Does anyone have any ACTUAL EXPERIENCE with the relative pressures generated by the CX bullets compared to the Barnes LRX & TTSX? I am loading .277” 130’s.

Please no speculations.

RinB
Actual Experience data varies depending on who you talk to. Some measure Actual Experience with adjectives and adverbs. Other like myself measure it in PSI.
Charlie

Mr Sisk
I have used many of the LRX and TTSX in the 270W and over a long period time wise. Interestingly I push loads less with each year of experience. I suspect the CX bullets will generate more pressure as the ETips seem to do. However I don’t like to guesstimate or speculate.
Thanks,
R

Curious on this as well.

My rifle really likes the 129 LRX under H4350 or H4831. Interestingly, I too was looking at the CX. Hornady doesn't distinguish load data between cup and core or monos in the 130 - at least in the app. Their H4350 and H4831 max charges for the 130 CX match what I've done with the 129 LRX - but to RinB's question, are pressures the same? The 129 LRX and 130 CX seem to look the same with 2 grooves. The e-tip only has 1 groove but I didn't notice any pressure issues in the 30 cal 150 version in my 308 or 30-06.

Rick,

Despite your admonition about "speculations," there are certain basic principles involved in monolithic rifle bullets. First, pure copper monos such as Barnes tend to generate more pressure than those made of harder copper alloys, such as gilding metal--the copper/zinc alloy used for most rifle-bullet jackets, which is usually around 90% copper and 10% zinc. This may seem counter-intuitive, but the softness of copper tends to result in more friction than harder gilding metal. (Nosler E-Tips are gilding metal.)

The other general principle is the more grooves in the bullet, the less friction and hence lower pressures. The original E-Tips didn't have any grooves, but eventually Nosler put a single groove right about where the ogive enters the rifling, which reduced peak pressure a little, and also made them easier to get to group well.

But any comparison in pressure in the same would also have to involve making sure the ogive is the same distance from the lands.

Wouldn’t the practical approach to understanding relative pressure differences - simply be to shoot each bullet over a chrono with the same charge weight and look at the velocity difference? Seems straightforward.

I've seen comments equating TTSX and CX material, but what I've read on their related websites is the TTSX is 'pure' copper and the CX is copper alloy.

Now, I've read another vendor's marketing material saying their 'pure' copper expanding bullet is 'more pure' (?) than Barnes, and AFAIK Hornady has never mentioned what is the mix of their copper alloy CX.

Just sayin' ...

That may or many not indicate relative pressure. As I mentioned above, the distance to the lands also makes a major difference. Now, you can measure that in more than one way, but monolithics tend to group better when seated farther from the lands that lead-core bullets--and different monolithics tend to group better at different distances as well. Have generally found that E-Tips require deeper seating than Barnes TSX/LRX bullets.

The easiest way to approximate the same pressure is to use a powder charge that gets about the same muzzle velocity as pressure-tested data, though that will also vary with barrel length.

For what it's worth, Hornady Tech support told me the CX bullet is an alloy that is nearly pure copper. He said about 99% Copper.

He also said that you could use the older data from GMX bullets with the newer CX bullets.

He said the GMX and CX were the same alloy,the only difference being the polymer in the tip and the grooves were very slightly different. I think the grooves in the CX have a radius but that the reloading data is still the same.

That's good info. I've collected my fair share of GMX data in multiple cartridges and it's handy to know they're a jumping off point rather than starting from scratch.

Back from range.

The CX 130 and LRX 129 were shot.
The 130CX used 1.5 grains less powder (IMR4831) than the 129LRX to get to 3000.

Big difference in accuracy. The LRX went around .65”. The CX both handloads and factory Outfitter over 2”.

Not surprising from what I’ve seen from our 270s and other calibers I’ve tried Hornady bullets in. Just not a fan of their products. Try some Hammers along with those Barnes. I have in several rifles and they haven’t failed to put a smile on my face.

Rick,

Have been using the predecessor to the CX bullets, the GMX, for several years. The GMX was essentially the CX without a plastic tip. They've been very accurate, though like most mono bullets seating depth made a difference.

A good example is the 70-grain .224 GMX, which Eileen and I have both used in 1-8 twist .22-250s with the same powder charge. 3-shot groups averaged around 1/2" at 100 yards, and we've taken a number of deer and antelope out to 350 yards with fine results.

Actually, many of the GMX bullets did have a plastic tip. I really liked the .30 cal/110 grain version designed for Blackout speeds. From a 24" 30-30 Contender barrel, I ran them at 2805 fps. They were absolutely deadly on hogs and coyotes and opened much more quickly -- and much wider -- than typical monos. I used them in a mildly-loaded .300 Savage and a .308 WCF as well.

The 110 grain CX that replaced it performs similarly but not identically, either -- at least not in my usage.

Here's a 110 grain GMX taken from a large hog. I'd have to dig through notes for details, but I know I used the 2805 fps/30-30 load and that the distance was around 200 yards.

Never really considered the CX, GMC or Etip. The Barnes work. I have no interest in trying the others.

Bobby,

Thanks for that info. I just checked my 11th edition of the Hornady manual, published in 2021, and many of the GMXs were tipped--but quite a few weren't. Dunno why...but the 70-grain .224s we've been using in fast-twist .22-250s weren't, which is apparently why I assumed they were all "un-tipped."

Will also mention that those 70s have always expanded on various animals out to 350+ yards.

John

I have been messing around with the 100 and 130gr CX out of my 270. I have not noticed any huge pressure differences between them, TSX, TTSX, LRX bullets.

I will say that it always takes more effort to get the GMX's and CX's to shoot as well as the Barnes varieties.

I did have to play with the seating depth on 130gr CX. When I started reloading the Hornady GMX, Hornady suggested start 0.030" off the lands. Worked great.

Fast forward to the 130gr CX's. Started at 0.030, per previous suggestion, not spectacular. Emailed Hornady, they said 0.050" for the CX, groups got even worse. Then I went to 0.015", groups tightened right up. I found a couple of promising loads, just need to get to the range and verify.

For what it's worth, I ran Gordon's with the 0.277 130 GMX, 130 TTSX, 130 etip. For the same calculated pressure, both the 130 etip and130 TTSX used the exact same powder charge to reach a given pressure (~ 62k psi). The GMX used 3 grains less powder across the board to attain the same pressure with the 4 powders I played with - H4350, H4831, Re23, Re26. Velocities in the GMX were also lower than the TTSX and etip.

I'm always wary of trusting pressure/velocty/charge software but for exercises like this, I think it has some merit.

My take away: the GMX/CX seems to generate higher pressures for a given charge weight than the etip or TTSX. I've never shot any GMX or CX in any cartridge so have no first hand empirical evidence to support or refute that statement. I do find it interesting nonetheless,

I will say the modeled charge weight-velocity is pretty damn close to bullets/charges I use in my rifles. This also assumes if the charge weight and velocity match empirical results, the pressure is "accurate". No way you know that for sure without pressure testing.

RinB
Sir I apologize for the smart ass attitude in my post. Seems on the Campfire here these discussions dont go too well. Again I apologize.
I have not performed what I would call a specific test measuring these bullets against each other. However, I have tested a lot of Barnes bullets. Please keep in mind, my test are somewhat skewed as I am using matchgrade barrels with chambers I cut. Chambers make a huge difference. Leade angle makes a huge difference. I have saw a few factory barrels that didnt have any angle at all, just square shoulders for the bullet to engage. And I use carbide piloted reamers. It's really hard to cut a chamber incorrectly with a piloted carbide reamer without breaking the reamer. Its possible, but not likely. Having the chamber and throat aligned correctly does wonders for making pressure more consistent. And seating the bullet straight in the case. Get a cockeyed chamber and about .050 bullet runout, things get interesting pretty quick.
So I said all that to say this: In my experience, I have not saw any pressure issues. I have saw 2500 psi differences when changing from a cup and core bullet to a Barnes, but you can get that much on cup and core when going from one lot to another. 2500 psi is nothing to worry about IF you are loading in a decent range to begin with. A 60000 psi load or a 62500 psi load aint a problem. Now if you are at 80000 psi (a lot of folks load here and dont know it), going to 82500 may get interesting.
And you will find some barrels react differently than others. Kind of like most women I know. You never know what they want.
But back to the original thought: I have not saw any pressure increase or decrease that would make enough difference to matter. But, as I said, my testing could be considered skewed.
Charlie

Mr Sisk
All the rifles I have used were cut with my personal Henriksen reamer which cuts a 1.5 degree throat. I have used 1 Lilja, 3 Kreiger, 2 Bartlien, and 2 Benchmark barrels. Great care was taken to cut the throat concentric to the bore.

I appreciate your apology but I didn’t take any offense. I am discouraged by the frequency of nasty responses. Yours was not one of them.

Best to you,
R

Mr Sisk,
I have tried to get the CX and ETip to group well enough to test them on game. I have been conducting my own test of .277” 130’s for the past 20 years. I have tried many different bullets.

The tipped Barnes bullets produce excellent terminal performance. I suspect the CX and ETip bullets will produce similar terminal results but I can’t get the accuracy I want. I would be satisfied with 3 shots into around .800” so my demands are not too unreasonable.

I switched to the TTSX from a nosler ballistic silver tip after losing 3 deer in 2 seasons. I'm shooting a 130gr ttsx out of my .308 I’m experiencing velocities that are going to allow that bullet to function at any range that I’m realistically going to shoot at something living.

Rick, my experience mirrors yours for accuracy and monometal bullets. Barnes are just easy. I’m hoping to give Hammers a try in a couple of rifles this afternoon. I’m hoping they might produce good results.

P76
Chuck,
I am interested in Hammers but haven’t tried any. I believe the front splits into three or four fragments rather than expanding into a mushroom. I wonder about terminal performance on large tough game.
Thanks
R

There are a number of threads about Hammer bullets, think most are very happy with accuracy and performance on game. I'm working up some load's with his bullets right now. Give Steve @ Hammer a call, nice guy!(406) 261-0010

I'd be interested in your load data specifically in the 308 WCF, I'd like to work up a low recoiling load for a Savage 99 with peep sights for close range black bear. My 180 grain Speer Mag Tip loads with Varget kick too much for my 66 year old arthritic right shoulder in that lightweight carbine.


41

RinB
One technique I have learned with some monolithic bullets is the same as the trick for making Partitions shoot better. In a Partition, the base is harder than the nose, and there is the partition in the middle. With Partitions and Barnes, I have found that a slightly hotter load will make them shoot better. Accuracy and more consistent speeds. Sometimes, going to a faster powder will work, say going from 4831 to 4350. The faster powder or higher pressure will upset the bullet a little more, and many times that's all it needs.
Charlie

41Rem
I have a load I call my 30-30 308 load. I use Sierra 170 grain flat nose bullets in my 308 at about 2250 fps. Makes a fine "in the woods" whitetail load. I use N120. I also use that loaded with 168 grain Sierra MK's. This will go 10 inside 1/2 inch. ES on the chronograph will be single digit. Use IMR4227 load data and work from there.
Charlie

I am following this thread.
I have used the .277 lrx ,ttsx, gmx and ce bullets.
These were all 130 ish bullet weights.
I think I will go with a lighter, faster monolithic bullet
Perhaps the 110 grain hammer or the ttsx. Mono's have a need for speed. Bull Elk are always on my menu, I just believe the lighter bullet might be even more effective.
This coming from a 150 Nosler Partition guy.
It is a new day, folks

comerade

I used the 110 TTSX on two plains game hunts maybe 10-12 years ago. Mine were leaving the muzzle at around 3250-3300. They worked about as well as the 130 TTSX at 3080-3100. I didn’t observe any difference on game.

I standardized the 130 because at longer distances the velocity difference is insignificant.

I have had same results with the 129LRX. The recovered LRX’s look different but results are the same.

I tried the 150ptns and prefer either of the Barnes. I have a good supply if you are interested.

Could you elaborate on this sentence? I've never killed anything with the 129 LRX but my 270 really likes them. The 150 Partition is a good elk bullet for sure but the 129 shoots flatter.

Hodgdon’s told me something similar. Almost two years ago Hodgdon’s had a email blurb saying you could treat the ETips, TSXs, TTSXs, and GMXs the same as far as load data was concerned. I called Hodgdon’s and asked about this and they confirmed what the email said. I think the CX had just been introduced. I didn’t think to ask about the LRX.

In the few cases for which I have experience, I seem to get more pressure with the LRX than a TSX or TTSX of similar weight. I would take that with a grain of salt, but that’s my impression based on a few data points.

How does the LRX "seem" to get more pressure?

I've been using LRX's quite a bit for the past four years, primarily in the 6.5 PRC and .30-06. In my NULA Model 24 .30-06's 24" barrel the 175 LRX gets around 2800 fps with the maximum charge of IMR4451 listed by Hodgdon for the 175 Sierra HPBT.

The latest load I've worked up with the 127 6.5 LRX is in another NULA, a Model 20 6.5-.284. Also used 4451 in it, and started with the 129-grain Hornady Interlock Spire Point (often use a less expensive bullet for initial load work-up before trying Barnes Xs--or Nosler Partitions, or whatever "premium" bullet). Worked up to around 2900 fps with very good accuracy, then substituted the 127 LRXs with the same load. It got the same velocity and accuracy--and in fact typical of NULAs, both loads shot to the same POI. My last group was six shots, three with each bullet, all of which went into around .6" at 100 yards.

Admittedly these weren't direct comparisons with similar weight TTSXs. Am going to check my bullet supply to see how the grooves on LRXs compare to those on TTSXs of the same diameter and approximate weight.

Just checked my bullets and found I had both the .30 175-grain LRX and the .30 168-grain TTSX. The only differences are the plastic tip of the LRX is a a darker blue, and the weight. Both have three grooves, of the same size and spacing, and they're also the same distance from point of the tip. The bearing surface also looks just about identical, as does the ogive.

The weight difference is a little over 4%, which would have some effect on pressure.

bwinters
Comparing the .277” 129LRX and 130TTSX, the tips are clearly of different sizes, the LRX being smaller.

I removed the tips from each. The LRX has a smaller opening.

I have visited with Barnes technical folks and was told the LRX are “softer”. I have noticed that the LRX is more likely to shed a petal at close range. Actually I believe I can look at the expanded bullets and pick one from the other.

I have shot many from the different 270W’s. All were cut with the same reamer (2 Kreiger, 1 Bartlien, 1 Benchmark, 1 Lilja). The LRX were slightly more accurate in each instance. However the difference was maybe .15”. Pressures seemed pretty much the same.

I have tried 1-10 and 1-9 and 1-9.25 twists and prefer the faster.

I haven’t noticed any difference on game but I tend to shoot very precisely. Actually I have gotten very good results with Federal blue box 130’s which makes me question why I go thru the effort to handload. I can buy that for $20+ a box. If a 270W won’t shoot well with that cheap factory ammo then that rifle has problems.

Thank you for the explanation. I thought you were indicating there was some performance difference.

I'm vasillating between 129 LRX and the 150 Accubond for my elk trip this year.

I'll say it again but my 270 shoots 150 Accubond a shade under 3000 with 58.0 of Re 26 and a shade under MOA. I'm struggling to pick up my 7RM that shoots 10 gr more Accubond at 75-80 fps faster, 2" longer barrel, 1 lb more weight. The 270/ 129 shoots just as flat as the 7mm/175 LRAB but wind drift definitely favors the 7mm/175. I've always liked the 7 RM and have had one 40+ years. But with the advent of Re 26 and an accurate 270, kinda makes it superfluous.

Choose the LRX.

I had two really nice 7RM rifles. One was built by metal smith Ted Blackburn the other by DArcy Echols. The rifles were really nice but I abandoned them in favor of a LW 270 with a 22” barrel.

Am getting ready to go hunting and will be taking a 270W, 1-9 Kreiger, 20.6”, that weighs under 6# including scope. The 129LRX leaves the muzzle at 3040. Will be shooting Eland, Zebra, Wildebeest all of which are considered pretty tough. Based on previous use I don’t expect any problems.

Have use SwiftAF and Woodleigh 130’s. Great inside 275-300 yards.

I have also "visited" with the technical folks at Barnes and was NOT told the LRXs were "softer," just designed to open at lower impact velocities. This is done through the mechanical design, not using a different copper alloy, or annealing.

Don't know about recovered LRXs, as I haven't recovered an LRX yet. The only one that didn't exit was a 127 6.5mm that went into an almost-facing mature cow elk (right around 500 pounds) and ended up inside the guts somewhere. Looked for a while but couldn't find it, which has happened with various other deep-penetrating bullets on elk.

But will also comment that Eileen and I have recovered quite a few Barnes Xs and TSXs, which retained just about everything from no petals to all four. (Haven't found any only retaining two petals.) They all killed animals very similarly.

I'd be curious how the 129 work on those 3, esp the Eland.

John,
I don’t know why the LRX expands more easily. Was also told by a different Barnes representative that the front was annealed. Rumor and conjecture are common everywhere.

What I am certain of is that they loose petals more frequently compared to the TTSX. Just about all of the recovered TTSX’s have all petals. Not unusual for the LRX to be missing some.



bwinters
I have gotten three eland with the TSX (1) and TTSX (2). One shot each down and out.

Does the ogive shape make a difference in the LRX?

The first 130gr TSX's I used had a secant ogive. The LRX mirrors this secant ogive. The current TTSX's and TSX's have more of a tangent ogive.

I used up the last of the sleeker TSX's this spring at the range. I am switching to the 129gr LRX in this rifle.

One son is using the latest production tangent ogive 130gr TSX's. Other son is using 130gr TTSX's. Both worked fine last fall.

The only LRX I have killed game with is the 155gr LRX out of a 1:8 twist 270 WCF.

Excellent! I've only seen eland in a zoo. They are massive. I can't imagine trying to butcher one in the field without a bunch of help.

For me, I'm not concerned if an LRX loses a petal, or all of them frankly, esp if they act like an LBT style hard cast. An LBT style hard cast bullet shot from a pistol cuts a goodly size hole through whatever it hits, and penetrates a long way. If the LRX does that after losing petals, I'm good.

Huh, didn't realize Barnes made a LRX in 0.277/155 gr. Learn something every day. I'm guessing a guy could drive that bullet to 2900 with Re26 and it would penetrate into next week.

What velocity did you get?

Rick,

Here's a post made on 5/03/2023 by GSSP, who's a member here, and on his profile lists his occupation as ballistics lab tech at Barnes:

I've been using the 127 LRX in several different 6.5's, taking mule deer as close as 50 yds and elk at......WAY out there. They work. The copper is not softer than the TTSX. The LRX's have slighter better BC's for improved velocity retention and less wind drift. In 7mm the 139 gr LRX has the lowest impact velocity (1400 fps) of all the LRX's and TTSX's on the market, sans the .458" 300 gr Socom bullet (1100 fps). At 1400 fps that bullet expand to at least 1.7x the bullet's original diameter. If 2x expansion is wanted then add approximatley 100-200 fps. For the record the 7mm 150 TTSX will expand down to 1500 fps and have a BC only 20 pts less than the 139 LRX.

Alan

He's who contacted me after I suggested on a thread the LRX might be annealed to open easier. Maybe things have changed in the past year, but would tend to doubt it.

John

John , have you tried annealing other bullets?
I have only read about this.
Strangley, a .277 , 150 grain SST which is very frangible anyways

Thanks for that additional info, John.

Again, I’ll reiterate my comment about the grain of salt and limited data points that are certainly not conclusive. As far as the LRX goes, I mainly have experience with the 6.5 mm 127 LRX and the 7 mm 145 LRX. In two recent cases, a 7-08 and a 7 RM, I tended to see traditional pressure signs with the 145 LRX well before I did with the 140 TSX and TTSX, beyond what I could explain due to the weight difference alone, IME. My experience has been that TSX and TTSX typically produce similar pressures to C&Cs in the same weight range, but my impression so far has been that the 127 and 145 LRX bullets show signs of excess pressure at lower velocities and charge weights. I haven’t put much thought or investigation into this, but my observations would be consistent with a hypothesis that these bullets have a longer bearing surface, and therefore more velocity-robbing friction, even if the chemical makeup and metallic lattice structure is identical to other Barnes bullets. Of course, this is not necessarily the case if the primary difference is simply a sleeker, longer ogive.

My data points are primarily qualitative at this stage, and I haven’t dug any deeper, but I suspected that LRX models had longer bearing surfaces than TSX/TTSX bullets of similar weight. I appreciate your comment that this appears not to be the case with the one comparison you made. I’ll look further into this, but once again, I only have a few data points with little statistical merit and it’s possible that any perceived correlations were due to confounding variables, and not the bullets themselves.

Reading about the 7mm 150 TTSX opening to 1500 fps has really flung a craving on me. Now I want a 7x57...I can get 2700 fps in this caliber.....what else would I ever need ?
Charlie

I took interest in the 7mm/150 expanding down to 1500 and 1.7x diameter as well.

I’m leaving looking at it for long range in my 7RM as it ticks a lot of boxes.

Still, the Hornady 180 ELDM hold energy better.

I’ve always liked the solid copper concept and have used Barnes bullets since high school. I have a collection of Barnes bullets I’ve recovered and it would be tough to quantify much by that collection other than to say that animals are extremely hard on bullets.

I mentioned earlier that I was going to try hammers. I did that yesterday. I started with a 338 WM that I just can’t get to shoot with anything. Here is shots 2,3, and 4 after the first one went in the dirt. The second target is the first 4 shots with hammer bullets in my 7MM RM.

Interesting comments about ETips. My cold weather testing partner loads the hunting rifles for his whole fam damily—kids, their spouses, and grandkids. They’re mostly 30-06 loonies.

He used mostly TSXs, then switched to primarily TTSXs, and has begun using ETips recently. He has mentioned the ETips are sometimes quite picky about seating depth, and changing depth can see a significant change in group size. But eventually can find the magic number. He says the ETips seem more consistent on game as far as penetration and expansion based on exit hole size.

My 308 with 150TTSXs has a very wide range the bullet can be seated at without a difference in velocity or ES.

Have begun loading 150ETips in my 308 and have seen a noticeable change in ES and group size at slightly different seating depths. But I’ve been able to come up with a load that’s just as accurate as my TTSX load.

Bwinters and RinB,
The 270 cal 129LRX has an advertised BC of .463 and the 130ETip an advertised BC of .459–not much difference.

I’ve learned to take advertised BCs with a grain of salt and shoot for actual drop.

Some more comments on various points to far:

Just went through my recovered-bullet list and found that only 16% of the Barnes Xs, TSXs and TTSXs retained all their petals--and several lost all their petals. This includes the first one I ever recovered, a 120-grain 6.5 pre-TSX (no grooves on the shank) started at around 2950 from a 6.5x55, which killed the biggest axis buck I've taken. The range was around 150 yards, and the buck was quartering toward me, so I aimed for the near shoulder joint, and hit it. Found the bullet under the hide just behind the ribcage on the far side. But the bullet behind the sheared-off petals had expanded to a pretty much flat face, measuring .41" in diameter. (That was in 2003, a year before TSX's appeared.)

In fact, most the X's of various kinds that I've recovered hit bone, which may be why they lost petals, and stayed in the animal. One exception is a 168-grain .30 from a .300 Winchester Magnum, which landed just in front of the left hip of a mule deer buck in Sonora, Mexico at around 150 yards. It ended up under the hide on the front of the buck's chest, retaining all its petals.

Have been carefully sectioning the front ends of two .30-caliber bullets, one a .30 TTSX and the other a 175-grain LRX. As mentioned in a previous post, externally they're close in dimensions as far as number, width and placement of the grooves on the shank, ogive and plastic tip. So far haven't found any vast interior difference between the two either, but need to do a little more sectioning to be sure. Will post the results.

I’ve used this picture before. Same bullet, same rifle, same elk with very similar shot placement.

John and all,

Several things to consider which haven’t been discussed thus far….

1. All of my on game experience is confined to .277” 130 TTSX & 129 LRX at around 3080 MV (excepting .375” 270 TSX and 250 TTSX used on Cape buffalo).

2. The grooves in those two .277” bullets are pretty much the same whereas many of the newer LRX designs have fewer grooves which are also farther forward ala CX and ETip.

3. Very few of my .277” 130 TTSX bullets from game have lost any petals. The .277” 129 LRX are more likely to loose petals but I have not recovered nearly as many.

4. I suspect that the different diameter LRX bullets perform differently. Said another way, I suspect that there are different outcomes for each of the other diameters and weights.

Here are some pictures for Rick. I’ll let him comment.

Have asked pathfinder76 to post two pictures. The 4 expanded bullets are .277” 130 TTSX. Will look for some 129 LRX but I don’t know where they are.

Notice that the number and placement of the grooves on the unfired bullets are different.

p76 thanks R

I have failed to mention that my all around favorite .277” bullet was the 130 Swift Scirroco FIRST GENERATION. They were a fabulous combination of accuracy, frontal area, BC, weight retention, and obvious hurt on game performance. Then Swift decided to redesign the bullet. I have never been able to get acceptable accuracy with the Gen2 bullets. SAD!

The SwiftAF and the Federal Trophy Tipped and the Woodleigh…all 130’s, are excellent.

Rick,

For now I'll just comment that after Swift "re-designed" the Scirocco, the head guy told me that the new version was "harder," so it wouldn't open up quite as wide and thus penetrate deeper.

A few months later the editor of one of the magazines I worked for told me the same guy had told him the Scirocco II was softer, so it would open up wider.....

Which is yet another reason I've been doing my own pre-hunting penetration tests for over 30 years....

John

I took some measurements of bearing length to the ogive at bore diameter for bullets I currently have on-hand, and found the following:

7mm 140 TTSX, bearing length: 0.477"
7mm 145 LRX, bearing length: 0.533"

6.5 mm 127 LRX, bearing length: 0.561"

6 mm 80 TTSX, bearing length: 0.342"

The bands between grooves on all bullets measured 0.068" in width.

The increase in bearing surface going from the 140 TTSX to the 145 LRX is very noticeable, as seen below. The bullets are aligned where the ogive is bore diameter.

The 250 lrx .338 has some crazy bearing length

Need 1:8 twist
My notes show 3019 fps with 58.5gr Rel26

Here is my data on the 130gr CX with H4831SC
58.5gr 2901 fps
59gr 2944 fps
59.5gr 2974 fps
60gr 2999 fps

and the 129gr LRX with H4831SC
58.5gr 2937 fps
59gr 2964 fps
59.5gr 2985 fps
60gr 3008 fps

I'll add a few data points on my 129 LRX load development. I found that using WLR primers apparently caused more pressure as seen in velocity over the Fed 210. Not surprising but interesting nonetheless.

129 LRX, Kimber MT, 24" brl

Re 16 - all with WLR
52 3009
52.5 3010
53 3071

H 4831
59 3060 Fed 210
59.5 3088 WLR
60 3064 Fed 210 Settled here

H 4350
53 3027 WLR
53 2994 Fed 210
53.5 3045 WLR Option 2
54 3142 WLR

IMR 4451 WLR
54 3125

Both the H4350/53.5/WLR and H4831/60/Fed 210 shoot a bit less than a inch. The H4831 load shoots a shade better than the H 4350, plus H4831 is really temp stable.

Hmmm...I have a couple just laying around that need some load development. Maybe a new barrel with an updated throat/leade design? Sounds like it might be interesting!

I messed with the 150gr Badlands Super Dozer also. Best group with that was 0.33 and 2980fps with Reloder 26. Have not retested that bullet yet, but it is on the list. Was having time constariants getting a load done for last fall and went with the Barnes, since I have had really good luck with them.

Really struggling to justify anything anything else, the Barnes will easily penetrate as much as the the heavier C&C, or bonded, and the Badlands has a 0.710 BC. Highest I have seen.

It has been known for quite a while--though apparently only among a relatively small circle of handloaders--that WLR primers are one of the hottest "standard" (non-magnum) large rifle primers. Among other sources of info, Art Alphin's A-Square company ran velocity/pressure tests with various primers in the same handloads back in the 1990s. The WLR performed closer to some magnum LR primers than other "standard" LR primers. The Federal 210 is among the milder primers.

Mule Deer,

I was hoping that you could give some advice on a related situation. I've got a new to me Ruger 77 Hawkeye, 7mm-08. I've started with the Hornady 139 grain CX and H4350. Hornady doesn't have data for the 139 grain CX and H4350. However they don't seem to differentiate between bullets of the same weight in other data. Since I have a lot of H4350, very little Varget, and H4350 is known to be a good 7mm-08 powder I decided to give it a try.

I used a modest load of 47 grains and ended up with an average of 2773 fps about 12' from the muzzle. There were no signs of pressure but due to the length of the bullet it is already a compressed load. Would you be comfortable with using this load? Would you consider going any higher on the powder charge?

Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

Fraser,

Will provide some thoughts on that a little later.

Right now I want to post the following photo, of a sectioned .30-caliber 168-grain TTSX and a 175-grain LRX. They were the first pair of a closely-matched TTSX and LRX I found on my shelves. They have the same number and shank of grooves, which are very similarly located, and as far as I can measured have the same ogive.

But after sectioning them I found the hole behind the tip on the LRX is about .05" deeper than the hole behind the tip of the TTSX. Aside from the overall length and 7-grain difference in weight between the bullets, that's the ONLY difference I could find. This extra length would allow the petals of the LRX to be longer, providing some extra leverage for its petals to open at slightly lower impact velocity.

The extent of the hole behind each tip doesn't show up in the photo, probably due to too much glare off the copper. I might take another photo later, with the bottom of the hole marked, but for now will only observe that obviously this pair of bullets doesn't vary nearly as much as the pair Jordan photographed, and I doubt there would be any difference in pressure between these two except for the slight difference in bearing surface and weight. (Will also note that Barnes lists the G1 BC of the 168 TSX as .470, and the 165 LRX as .508, which ain't much.)

What this suggests to me is that no hard-and-fast rule about pressures developed by the LRX and a similar TTSX can be valid. (It also might suggest the same when comparing Hornady CXs, which are apparently made with an only slightly harder copper alloy than Barnes Xs.)

I have only had one critter catch a TTSX. A bull elk shot at 310 yards with a 168 gr TTSX did not exit. The entry wound was oblong indicating it struck a twig very close to the bull and tumbled. He went down right there and the innards were a train wreck. I surmise the twig was fairly close to the elk since the entry hole was at my point of aim. Obviously the TTSX didn’t travel far enough for deflection to be an issue. My buddy and I have also killed a dump truck load of elk and mule deer with 7mm 150 gr TTSX over the years. I took my first WT buck last season with a 175 gr LRX out of my .30-06 with DRT results.

Good info, John. I wondered if the observed qualitative difference in pressure between the TTSX and LRX was due to my limited experience with direct comparison of various pairings of similar calibers and weights of the two bullet lines. It seems that is the case. It looks like relative pressure between the two bullet lines needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Thanks for the additional data point.

I have caught a bunch of Barnes bullets, but the vast majority have exited. It’s still based on a limited sample size, but I’ve recovered a higher proportion of the 6.5 mm 127 LRX than any other Barnes bullet.

Jordan,

The comparison between the .30-caliber 168 TTSX and 175 LRX was interesting to me as well.

Have used the 127 6.5 LRX more than any bullet from my Sisk 6.5 PRC over the past few years, and have yet to recover one. But as mentioned earlier, the big cow elk I took in December was quartering strongly toward me at 200 yards, and I put the bullet just inside the near shoulder. It ended up somewhere in the guts, and though I looked for it some, didn't find it. (Same thing happened with a 200-grain .30 Nosler Partition used on a 350-yard tail-bone shot on a raghorn bull elk around 20 years ago, but in that instance the bullet's path went into the chest....)

All of which indicates "further field research" is needed!

Good hunting,
John

John,

The last few animals that I recall having shot or seen shot with the 127 LRX include a very large MD buck, a small bull moose, and a medium-sized WT buck. The MD was shot quartering away, where the bullet entered near the second- or third-last rib and was found up against the offside humerus with a petal detached. The moose was shot on a frontal presentation, and the bullet ended up in the guts. We searched for that bullet for a while, but ultimately decided that getting the meat back to camp in the dark was more important. The WT buck was first shot on a frontal presentation, slightly from below, which exited the spine behind the last ribs. The buck fell while turning to run, and was up on his front two legs trying to crawl away for a second or two. A mercy shot between the shoulder blades ended it, and that bullet was recovered under the skin of the throat.

So of those last few critters, one 127 LRX exited, while three were caught. The moose catching the bullet on the frontal shot wasn’t shocking, but I was quite surprised to have caught the two Barnes bullets in those deer on non-lengthwise nor hard-quartering shots. My previous experience has been that monos are typically only stopped on shots that are steeply angling from broadside, but early results with the 127 LRX seem to counter that observation. In the last few years, I watched a few MD die to the 7 mm 145 LRX, which exited in all cases with various shot presentations and penetration depths. The most recent bull moose that I killed was with a 7-08 and 140 TTSX on a broadside shot from about 250 yards. The bullet exited and the bull trotted off about 80 yards before collapsing- pretty typical for bull moose.

As you said, further field research is required!

I was shooting 250 LRX out of my 340 Wby last night in prep for my bear hunt this weekend. The LRX are about 40 fps slower than other bullets with same powder charge. Accuracy was certainly acceptable. I doubt one will stay in a brown bear

To add a bit of info to the above, the 127s were all fired from various 6.5 CM rifles. The MD was shot at 285 m, the moose at 75 m, and the WT at about 110 m. The bullet recovered from the MD is below on the left, missing two petals. The bullet from the WT is on the right, all petals intact.

The photo below is a handful of the Barnes bullet's I've recovered. Top row, left-to-right: 7 mm 160 gr X bullet, THS into a wounded WT buck, recovered from brisket; (3) 7 mm 160 gr TSX, I don't recall the details but the bullet on the right has one remaining petal. Bottom, left-to-right: .243" 85 gr X bullet, recovered in offside front quarter from WT doe shot steeply quartering away; 6.5 mm 127 gr LRX, mentioned above (fired into a WT buck).

Jordan,

At this point in this thread I feel the need to repeat the essentials of a conversation I had with Randy Brooks 20 years ago, during a mule deer hunt in Sonora, Mexico--which happened to take place in the primary area where Jack O'Connor did most of his mule deer hunting. (Should also state that the hunt was not paid for by Barnes Bullets.)

This was shortly after the TSX was introduced, and I used a 168 from a custom .300 Winchester Magnum to take my buck. This wasn't because Sonora mule deer are huge-bodied (they're much smaller than northern mule deer), but because that was the rifle I had a U.S. Customs form for when the opportunity for the hunt came up.

Anyway, Randy and I had known each other for quite a while, and one evening around the campfire he mentioned that when he first designed and introduced the original X-Bullet, he thought that petals breaking off would help "killing power," due to resulting in more internal damage. But as the X became more popular, more hunters started bragging about how they sometimes retained 100% of their original weight--which was apparently considered a virtue.

Being an astute businessman, Randy gave his customers what they wanted, tweaking the bullets so they tended to retain their petals--and hence 100% of their . (Have also talked to several other gun writers who had the same basic conversation.)

Personally, as I've mentioned before, have never been able to tell any difference in the "killing power" of X-Bullets of whatever variety, whether they retained all their petals, some or none. (Same deal with other bullets that work similarly, going all the way back to the Combined Technology Fail Safe, which Eileen and I used considerably during the 1990s before the TSX appeared, because FS bullets usually grouped better than the original Xs.)

Anyway, how many petals remain on recovered Xs, TSXs, TTSXs and LRXs has remained a popular Internet topic for decades....

John

John,

Yeah, petal retention, or lack thereof, is a hot topic with lots of folks. Like you, I’ve never seen it make much difference in results, as long as the bullet expands and hits important body parts, so it doesn’t matter much to me. In fact, missing petals is often correlated with smashing heavy bone, which is usually correlated with shorter death runs, so if anything, missing petals means a higher DRT rate.

I point out petal loss in my above posts just for interest’s sake.

Awesome. I need to try mine with a few different powders. Let me know how it performs on bear.

My hope is to use my 9.3 and not need to deploy the 340 but we will see. Weather is chit so i might be delayed getting out

Did I mention Hammers? :-)

I have very limited experience with the CX on game but, in 2019, a large group of us used 180gr. GMXs exclusively on a Benelli/Hornady writer's hunt in RSA. Between hunting and culling we shot around 100 animals over the course of the hunt raging in size from springbok to eland. The GMX performance was excellent across the board-- I don't believe that a single animal was lost. Weight retention was excellent with all of the bullets that we recovered. You could line them up on the bar and basically tell the impact velocity based on the expansion. I came away a big fan and look forward to trying the CX on more than just paper before long.

All interesting reading. I'd add some but headed out in a few minutes for an NRL Hunter match for the next 3 days.

Alan

Will be very interested in your comments....

John

Where are you getting Hammers up here?

Corlane’s sells them.

geez. how hard was the load workup? I have heard they are way easier to load for accuracy than barnes.

Raghorn is starting the journey to unimak here tomorrow. I have weather reporting duties via inreach. So far it's not looking pretty. Snow....LOL

That’s shots 6, 7, and 8 from a sample pack. It took that long. :-)