the ground with one 130-grain Tipped TSX through the lungs. That bullet exited the far size, and the bison went a whole 40 yards before dropping. The farthest I've seen an elk go after a well-placed .270 bullet was about 50 yards.

Plus, once again you have taken a thread off-track with one of your know-it-all posts. The subject of this thread is NOT whether the .270 is adequate for elk. Instead it's whether to use the 130-grain TTSX or 150-grain TSX. People with ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with TTSX's on elk have so far all voted for the 130 TTSX, but you keep going off on tangents full of misinformation.

These last two Bull i took in Colorado was with my 25 STW using the Barnes 100 gr TSX without the polymer tips. One was at 500 yards and the other at 465 yards give or take 5 yards on my Leupold Range Finder. I will say the Barnes is one of the best killing bullet i have used on Elk even tho it was only a 100 gr starting at 3750 chronograph in TN before i left for the hunts. Both of these Bulls dropped right there without taking a step with one shot each. Maybe i was just lucky, but it did happen just liked i stated. Elevation on my GPS was 1050 ft. I have killed 4 bulls and one cow out of this same park over the last few years. When i built this rifle on a LH 700 i cut and crowned the barrel at 27 inch's.

I have pretty much settled on the 130 TTSX and the 150 Partition for anything I need to do with a couple of 270 Win's. I also have a 270 Wby that I shoot 130 Barnes almost exclusively. Initially (prior to the TTSX being available), it was the 130 TSX, but now I mostly use the TTSX.

I've only recovered one - a 130 TSX from the Weatherby on a bull I shot 3 years ago. Steep quartering away shot - he was walking straight away and finally turned just enough to tuck one in behind the rib cage. The bullet was just under the hide in front of the off shoulder. Had to be at least 3', maybe 4' feet of penetration. I can't imagine needing anything heavier than a 130...

It appeared to expand just fine also, but it was a close shot in timber (less than 100 yds), and over 3400 fps.

I personally have never recovered a TXS all have been complete pass through , but to be honest i only use them in a couple of my rifles , i use mostly Nosler or Hornady bullets

What does "not as certain" mean?

"What does "not as certain" mean?"

It means that a bigger bullet of heavier construction will almost always penetrate better than a lighter one of lesser construction.

For a raking or shoulder shot I doubt anyone would argue that the 180 TSX from a 300 H&H or any heavy well constructed 9.3x62 will go farther and do more damage than any 130 gr 270.

Might I suggest you do some wet phone book tests with a few beef shoulder bones between them ?

Although it's kinda obvious your question was rhetorical, given a dossier of memberships as you hold, I decided to answer it in a courteous and factual manner as the site rules encourage.

best to you and yours, Larry

Oh jeez, we're already to "raking shots?"

Interesting,maybe you should put the magazines down and actually kill some elk.

Also,it sounds like you've read Elmer Keith.... note highlighted sentence.

Contrary to the TV hunting shows, Elk don't have a habit of standing broadside at 100 yards waiting for you to shoot them.

Even on this thread a gentleman who actually killed an elk with a 130 TSX took a raking shot.

Of course I've read Keith, anyone who has not is a dunce. He probably killed more Elk than all of us put together. As the bullets of his day were not today's super bullets, he favored two big holes that let out a lot of blood.

As for the magazines, well one can learn a lot by reading those who have been there/done that.

My best Elk was taken at 18 paces in the middle of a second growth jungle. 1809 British Military flintlock rifle with a 1.2 ounce slug I designed. I'm no expert Elk hunter but I am a pretty good hunter (back when the term meant something).
When you punch a 61 caliber slug through both lungs of an Elk, he falls down dead in 20 yards leaving two blood trails a blind man could follow.

"You a'int huntin elk boy, till you kin smell em."

When you kill one with an early 19th century flinter, I'll be impressed.

Cow elk,75-100 yds away,210 gr NP .338 RUM.



Cow elk, 100 yds,160 gr NP,7mm Dakota.


Cow elk 60 +/- yds 150 gr Speer Grand Slam .270 Wby. This one took several before I finally put one in it's head at about 30 feet and the bullet did not exit.


Cow elk longest shot so far at about 150-175 yds 210 gr NP .340 Wby.



None of these along with two other cow elk I killed,never had to use a" raking shot" there may have been a slight quartering shot,but never a "raking shot."

If I get drawn for cow elk again this year,going to use my .270 Win with a 130 gr Swift A-Frame. Most likely IF I get one it won't be a "raking shot" either.

Not any bulls, no flinter in sight..........

Lotsa good freezer meat. We shoot cows in January when they come down to feed in the pasture land.

And your point is what...

Pretty obvious.

It's obvious he has more dead elk pics than you, and that you still haven't any experience on elk with the .270 and either the 130 TTSX or 150 TTSX.

Yeah it is,I've killed more than you have and with a wider selection of cartridges.

FYI on the other two cow elk,I used a .340 Wby with a 250 gr Nosler Partition and the other was with a .300 Win Mag and a 200 gr Nosler Partition.

Chew on that for a while.

$8k, seriously?!

$800 for a canned hunt, are you're just so proud of it. Bless your heart.

And before he tries to use it against me...I've never killed an elk. Never paid thousands of dollars for a critter, either.

And then attempting to refute JB's FACTS...you've really seemed to have found Jesus (as you claim)...that must be why you're so humble...or has your Priest not gotten to that sermon?

ehnm,

Now I realize that is Larry, the translation of "raking" means butt shot like when he used his Rem 1100 to shoot deer in the butt in New York.

Just ignore him.

He did,never heard that before. Yeah "raking shot" is one in the keyster to "rake" forward into the chest or commonly called "Texas heart shot."

As far as ignoring him,well,nope,it's fun making his head explode.

Larry,

Many Campfire members appreciate your recent attempt to be more genial, but you remain addicted to twisting almost any thread into YOUR thread. No matter the question, you go off on a tangent, sooner or later disclosing Larry's One True Answer To Everything, even if this Answer has nothing to do with the question.

When other people point this out, you start insulting them. This isn't exactly unknown on the Campfire. Other posters do it too, one far better than you. But if you're serious about becoming a New Larry, stick to answers involving actual experience with the subject. This would do far more good than wishing people the very best at the end of your posts.

John, the people with "actual experience" killing Elk with a 270 are few and far between on this thread. Insofar as my "one true answer" I seem to recall you being a fan of the 9.3x62 also. I have never killed a Cape Buffalo but by reading a lot of writing by people who have, I think I could equip myself to accomplish a clean kill if ever given the opportunity.

A friend of mine's wife has killed 3 good bulls with a 243 and partitions. She is a hunter who gets close, picks her shot and passes up any that are questionable.

Most men, especially dudes from back east are not as disciplined as this gal and will take all kinds of too far away, moving and bad angle shots.

As far as killing cow Elk goes, I had a type 6 permit this year that allows taking cows and calves in a certain area up through 1/31. Not needing any meat, we went down to a friend's ranch on the 20th and looked at 100s of Elk of all genders. Had I wished to I could have walked 100 yards off the county road and filled an 18 wheeler with Elk.

Finally, a fair chase hunt on a multi 1000 acre private ranch, on horseback, with a guide and a very nice Wall tent camp, food and sitting around the campfire with the 3 other hunters, guides and cook is not free. I was 70 when I killed that Elk with the flinter and really don't desire to do all the skinning, quartering and hauling out by myself. I can afford to pay for this type of hunt since I don't own fancy houses, new cars, big boats, ATVs and so on. As Clint said:" a man has to know his limits".

O'Reilly well described the motivations of haters. We do have a few here (I don't include you) and that is too bad. I won't take their bait and I hope Ric will give me back the ignore feature soon so I can avoid their cluttering up interesting threads with their childish remarks.

Elk and deer are not high on my list anymore. Antelope are far more interesting and each year I draw I try to make it harder. This year it was a 1900 Swede/Danish 6.5x55 sniper rifle, next year, if I draw, it will be my 41 Swiss centerfire that is the same as a 44 Magnum from an 8" handgun. When you are close enough the them to hear their odd vocalizing, then you are hunting. Anyone can kill one from 300 yards with a 270.

Keep up the good work at Wolfe and here.

Best to you and yours, Larry

ehnm:





Hmmm…..




Link to Post

Sailed right over your pointy head Lawrence.... par for your pathetic course.

Read what Mule Deer posted.... then read it again. Of course, I'm positive John is astute enough to realize your new found "religion" and act of contrition is but a shameful ruse...

Ziggy, 130gr. TTSX out of the .270 is more than adequate. The lowly 7mm-08 stoked with 120gr. TSX was more than a match for this European Elk (Red Stag):

Just to be clear - I posted this:


Larry posted this (I assume referring to me):


And now, it sounds like by definition of a raking shot, some may get the wrong idea I shot this elk in arse, which I certainly did not His arse was intact and no guts were disturbed (until I took a knife to him) :



I gots a reputation to protect, dontcha know...

JGray,

My comments had zero to do with you. Apologies to you if it seemed that way, and congratulations on a nice animal.

Larry has a long history of parading around on snipershide with that photo and another advocating the need to use Barnes for the times when he shoots them up the butt, instead of waiting for a better shot. Sadly, some of his most epic posts have been lost with the move of the site, but he has left a trail here as well.

I hope he truly has changed his ways, but he still seems to have the same attitude as before from what I am reading now that I connect the new name with him.

Humble/oldman/name of the day.…… please, no more ass shooting the animals. If you want to be the sportsman you seem to envision, there are better ways.

7x64FN I'm from the east and have killed six elk out of seven trips on public land and each hunt only set me back less than a grand not including the License and half the cost was fuel driving from TN to Colorado both ways. I don't claim to be a Professional Elk hunter, far from that , but i do know one thing you put in the time in the woods and shoot straight when the moment comes and Elk aren't that hard to kill, getting the dam thing out of the bush when you kill one is the hard part. I believe on the average Eastern hunters are as good or better than Western Hunters, just bring them to the East and see how many White Bucks they take in the thick woods. Here are two more bulls and one cow. Both bulls where taken with the 338-06 Ack and the Swift 210 Scirroco and the Cow with my 338 RUM and the 225 gr Partition, the other cow i took was with the 30-06 and 165 gr Partition, but i have no photo because i forgot my camera.

Not at all - my post was with tongue firmly planted in cheek while LMAO - no apologies necessary, but thanks...

Jerry

I've never hunted elk, but killed a few either as a target of opportunity when hunting in the Texas Hill Country over the years, or slaying young bulls and cows/hinds on "grocery shopping" expeditions. Elk and their cousin in my limited experience aren't bullet proof, and kill as easily as anything else.

20ga slug gun with Lightfield Hybred EXP 7/8 oz Sabot Slug


30-30 Marlin 336 Spikehorn with 125gr. Core-Lokt


Lowly .223 Rem with 55gr. TBBC


.250-3000 with 100gr. Win Silvertips

I will probably never go on another Elk Hunt , just getting to old to get them out of the high country . Seven times is more that most in the East get the opportunity to do. Every hunter in the East owes himself at least one Elk hunt in the High Country of the Rocky. Forget the Payed Canned Hunts and go on public land , killing a Elk isn't what it is all about . Watching the sun come up over the Rocky Mountains is worth the trip even if you come back home empty handed. Seeing a Bull Elk in his habitat is a experience you will never forget.

Ziggy,

I have used nothing but 130 gr bullets in my .270 Roy. Early on used 130 partitions on deer, elk and caribou. Perfect results and dug expanded bullets out of the far side of elk.

Later switched to the 130tsx...just because. A couple of mule deer, 2 elk, and a large BC moose. Pretty much blasted through all of them except the moose which was almost 400 yards. One stayed in him somewhere? Almost pulled the trigger on a large grizzly..I wasn't worried about killing it but was about the $10K the outfitter wanted as a harvest fee!
Shots have been from 30 yards out to 400 or so.

Recently switched to the TTSX and took one large cow elk and a mule deer. Tremendous damage and exits!

The 130 TTSX is now my go to bullet in my .270 ROY

Lefty C

I have never seen a Bear i would pay 10,000 to shoot

Here is my nephew Kirk with his 7-year-old son Grant. Grant is twice a cancer survivor (two glioblastomas). This is after his second surgery and followup chemo, during which he was in isolation for six months. During that six months, he and his dad built this rifle with parts donated by Daniel Defense. Grant took this elk with the rifle he built (a 6.8 SPC ) and a 120-grain bullet: one shot at about 130 yards.

Congratulations to you all on your hunting success.

A raking shot is one that enters into the animal's side, well back and continues forward at an angle usually ending up in the off shoulder or neck.

A Texas heart shot usually enters right below the anus and has to get through the paunch into the vitals.

There is nothing wrong with either as a properly constructed bullet or slug will kill in both cases.

If you choose to pass up either, that's up to you, but being nasty to another hunter who chooses not to is just being foolish.

Animals jumped out of deadfalls usually don't turn broadside, they run straight away. If you shoot them between the hams and know how to do gutless field dressing: http://www.elk-hunting-tips.net/gutless-field-dressing.html
there is no mess.

I believe there is little point in continuing posting on this thread, as the "usual suspects" have appeared.

best to you and yours, Larry

YOU, are the "usual suspect", as everything that comes from your mouth or finger tips is suspect of being either a lie or a damned lie.

If only you'd take your own advice and not continue to post here, at all, the whole place would be better off.

Why in the Hell Rick decided to let you slither back in (other than post counts and page hits) is beyond me.

Not about you JGray and I too apologize to you also.

Thanks Jeffbird.

Wow, guess the intentional butt shots will continue. Some things remain the same.

You're welcome ehnm.

I shoot 130 TTSX out of 270 Win. only have one deer with it, and no bullet recovered.
I have 2 elk with 30/06 180TSX, no bullet recovered. Switched to 165TTSX recently.