OK when they first came out the BC was listed at .503. Now it is listed at .326 huge difference!

Has anyone actually shot them (or other TSX's) at longer ranges and verify same?????

Fotis, I tend to believe the .326, just from there appearance(pretty blocky). I haven't shot them at extreme ranges to prove or disprove.I've taken an elk at 400, but that doesn't tell you anything!! I'm going to try the 250 TTSX(I hate light bullets)this summer because of the better BC's.I've been "begging" Barnes to bring out a TTSX at around 290 to 300 grains, which should put it near .500 BC. But my cries fall on "deaf ears".If your interested in a similar bullet, send'm an email. Maybe with enough requests it might happen. memtb

I did. Also as the Nosler board moderator I have been begging Nosler for a 260 or 270+ E-tip!

Fotis,

I have shot the 270 gr. TSX at ranges out to 400 yards, and it behaves like a bullet of .326 BC should.

More recently I have been shooting the 250 gr. TTSX, both at the range and in Africa, and it is a great performer. Accuracy is great, and at 2880 MV out of my .375 Ruger, a very flat-shooting large bore.

Only 20 grains lighter, flat shooting, great expansion and penetration- think I'll use it for everything but Cape Buffalo from now on.

I think the problem with a TTSX design in anything over 250 is that they would be so long that the case capacity would be affected so you wouldn't gain anything ballistically. I could be wrong but it appears the design is better suited to the lighter bullets like 165's in 308 and 130's in 277.
BTW I really tried but couldn't get decent accuracy from the 250TTSX in my M70. Hope you have better luck.

Both the 270 gr. TSX and 250 TTSX have shown excellent sub MOA accuracy in my Ruger Hawkeye African, both seated with the case mouth at the first groove on the bullet.

That loading usually works really well with most TSX bullets I load for, except my .257 Wby, which likes them out a bit further. You might want to do some experimentation with seating depth.

Backtailer, I talked with one of Barnes' ballasticians, and although I can't remember the length, the bullet would only be minimimally longer than the existing 300 TSX. It would however, occupy valuable powder space in a standard H&H,but should work well with any of the Weatherby's or improved variations of the .375. memtb

I was going to use it in my 378 WBY so length is not an issue. With 115 gr or H4831 there is still room in the case with the 250 TTSX

I ran through nearly an entire box of bullets trying to get an accurate load out of the 250TTSX with no joy. 3 different powders in various charges, 2 different primers and 2 different brass brands. The variance on seating depth is limited by the long point on the TTSX which limits OAL to fit in the P64 M70 mag. I tried to vary them as much as possible but couldn't find anything that would do better than 2 MOA.
FWIW the 250 GMX was no better. I'll stay with the 235's for NA and 300 for Africa which both do better than MOA.

FYI I got with Barnes and Hornady's tech department. Barnes 250 TTSX will open up at 1800 fps. The 250 GMX needs at least 2200 fps

That's good info Fotis. A 375 shooting the 250gmx at 2800fps doesn't have much range before it's under the 2200fps min to expand.

Yes sir that is correct. Additionally I have heard they are difficult to get to shoot accurately.

The 250 gr. TTSX, pushed at 2880 fps out of my .375 Ruger, is still a bit over minimum expand velocity at over 650 yards, according to my ballistics calculator.

That's way farther than I care to shoot, at anything, with the .375!

I agree Bighorn! At 3220 fps from my 378 bee my 1800 fps is at 850 more or less. Never gonna shoot that far.