I hope you are not getting tired of these questions and maybe you have answered this one before.

You have said the TSX needs speed to kill quickly. Does that include the larger calibers from .35 up? All mine of that caliber and up are relatively slow except for the .375 and that may be too slow. I don't doubt they will kill with these bullets, however.

Any thoughts

Actually what I have suggested is that the size of the hole created by any bullet is the major criteria of "killing power." This is the consensus of so-called forensic ballisticians, and from what I have seen it's true.

This doesn't mean, however, that there will always be a direct correlation between the size of the hole in the vitals and how quickly an animal goes down. But on average it works that way.

TSX's create longer but narrower holes than many other bullets. This is simple physics. Bullets that expand quickly and lose some weight make bigger holes, and on broadside shots these bigger holes are in the vitals.

The two ways to make TSX's create bigger holes are more velocity or bigger diameter. Of course we can combine the two as well, but in general most of us do not like to shoot 250-grain bullets at 3300 fps. Yet I have still seen animals hit with really fast TSX's and pretty fat TSX's go a ways. This is just the nature of super deep-penetrating bullets.

The latest was a buck pronghorn I shot two days ago at around 250 yards with a .257 Weatherby, the bullet the 100 TSX started at over 3500 fps. The bullet went through both lungs, about halfway up the body, but the buck went 150 yards before keeling over. The damage was certainly sufficient to kill surely, but....

This doesn't mean I'm not a fan of TSX's. I definitely am. But they are not magic, and do not defy the laws of physics.

JB,

Given the opportunity to step into the same river twice, would you choose a different bullet for that pronghorn? which one?

Antelope, it seems to me, do have the tenacity for life that larger game animals exhibit. I have used Nosler BT's on them exclusively with great results. I do not use that bullet on any other game as I deem it too frangible, but on the "lopes", it quite effective!

I have taken quite a few head of game with the 180 grain TSX bullet in 30 cal at various ranges all the way out to 777 yards and all have gone down very quickly. The TSX is a very deadly projecticle in my experience. I have seen many more tasken with TSX bullets in 7mm Cal 375 cal and I have also used them in 338 cal and I love thier performance.

On smaller animals, such as Pronghorns and Whitetails up to about 150 pounds, what about the TTSX? On a broadside shot on animals of this size, you wouldn't need as much penetration, but would the TTSX create a larger wound chanel?

At about 3000 to 3100 FPS MV in either a 7 M/M or .30 caliber, out to about 300 yards, could some one suggest a bullet weight that would perform best in these 2 calibers at the velocity range stated?

I know MV performance would be different then 300 yard performance, but I am asking about something that would be satisfactory at both ranges.

Thanks John

As I'm sure John would agree, a single observation doesn't equate to a scientific study. My pronghorn was shot this year at 263 yards with a 100 gr. TSX with a muzzle velocity of 3450 from my .25 WSM. The mature buck traveled - zero feet horizonal and approximately 18 inches vertical - Bang/Flop.

Clearly it is a tradeoff of bullet penetration verses wound channel size. A bullet only has so much kenetic energy to expend, so it comes down to which bullet you choose.

For me, I go with the greater penetration because I'm given the opportunity for different size animals and there is little hunting pressure/competition. This year I had tags for deer, antelope and elk with the season running concurrent for some time.

Robert, in answer to your question, the clearly obviously bullet selection is 140 gr for the 7mm and 165 gr. for the .30 caliber.

Boise:

But which one, the TSX or the TTSX, for the conditions I described?

Where I hunt, most times, the deer is out of sight in about one leap. I timed one once, and he went from 0 to 93 MPH in about 20 feet, and was completely out of sight in that one leap, because of the thickness of the underbrush. I found him, but the blood trail was very light.

What I want is, preferbly, a bang flop, but if that doesn't happen, I want a big enough hole so that lots of blood leaks out.

I sent you a PM a few weeks ago. You must have been gone huntin'.

Robert

IN my expiereance the exit holes made by TSX are small to the point that very little blood spills out.
IMO if your goin to give up wound channel size for the sake of penetration and have the exit hole just above caliber size, whats the point?

TTSX.

It doesnt expand any wider so what difference will it make?

I'd probably mix some running gear/bone if I was all caught up in having an animal go as short a distance as possible with a bullet that doesn't open "as large" in lung tissue; Then again, the DRT everytime is elusive at best.

The last Partitions I saw ( 4 358cal. 250gr.) only had a very small amount of blood from entrance wounds....what could that mean? (grins)

A small exit hole in the hide may be common because the bullet holds together well. That does not, unless you're just plain stupid, equal a small wound channel.

A fawn shot a couple weeks ago with a TTSX had a caliber size entrance hole in the side and a quarter size exit hole in the hide on the other side. What went on in between is what you would expect out of 130 grains moving at 3000 FPS. With the hide off you could reach through with your fist.

The exit holes in the hide tend to be smaller because the bullet holds together well. That's a fact of life with any tough bullet. If you want a bullet that doesn't hold together well you're going to live with the baggage it brings like deflection on bone and frequent failure to exit which for damn sure will make less blood spill out.

According to the reports I've heard so far, the TTSX DOES open wider than the TSX. That hollow cavity is different on the TTSX. It's obviously wider, but I suspect that it's longer as well. I'll dissect one soon enough and see for myself.

Of course it doesnt.
Unless your plain stupid its no stretch to figure out that mono metal bullets penetrate more at the expense of wound channel size.
Jordan, the sectioned ones I have seen looked to have the same depth cavity. The expanded ones I saw seem to bare this out as well.

Or too stupid to figure out that you get the penetration courtesy of the weight retention which is virtually always 100% vs 60% for a cup and core. Holding bullets together has always been the big part of what gives you penetration and fragmenting them alwys the big part of what cause lacking penetration.

Or too stupid to realize that Weight retention has less impact on penetration than frontal area. Witness a Hornady Interbond or Swift Scirocco 1. Both expand to very wide frontal areas and retain a large percentage of there weight, but neither will penetrate as far as a Nosler Partition which loses a fair percentage of its weight.

IME the TSX bullets in 7mm cal and up (I have nos experience with smaller) totally destroy the internal organs and do not leave small wound channels as the hole in this Zebras heart will attest;

338 Federal with 210 grain TSX range approximately 100 yards


Exit hole in the hide was not large, but the wound channel was and always is IME

JWP, thats not your pic and being culled off the internet there is no telling the real story....
Even so the pic appears to have one of the lungs pulled back in order to expose the hear thus making the wound channel look worse than it is.
I shot a deer with a AB last week and there was was only a few small pieces of anything resembling a lung left, the heart was reduced a raged strip of tattered flesh 3" wide by 6" long and the exit was the size of a golf ball or slightly larger. Despite breaking a shoulder on the far side it still exited and this was with a impact velocity of 3400fps. I have not seen the same performance from a X or a TSX.
Maybe the TTSX will be different.

Sorry buddy but that is my picture, I took that picture last year. I did not shoot the Zebra an 80 yeard old gentleman from Colorada did and I was there when he made the shot...

Try again

That's a miracle given the amount of times I have seen the thing posted on various forums.

I was also on that hunt and that photo most certainly was taken by jwp, so I don't know what the problem is. Also, I have to ask if you have ever used TSXs as it sounds like you haven't with your assertions here. I haven't seen many bullets that do more tissue damage. But that's from observation, not speculation.

Also, it's well known that the TSX causes exponentially greater damage the faster it impacts. That zebra was shot with a .338 Fed. Imagine what kind of damage the bullet would have done if launched from a .340 Weatherby...

Yes, in fact i am using some in a 25-06AI right now...

You need to observe some more, then....

Most bullets do.
The last deer I shot with a TSX had a impact of around 3400fps and I was underwhelmed with the damage and the resulting 100 yard dash... Shot placement was spot on BTW and invloved bone..
Sort of like JB'S experience with the antelope running the 150 yard dash posted above.

Maybe it's you who needs to open your eyes a bit wider. So that's the only use of the TSX that you've had and you are basing your conclusions on this? Wow, that's credible.

Bwalker,
If you're so underwhelmed with the bullet, then why are you still using it?

That's a great question.

I've been killing deer for 48 years now, and I have done it with everything from a 22lr to 8mm. I have never shot one that I didn't open up myself and look at the damage done by the bullet on the way through.

Someone has to ask this question:

BWalker, are you one of those people who doesn't gut their deer maybe? I wouldn't suspect that being as you live above the mitten, and not gutting deer seems to be a more southern practice but then I hunt with a guy who is about forty and just now learning how to do it.

No, its not.

Because they shoot very well out of this particular gun and I would like to collect a few more animals using them before totally writing them off.

I gut and hang.

Guys, this isnt a hard concept to understand. The Barnes TSX penetrates farther than most other bullets because it has a smaller wound channel, which is caused by its smaller frontal area and lack of fragments acting as secondary projectiles.
In this months issue of Successful Hunter there was a bullet test that measured both distance penetrated and wound channel size. Its no surprise that the only bullet penetrating farther than the TSX was the Win Fail safe. It also wasn't a surprise that the only bullet with a smaller wound channel was the FS. Again, this isn't rocket science and it doesn't take a IQ of 200 to figure out whats going on...
If you want to trade of some tissue destruction for penetration m ore power to you, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it doesn't come at a cost.

You might believe it penetrates further because of a smaller wound channel that is somehow related to a smaller frontal area, but that does not mean you understand the activity going on there.

First, the frontal area is not appreciably smaller than any other bullet.

Second, the bullet not breaking apart is what contributes to penetration and wound channel diameter once the bullet begins to open.

Little bullets have smaller wound channels. Bigger bullets have bigger wound channels all else being equal.

Most of the lost weight in cup and core bullets is in particles neither palpable nor visible. We have well understood this for a very long time. That's precisely why we don't shoot deer with frangible varmint bullets, because they don't penetrate. If you can't penetrate with a 55 grain bullet at 3500 FPS you sure as hell are not going to penetrate with a particle you can neither feel nor see at less velocity. This is simple well understood mechanics of killing game. You can penetrate with a 55 grain bullet at much less speed, but, you cannot get the same energy release. You can penetrate with a 150 grain .308 cup & core bullet but you can just as easily hit a rib and deflect it resulting in a non-lethal wound because it is soft and deforms much more readily than the solid copper offerings.

Solid copper bullets are much harder, much tougher, and thus REQUIRE the hollow point. To develop the same plasticity as a lead bullet would likely require velocity unattainable with burning powder.

That does not mean that the cavitation that creates the wound channel is lessened at all. The cavitation is a function of the velocity and even a small deformation of the bullet nose can produce massive cavitation. Cavitation when compared to a lead bullet shedding weight remains much higher for much longer because the bullet penetrates further. This is because the bullet retains it's weight which means it retains it's velocity.

The slower the bullet sheds velocity the longer it will produce cavitation. The cavitation is a function of velocity, not of mass nor to any significant degree to the shape of the bullet.

For the cognitively impaired, this is most of the reason why a .223 ball round going through a man can be so much nastier than a .308 ball round. Shape or diameter do not as greatly affect the outcome as velocity.

A Barnes not opening at all will function much more like a ball round and produce much less cavitation. A Barnes that opens even a little will produce a lot of cavitaiton like any bullet that opens even a little. The difference will be in how long and how wide and what length that wound channel will be. The ultimate diameter of a wound channel is going to be a function of the viscosity of the medium and the velocity of the projectile as long as diameter of the projectile is reasonabley similar. That's why a .243 can destroy everything inside a chest or abdomen and a 45-70 doesn't just blow deer into multiple pieces.

It penetrates deeper because of having less frontal area and a wound channel with less volume is the result.




While the frontal diameter may be close the frontal area of a TSX is smaller than most other bullets.
The bullet not shedding particles ala a cup and core only serves to make the initial wound channel smaller. I would also submit that Nosler partitions typically lose all the lead ahead of the partition and still penetrate quite well. Some partitions equal or best TSX's.

If you wish to believe in fairy tales go to the Disney site.

If you want to understand what is going on with guns and game stay here and learn. It does require a commitment to comprehending what someone gives you though. I am sorry that I cannot make the physics come out the way you would like, but that's the way physics works. For a microscopic particle to contribute to cavitation you have to accelerate that particle to a velocity well above what we know how to produce today. A particle neither visible nor palpable moving at even 10,000 FPS just doesn't have the ability to penetrate any distance at all.

Our atmosphere is full of such particles and larger. Were your wish to be true we'd never have developed space craft or even high speed military aircraft because they wouldn't be able to carry the armor. Escape velocity is something like 24,000 FPS.

BWalker apparently has an agenda, he never post any pictures top back up his incorrect claims.

Here is the liver hit by a 180 grain 30 cal TSX at approximately 2600 FPS
Destroyed the lower 1/3 of the Liver



Again BWalker states facts that fly in the face of reality of anyone that carefull observe the internal damage created by TSX bullets

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

Sometimes boxing them in with the truth doesn't seem to help either.

I'll step into this Tschitsnami.

I'm primarily a WTD hunter. "Try" to hunt something else once a year. Last year it was moose, year before pronghorn, etc. I hunt deer in everything from jungle riverbottoms to pool table flat fields.

In choosing between a TSX or a cup and core for a particular rifle, I use a MV of 2900 as a rough guideline. If the rifle is going to push a bullet at a MV of 2900+, I'll try to find a TSX load. If the MV is going to be 2900 or less, I'll start with a Hornady Interlock. Then if the rifle tells me to try a different bullet I'll listen as best I can.

The further away from 2900 MV, in either direction, the more pronounced my bias. 100 grainers in a 26" 25-06 at 3300-3400? TSX if it will hold a group. 225 grainers in a 20" Whelan doing 2600 ish? Cup and core unless penetration is at a premium. Am hoping to hunt Africa with the Husky Colonel in a couple of years so will work up copper and cup and cores, but will almost certainly use the cup and core loads for stateside live game practice.

GE

That's a reasonable approach, but simpler might just be to look for an impact velocity of around 2000/2100 FPS. Barnes seems to think that below that TSX/TTSX don't open so well. If they don't open they won't cavitate and then you have problems. C & C bullets have minimum impact velocities for the same reason but they usually are not as easy to get.

How many guys you know take pictures of gut piles???


I dunno, JB in post # 2541700 essential said the same thing I have said and has had the same observations.

The problem is, as any partition user can attest is the fact that all these particles are not microscopic in nature. The shrapnel generated when a copper and lead bullet expands does indeed make the intial wound cavity larger.
And I never mentioned a word about cavitation. That was you.

If you are going to make claims that fly in face of reality, then you better take pictures. You still have no proof of your claims

The Minnesota DNR just did the best study to date of wound dynamics with hunting ammunition and it flat out states that most of the particles shed are indeed neither visible to the eye nor palpable. Where do you get this shrapnel nonsense? Shed jackets don't penetrate for [bleep]. That's why you find them in the beast. Whole tumbling bullets don't penetrate for [bleep] for god's sake.

Sometimes you can bludgeon a man with the truth and he'll still stumble off as if nothing happened.

Spot on, Miles58

Are you sure that the TTSX won't open up below 2000 fps? I know the TSX is said to have that boundary, but I hadn't heard anything about the TTSX...

Have you ever seen the results of bullets tested in a media like The Bullet Test Tube? The shrapnel effect is very evident..

I have and athe test tube is wax not flesh blood and bone and I have also seen the results on game with a TSX and other Cup And Core bullets and the results are obvious to those willing to view them.

Again you miss the mark

I killed my last Elk with a 338 cal 300 SMK and that bullet fragmented and yet I would rate the internal damage to the lungs no greater (if as great) as that done by a 30 180 TSX. I have also taken a lot of game with Sierra Game Kings, Hornady Interlocks, Speer Hot Core and Grand Slam, and have seen game taken with Trophy Bonded Bear Claw and Nosler Partions and IMHO and EXPERIENCE the TSX is KING.




Do you need more wound channel pictures?

Some of the TTSX bullets do require 2000 FPS and some require less, such as the 225 338 cal TTSX requires I belive 1600 FPS

Another picture of the damage produced by a 180 grain 30 cal TSX

No I am not sure. Not in the least. But, it's the last figure I heard form Barnes. I would hazard a guess that TSXs will function reliably somewhere around that speed or a little lower. TTSXs may well go even lower, but until Barnes comes out with some sort of data and publishes test protocols to go with it I am not going to worry about it one way or the other.

I don't want to be hitting a big game animal with less speed no matter which bullet I use so it's really a poor argument on my part. I would still use it though because when you have to work at longer range and you may need a lighter construction bullet to open up it's about all you can go on.

Good call MILES58.

I use the TTSX because IMO it's the better of the 2 bullets. Why not use the bullet that opens easier, faster, and possibly wider? I practice religiously out to 655 yards, and I just may need the additional expansion benefits someday

There's some religious stuff going on do I have to shoot 600+ yards too. It's called praying for a way to make it 300 or less. Where I am a couple hundred is possible. 350 is about max, and then only under the most urgent circumstances. The guns and loads will do it. I could do it from one of my boxes which are almost bench quality. but... I just can't imagine what would make that necessary. We have beaucoup deer and I am over shooting one with big antlers unless it is some kind of unbelievable. I'd rather have good eating than a wall hanger, and one of the good eating kind will be along sooner or later for sure. Maybe if I got to the very last hour of the very last day of the season and still didn't have one in the freezer would I drag one down out at 300 or a little more, but that's about it.

I agree hence I use Nosler AB or BT's, Sierra GK's or Hornady IL's for deer.....

I have shot a few animals with the TSX, you know when you hit them thats for sure I swear by them any fully copper bullets the TSX'S or the new nosler E TIPS may also be a good bullet maybe even better then the TSX I think the fully copper bullets have an advantage over the lead due to thier high weight retention sure you shoot a 185 grain bullet but when it hits it might only be 130 grains left after the bullet has completly fragmented into the meat your going to eat.I have never found a TSX bullet yet 1 moose completly broadside 75 yrds 1 4 point buck facing towards me went in below the neck like shoulder blade area droped him like a sack of potatoes no bullet recovery.

check out clip # 4

http://www.barnesbullets.com/information/high-speed-video/


need I say more ?

You need to come and hunt where I do, and you'll understand.

Sometimes there is NO way to close the gap much more than 400 yards.

Depending on the wind conditions, I can reliably hit milk jugs out to the ranges I practice at, first shot, so I figure I can also hit a deer/elk's vitals.

But I ALSO want to use the bullet design that penetrates the deepest in case I need to shoot stem-to-stern, which, on occasion, I need to do. TTSX for me.

For me, shooting something in the azz isnt a option.

Yeah, I suppose you're like up northwest of me. Go up to Thief River Falls and climb up on the salt-sand pile and you can see Winnipeg. Hell, look across Saskatchewan and you can probably see Alberta too!

It is when an animal is hard-hit and heading for the thick stuff...

For what it's worth:

http://www.barnesbullets.com/information/bullet-talk/x-citing-facts/

How about this one from the latest Barnes newsletter.

Think Barnes TSXs, Tipped TSXs and MRXs are too tough to expand and perform on thin-skinned game such as whitetail deer and antelope? This is a photo of a 30 caliber 168-grain TSX expanding at 2,000 fps in a 1-inch thick slice of Hide-Gelatin. When fired from a .300 Winchester Magnum at 3,150 fps, this would simulate a 600-yard shot. This is just one photo taken during a series of extensive tests where Barnes Bullets came out ahead of the competition. The other bullets penciled right on through 1-inch thick slices of bare gel. The full report to follow soon under the website�s Technical Section. Stay tuned�

Exactly, and moments such as this require a bullet that offers uncompromising penetration -- you know, like the TSX.......

I actually had something like this happen once. I shoot a Brooks range Dall Sheep just a hair to fair back( but in front of diaphragm) with a 7mm Weatherby. The animal quickly turned and strarted to do the 100 yard dash. Not knowing how good I hit it the first time I pumped another bullet into it and it dropped like a stone. This was courtesy of a 139gr Hornady factory load.

The TSX opens considerable faster than any of the bullets that you have listed


The holes left in this thin sheet of aluminum shows the amount of expansion after the bullets passed through 1" of ballistic Gelatin



More of your incorrect and unvalidated info



According to you the TSX causes little trauma, but this picture says other wise

A TSX would have done the job with the first shot. You gave a perfect example of inadequate penetration with the first shot, a common failing of cup and core bullets

It's a very deadly shot with a TSX and the bullet will exit lenght wise put the animal down instantly IME.

From looking at the high speed photos, it appears there is a sort of shock wave surrounding the bullet.

The wound channel appears to be much larger than the bullet, so it sounds logical, to me at least, that there is a shock wave or wave of some type making a much larger wound channel than the bullet alone.

Also, when the bullet exits, there appears to be a vacuum or something created that is pulling soft tissue or blood out of the animal. I have shot deer, broad sided, and there would be a stream of blood and tissue at least 15 feet long from where the bullet exited, in appearence like it was squirted from a water hose. This usually happened when a bone, such as a rib was struck, and there was a large exit hole.

I suppose the 3 or 4 inch diameter wound channel could be caused by the hydrolic pressure of the soft tissue and blood expanding to cause the larger wound channel.

When a bullet hits a liquid filled container, there is pressure built up from the compression of the liquid.

Your making the ASSumption the first bullet didnt exit. It did...

Marketing gags aside. The bullets I listed will have a a larger wound channel that has less length.

BTW I might remind you that I am not the only one that has observed results different from yours when it comes to TSX's.
JB, in this thread posted the following quote, which jives pretty well with what I said and what I have seen.
Taking the blinders of brand loyalty off would do one good IMO.


And I will be, with any luck shooting a buck with a 140 AB fired from a 280 rem on November 15. I also have a doe tag that I plan on filling with my 25-06AI and 100gr TSX a few days latter. I will take detailed gut and exit pictures just for you....
Granted Its not exactly a fair comparison given the 25-06 AI has a muzzle velocity of 3400+ and the AB shoots about 2900 our so out of this particular gun, but I suspect it will prove my point quite well.

One other thing those ballistic gelatin photos are only showing the temporary wound cavity. Little dirt ball marketing 101.

You might want to also check this out. Partition and AB are looking pretty good.
hhttp://www.guns and hunting.com/bulletshootout.html
Miles, is that some of this invisible lead particles I see in the test media??

Blood will compress very very little. Ditto water. The "hole" is cause by the evacuation of material. A high speed bullet hitting a liquid filled container can be quite spectacular. Under the right circumstances you can nearly vaporize a whole gallon of water almost instantly. Because the water cannot compress and it has to absorb the energy when the bullet hit it will in large part change states from liquid water to water vapor. The energy transfer results in a lot of heat.

There is some degree of hydraulic shock associated with such an event, but describing it is better done mathematically. The cavitation is what you see in the gelatin block test and it is responsible for much of the tissue damage.

Those are substantial clusters of the self same particles. The physics of the event will be that a lot of the energy release is in the form of heat which causes the phenomena. This is precisely why MNDNR advises trimming instead of washing. You spread that contamination by washing and you cannot feel the particles because they are so small. The MNDNR test did produce visible and palpable particles, bu they were mostly copper. Copper from the jackets of bullets that came apart and copper from a few petals that broke off the Barnes bullets they used. The test results did not mention palpable or visible lead particles but I would assume some of the bone tests that caused complete jacket/core separation did result on some larger pieces.

Ballistic gelatin has a characteristic dirty look when hit by lead bullets Pockets of the very small particles do occur and look like pieces due to the clear and plastic nature of the gelatin. In meat this looks like a black blood clot. If you look at the blocks from the copper bullets they don't show that do they?

If you will look at the wound channel of the TSX and please tell me which of the other bullets has a larger diameter wound channel, and which demonstrates more total tissue destruction.

I'm not getting into the TSX argument since I've shot no game with them. But I think you have some physics problems here.

I can't get too involved right now, but if I got the right conversion numbers off the 'net it's going to take about 3100 foot pounds to raise one liter of water one degree Celsius. A typical projectile isn't going to have the juice to boil off a jug of water. But it will have what it takes to mechanically smack it into a fine mist.

I dont have to look at anything because the figures are all there.
Look at the cavity volumes. The TSX was second behind the Failsafe for smallest cavity.
And have seen like tests that all say the same thing.
As for particles. When I mentioned shrapnel effect and was jumped on by yourself I was not discriminating between lead and copper. With a lead and copper bullet particles are generated during the initial phases of expansion and this does effect wounding. That was my point, pure and simple.
Also, its for this reason that the Nosler partition is so effective. The front part of the bullet essentially disintegrates and the back half is left to penetrate on with a greatly reduced frontal area and resulting resistance. Massive wound channel and penetration in one bullet.

Warm water cold dry air and a big thump.

Do a calc of the wound channel volume using your best estimate of the diameter and length using the rulers in the photos and come tell me about it.

Have you seen the data thats accompanies the pictures?
Again, I do not need to or put much stock in measuring pictures because the wound channels have already, in reality been measured for volume. Taking a measurement from a picture posted on the internet less than accurate for a variety of reasons and you should know this. Instead I will trust the author measured them correctly.
And as I have said before there have been several of these tests in the last few years the and the results are exactly the same.
You guys really amaze with the lengths you will go to distort reality. Ignoring data tables in favor of trying to measure pictures is a prime example.

I have looked at the data. Have you??? Do you seriously want to discuss that the data is correct much less means anything? Some of what this guy is making up here (like penetration potential) or for that matter cavity volume without specifying measurement methodology, or his statemnt about just by changing bullets you can change velocity when in fact the short barrel extreme spread is only 58 FPS and his long barrel ES is only 130 (both of which are not all that uncommon for a single bullet with a single charge weight) is just not relevant at all to the project and makes a person wonder what the bleep he is thinking.

Believe what you want. Don't believe what you want. You obviously do not understand what you think you are doing. I have given you accurate information. Your photos show a different story than what you tell. You live in a world not based on observable facts and choose to believe things that are not true.

S, your going to ignore the data... Fine by me.

Accubond.

What was the question again? <grin>

Miles I have no dog in this fight, but when I was testing bullets for my .25-06, I shot a variety of bullets into the bullet test tube and the wound cavity volumes were as follows as measured:

1.TBBC-24.5
2.NBT- 17.6
3.HIB- 16.9
4.HV - 14.8 -GS Custom HV
5.NAB- 14.3
6.NP - 11.8
7.TSX- 9.3
8.LRT- 1.5 -Lost River Technologies

Those were measured values, taking length of cavity multiplied by width by height (the last two being the same number).

Not knocking the TSX, I thing they are good bullets, just in my testing other things made bigger holes.

And yes, I have pictures.

Dont bother him with facts...

Show me the pictures. Show me the measurement methodology.

Show me the load data. Show me the test methodology.

Ok BWalker he's your chance.

Your data has a scale attached to each photo. I don't expect you to do the integration to calculate the cavity volume. I do expect you to be able to choose a criteria for beginning of wound cavity, a criteria for end of wound cavity and use simple geometry to calculate the conic volume of the beginning of the wound cavity, the cylindrical volume of the body of the wound cavity and the conic volume of the end of the wound cavity with your data. Use the photos you think prove your case. Show the beginning and end criteria you are using show the numbers you use for diameters.

Give me facts with a basis that allows a comparison and not some dip wad thing like Penetration Potential when you have an actual penetration test.

Simple multiplication. Simple design of measurements. The photos are good enough that you can get within 10% of the actual measurement. I will stipulate that you author did not manipulate the scale of the photos, that he placed the scale identically for each photo.

Show me the facts. Shut me TFU.

Doesn't that tube use wax as a medium? Doesn't seem to me to me to be a reasonable facsimile of flesh. JMHO.

What is a reasonable facsimile of flesh?

I simply stated I shot the bullets into a test medium and measure the cavity volume.

How do you measure cavity volumes in flesh?

Don't ge your blood pressure up. I necropsy virtually all of the animals I kill to see what kind of damage my bullet has produced. I would think that wax is a bit on the soft side to get an accurate idea how a bullet will behave when it hits flesh and bone. Just thinking out loud, and not attacking your test methodology.

Wax might not be a ideal test media( gelatin isnt either), but what it does is allow one to measure the resulting cavity.
Miles, I suppose you should get a hold of MR. Mann for the info you are requesting.
I suppose Mr Mann also is part of a wide ranging conspiracy to spread the idea that TSX's trade wound channel volume for penetration......

If I'd seen penetration (or rather lack of it) to be a PROBLEM with hunting bullets, then I suppose I'd be all over the X-bullet SOLUTION.

But I haven't, so I'm not.

Barnes gives these examples to refute the real-world examples that people have of these bullets not opening. It probably doesn't happen often. However, it doesn't take "often" to mess with one's confidence in a bullet.

FWIW, the Barnes X has been working very well, accuracy problems acknowledged in the early versions, most of the time. But if large wound cavities are what they have resorted to to get more reliable expansion, then there are plenty of other good choices which will work without destroying everything. One of the main reasons I used the X from the very beginning was the fact that they didn't create such huge trauma (though that can be very effective as a killing method). They have always worked great for me when getting bones involved.

Dirt ball marketing 101...
The minimal expansion that bullet shows would lead to very little damage and the permanent wound channel would be small.

... I can't believe I'm getting sucked into this... but doesn't that bullet, in the picture above, look a whole lot like the bullet the gentleman recovered from the SECOND warthog killed with it? The thread from a few months ago?

That bullet hardly opened up at an estimated 2700 fps impact speed on TWO warthogs.

Hat's off to Barnes for pioneering a new bullet, and I have no doubt they kill well, but the fact is that most X users are just plain zealots (dare I say "cult" <grin>) and that's what gets things stirred up on these threads. The bullet can do no wrong. It's perfect, and everything else sucks. Etc.

It's true, that bullet looks like some of Barnes early efforts, versions I never shot at game due to the minimal expansion they showed in testing. It is a rather decent amount of expansion though for the thickness and speed involved. The real proof, however, would be in what might happen in "real stuff".

The only dirt ball info is the info that you are spewing. ..............Here are real world results from TSX bullets not speculation or wax media results


Zebra Heart 338 Federal 210 TSX shot from approximately 100 yards





Bull Elk liver 180 grain TSX 30 Cal.





Pig shot at a lasered 350 yards 180 grain 30 cal. TSX





Eit hole from 180 grain TSX



TSX recovbered from acctual game






An 8mm CorLoc recovered from a Moose. This picture was originally posted by Canuck on Accurate Reloading.com

[img]http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/jwp475/8mmFailedCoreloc.jpg[/img]


Of course those with an agenda will ignore these results. These aren't small wound channels by any stretch of the imagination

Not impressed..... We got a zebra heart that has the lungs splayed open to make the wound appear larger, a pig with a raking shot that essentialy unzipped it( any bullet would do this) and a gut shot that clipped the liver with unimpressive amount of damage.

Ignorance='s not being exposed to the infomation

Stupid ='s not being able to comprehend the infomation

I couldnt agree more..hint, hint....

Look in the Mirror

Here is a thread that doesn't like TSX bullets because they produce too much damage complete with picture to back up his statements. This thread was started by an African PH


http://www.go-on-safari.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1102&start=0

And your acctual personal experience on game with TSX bullets is?

We can probably ALL agree that the "failure mode" for the TSX is to underexpand, and still penetrate.

And that the failure mode for many or most other bullets is to overexpand and not penetrate.

I'm not the saltiest pretzel in the bag, having only killed around 20 big game animals, but dang... overexpansion and lack of penetration is just not something I've EVER seen, with bullets including Corelokt, Silvertips, Interlocks, Ballistic Tips, Accubonds, Partitions, and whatever Federal loads in their .32 WS Classic load. Calibers to include 30-30, 30-06, .358, .325 WSM, .32 WS, 7mm-08... I've only recovered ONE bullet and that was this year, on a buck shot at 40 yards with a magnum rifle, where the bullet smashed right through the hip joint and then went 39" and ended up under the bucks chin. That was an Accubond.

So, if I saw the NEED for a bullet who's failure mode was to underexpand, and yet would pretty much always penetrate, I'd load TSX's happily. They tend to shoot great. But I just don't see the need.

I reserve the right to change my opinion if personal observations warrant it, though <g>.

John, read what I said again. I don't need to have killed with a TSX, in order to fail to see the NEED for more penetration. I'm getting PLENTY of penetration! So then, I look for other attributes in a bullet- such as wound channel volume, etc.

Hell we'll all be shooting copper bullets soon enough for environmental reasons, so you'll win this one in the end, John!

Nice elk by the way!

He hasnt used them because he hasnt needed to, at least that is what I am reading him as saying.

Not sure why his experience with the bullet has anything to do with his statement.

NAB work for him, therefore doesnt need the penetration of the TSX.

His statement says nothing else.

It is statements by those that have no experience with them and them make statements like " TSX's leave small wound channels" is what gets these things stirred up as they continue to spout off BS with nop proof and or experience to back up thier claims

Except, I have used them and am currently using them. I just do not have the blinders of brand loyalty on...

That's exactly it. I have not seen the need for a super-penetrator that sometimes fails to open up, on 18 deer and 2 elk. There are plenty of great bullets out there- the Accubond being one that I personally like, the TSX being another that I just have not seen any rational NEED for.

Now, put me on a caribou hunt with grizzlies in the area and I'd probably run TSX's in my .325. There'd be a reasonable NEED for that kind of overpenetration.

John, I don't want to fight with you. I will concede that my "cult" statement was a little out there. I apologize for that. I meant it to be funny but you guys are well past fun and games in this thread <g>.

Jeepers Creepers guys, hunting season ain't even OVER yet and we are already starting this [bleep]! It's gonna be a long, cold winter...

Crap! Gotta run. You guys will have to beat up on each without me...

You have to be a member to access that link, but here are the photos. The PH is a friend of mine. The rifle in question is a 7 mag and the ammo was Federal with 150 (?) grain TSXs.

This is a dik dik shot at 55 yard.



This is a gerenuk shot at 80 yards.



Lastly, this is the soulder of a lesser kudu shot at 110 yards.



These animals were all taken by the same hunter, on the same safari, with te same rifle/ammo combination. Now, someone please explain to me about how the TSX makes a smaller wound channel than more conventional cup and core bullets.......

I have no blinders of loyality, but I can observe the rests... To claim that the wound channels are small is laughable

Those pics are both amazing and appalling. I have never seen such carnage in the dozens of X shots I have viewed the results of. (Nor would I have produced dozens of such kills since that kind of trauma is one of the main things I shot the Barnes bullet for lack of.) I liked the long, fairly narrow bullet track they made either through flesh or bone, until they used up their momentum; not a pencil hole, not a balloon, just a decent long hole. That works.

I sure havent seen anything like that with TSX's or X's..

I have a fraction of the experience of most of you. I've only been hunting for a few years. I've always used TSXs, and now I have to as I hunt in the Condor range of central CA, no lead zone. I've shot several pigs, and this year a cow elk. All have been one shot kills with a .308, between 100-400 yds, mostly because of my incredible marksmanship skills ;), none of the animals were "blown up", or had excessive tissue damage. My friend made a frontal shot with a .308 on a cow elk that entered at the second rib, traveled lengthwise through the animal, and lodged in the back leg. The bullet was recovered, and it looked like something that should be on the cover of the Barnes catalog. Perfect!

One of my mentors, a guide for over 30 years, and a big fan of the TSX, put it to me in very simple terms, "when a lead and copper bullet expands, it acts like a fist because it just flattens out, when a TSX expands, it acts like a broadhead with its sharp petals". All the science and physics aside, could this simple fact have anything to do with anything?

Gee, I go away for a week on a hunting trip and this thread takes on a life of its own.

There seems to be a lot of speculation here.

I have personally shot several dozen animals with TSX's of various sizes, and seen a lot more animals shot from various rifles. All of these animals were opened up to see the results. The bullets have ranged from .224 to .375 in diameter, and muzzle velocities have ranged from 2500 to nearly 4000 fps. In all cases the bullets expanded, as I have yet to see a TSX fail to do so. The animals ranged from 25 to 1500 pounds in size, and ranges anywhere from just off the muzzle to around 500 yards. I have also observed some fairly similar bullets in action, including a lot of Fail Safes, E-Tips, etc. So there is quite a bit of hunting data in my bank.

I have also shot TSX's (and similar bullets) into a lot of different kinds of "media," from dry newspaper to ballistic gelatin to Test Tube wax. The last, by the way, holds the "permanent wound channel" much better than any other kind of media I've encountered so far, hence this is easily measured by pouring water into the cavity until it's filled. While no kind of media perfectly matches animal tissue (since animals are made up of several kinds of tissue), testing in various media does show some trends.

My observations are not just the personal observations of one hunter, since I have read much of scientific literature on bullet wounds.

It is simple physics that deep penetration is purchased at the price of the size of the initial wound channel, which is in turn mostly controlled by the MAXIMUM expansion of the bullet. This is not always the FINAL expansion width, by the way.

The easiest way to demonstrate this is by comparing a bullet that almost totally disintegrates (such as a fragile varmint bullet) with one that doesn't expand at all (a solid). The varmint bullet penetrates very little, but makes a wide hole. The solid penetrates deeply, but makes a narrow hole. All expanding bullets perform somewhere between these two extremes.

Yes, TSX's can create enormous tissue destruction, especially if they hit bone or even an area of looser skin and/or fat. I have seen a 140 TSX from a .270 Winchester almost blow a coyote in half--and the same load, from the same rifle, at just about the same 200-yard range, punch a 3/4" hole through a spike bull elk a couple of days later. The elk just stood there for quite a while, obviously hard hit but just as obviously not falling. It could not be shot again because a cow elk had moved up behind it. Eventually the cow moved, and the spike was shot through the shoulders, which dropped it. Even then it didn't die, but lay there with its head up for at least half a minute. The first shot was through both lungs and the top of the heart--and yes, the bullet expanded. Or at least it appeared to. A 3/4" hole (.75 inch) is a LOT bigger than a .277" hole.

In general TSX's kill somewhat quicker than on that elk, but there is always a variation between individual animals. On average, however, bullets that shed some weight do create bigger immediate wound channels and hence do kill quicker that bullets that retain all their weight, like the TSX and several others. This is indeed simple physics, and is (once more) ON AVERAGE. Hence when I read of TSX's dropping every game animal on impact, I know that the observer is shooting for shoulder/spine shots, or has shot very few animals, or is engaged in some sort of selective memory.

Also, evidently some folks think that there is some substantial difference in how quickly various expanding bullet take to expand fully. There is not. Almost all designs will fully expand by the time their full length has entered either game or test media.

The only exception I have seen is the Berger VLD, which normally doesn't start to expand for 1.5 to 2.0 inches after hitting game.
Then they generally disintegrate--and yes, VLD's have ON AVERAGE resulted in the largest number of very quick kills with typical chest shots on big game. This is because they make the biggest holes of any bullet out there, through disintegration.

Thank you for your lucidity, Mule Deer.

I like how Accubonds work. Blow up early, then keep on digging. My sample of 2 deer and 4 elk has shown remarkable consistency that way, and several of those animals had major bone involvement early on. Does that jibe with what you've seen, MD, or is my sample size still too small?

Great post MD!

Gee, isnt that what I said all along. Miles, JW and the rest of the Barnes cheer leading crew can choke on that..

Why do you seem so angry?

I am not angry at all, just think the Barnes cheer leading squad is full of crap.

One could say that those who dismiss Barnes bullets outright are even more full of crap in the face of so much hard evidence to their effectiveness. There are way too many myths circulating, but that is the nature of the internet. Lots of the TSX supporters here have used them extensively before they drew their conclusions, not basing them on one anomoly.

Does anyone know why a 250 grain TSX is available in .338 while it isn't available in .358? (It would seem to be more logical the other way around if they're going to drop the weight in one caliber. The XFB was available in 250 grains in both.)

Who has dismissed them? I surely haven't, but I am aware of where the increased penetration comes from. And it aint magic.
If you want to gain penetration at the expense of wound channel size and quick killing have at it.

I have not dismissed them; I carried them the whole season last year elk hunting. I also loaded them for my backup elk rifle this year.

My thinking, such as it is, is that copper bullets are probably the wave of the future. Since I'm not required by law to use them, and since there isn't yet a tipped 8mm TTSX or Etip for my mighty .325 WSM (grin), I have the luxery of letting the dust settle a bit. Barnes is known for tweaking their designs, and in a perfect world, if I put the time and money into switching bullets, that bullet will still be available, unchanged, 5 or 10 years later...

In the meantime, the Accubond is showing me great penetration, horrific wound channels, quick kills on critters up to large elk, wonderful consistent accuracy, easy availability, and a good price.

"It is simple physics that deep penetration is purchased at the price of the size of the initial wound channel, which is in turn mostly controlled by the MAXIMUM expansion of the bullet. This is not always the FINAL expansion width, by the way.

The easiest way to demonstrate this is by comparing a bullet that almost totally disintegrates (such as a fragile varmint bullet) with one that doesn't expand at all (a solid). The varmint bullet penetrates very little, but makes a wide hole. The solid penetrates deeply, but makes a narrow hole. All expanding bullets perform somewhere between these two extremes."

Do you have any data comparing like bullet's wound channels. I can't imagine a comparable bullet at comparable velocity performing all that differently. In other words a accubond and a TSX/TTSX should be about impossible to tell one from the other by looking at the wound. I would expect that there would be nearly indistinguishable differences between the wound channels in media when you compare tough bullets to tough bullets. What I would expect to see is total penetration when observing media would show up the highest retained weights with the longest penetration if the bullet mushrooms decently. A bullet that fails to mushroom of course is going to either pass through without expending energy or it will not mushroom because of tumbling, in either case it is a non-applicable comparison.

I was told by the Barnes tech to shoot a lighter X bullet than you normally would with a traditional lead core. Said it keeps the impact velocity higher to improve the initial shock yet penetration would still be ok due to the cutting action and 100% weight retention. How would the wound channel compare with a 280 shooting a 154 Interlock or 160AB versus a 120 X bullet at much higher velocities?
dan

In pictures I've seen of the Accubond wound channel, it IS different than a TSX wound channel. The AB shows shrapnel damage if nothing else, and typically a TSX won't.

MILES58,

No, I don't have any "data," just hundreds of buyllets shot into media and various animals.

Yes, there definitely is a difference in the wound channels, especially in media the Test Tube wax that retains the profile of the permanent channel. In fact you can tell the difference between the woudn channels of the 110 AccuBond, 115 Ballistic Tip and 115 Partition when fired at the same approximate muzzle
velocity.

The big difference shows up in the size of the hole immediately behind the entrance. A more fragile bullet creates a bigger hole right there, while a tougher bullet creates a smaller hole.

This is all really basic stuff, known to all the researchers who deal in ballistic forensics, whether with handguns or rifles.

"Yes, there definitely is a difference in the wound channels, especially in media the Test Tube wax that retains the profile of the permanent channel. In fact you can tell the difference between the woudn channels of the 110 AccuBond, 115 Ballistic Tip and 115 Partition when fired at the same approximate muzzle
velocity."

JB,

Where do I go to see the above?

I have not read all 7 pages but I have a comment. Please be aware that there is a move underway to ban bullets with any lead in them. Its started with the condors (CA & AZ), the midwest lead/big game meat recall and some EPA rumblings. While there may be a long enough sunset period, I'd have a load or two in my logbook for a E Tip, TSX or whoever else enters the all copper market.
While not trying to fan any flames, Barak and his dem. friends could do this easily by slipping a ban into a bill that no one reads.
By the way, here is a link to the MN DNR lead study.

www.mndnr.gov/lead

The TSX bullets in general do not create large exits in the hide and or muscle tissue, but I defy any one to show that the wound channel through the vitals (heart Lungs, liver, etc.) is small. I have posted pictures of this carnage enough times that most have seen them and that is the kind of damage that I expect and see. After nearly 100 head of game (that I have taken and or hunting partners have taken) this trend has remained constant.
I am much more interested in the wound channel that I can see and photograph in animals than I am in the wound channel left in candle wax (as in "The Test Tube) The hotter the temp the larger the test wound channel will be in the wax media of the test tube, the colder the temp the smaller. Not a consistent way to measure or compare wound channel size

jwp,

First, I never claimed the wound channel from any kind of Barnes X is small. I only claimed that it starts out smaller than that of many other bullets. This doesn't mean an X won't punch a big hole in something, just that others will punch a bigger hole, especially immediately behind the extrnace hole.

You are exactly right about how differences in temperature affect wax, the reason The Test Tube designed to be shot at 70 degrees, a relatively easy thing to accomplish. Some users, however, apparently did not read the directions, and therefore got widely differing results at 40 and 90 degrees. But the Test Tube, used as directed, has received the interest and approval of several professional groups, including some top law enforcement agencies and ballistic test labs.

But I doubt that will have any affect on your opinion. A great many people don't understand the reasons and use of the various kinds of test media, insisting that only shooting animals is valid. In the end that's obviously true, if a bullet is designed for game, but animals are inconsistent in size, range, angle and interior materials.

This is why ALL the major bullet companies that I have dealt with INITIALLY use some sort of media testing (often including the Test Tube) to see if they're in the right ballpark before starting to test a new bullet on actual animals. The extent of the animal testing can vary, but some companies have shot several hundred animals before releasing a new bullet to the public.

After testing on animals, then they will probably tweak the bullet some, and test it again both in media and animals. There is indeed a very good correlation between various test medias and general performance in animal tissue, the reason these companies spend considerably time and money on both.

There are a lot of hunters out there, like you, claim they can fully understand and appreciate wound channels from shooting real game. That's great. You might submit a resume to some of the bullet companies.

In the meantime, none of the bullet companies that I know of belive that the wound channel from one type of expanding bullet will be the same as that from another, DIFFERENT type of expanding bullet. They may well be mistaken, but so far none of the evidence I've seen contradicts this opinion. And that is one reason some companies make several different kinds of expanding bullet. If they all acted the same, then a Ballistic Tip or Core-Lokt would act just like a Barnes X, and obviously they don't.

I think I will go back to using a sharp stick.

It's certainly less controversial!! LOL!!

It is at that. The debate over whether oak or pine would fragment more upon entry was settled sometime back in 1565 in an issue of "Stickloader."

I do not dissagree that testing certainly has it's place and if every one shot the media at the same temperature, then the results would certainly be consistent. The test tube wax is not the consistentce of Lungs liver, etc and the resultant wound relates to what when compared to the results on game. In the end thou the real test for a hunting bullet is in the field and on game. I know that you have been on many field tests of new bullets and that is after all where they must prove themselves.

115g NP


110g NAB


115g NBT


100g TSX


100g GS Custom HV100


All 4 of the above were shot at 100y from at .25-06. Impact velocity of the NP was aproximately 2803fps, the NAB 2886fps, TSX 3161fps, 100g HV 3174fps and NBT 2813fps.

Temperature was controlled, shot on consecutive days at the same temperature, I tested before I shot.

You're right, the wax isn't the consistency of lungs or liver. In fact lungs are not the consistency of liver, or ribs the consistency of shoulder muscle, or leg bones the consistency of heart, or heart muscle the consistency of heart valves.

That is why when bullet companies test bullets to see what they do RELATIVE to other bullets, they first use something consistent. Otherwise they are just guessing at what might happen if the bullet went 2" this way or that, or the animal weighed 100 pounds more, or was a zebra instead of a caribou.

No argument on the need for consistent testing by bullet makers, before going to the field for testing on game and that is the litmus test IMHO

I belive that a few bullets were modified after the field testing on live animals, even thou they had tested well in test media

The new Hornady GMX

From left to right Impact velocities 3400FPS, 2700 FPS, 2000 FPS

Well, for those who think copper solves the "condor/environmental" problem, think again. There is already plenty of "stuff" out there to suggest that they'll likely target anything we use for bullets. (Bullets are the "problem".)

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/10631705

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16778371

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002496.htm#Definition

http://www.staugustine.com/stories/041802/foo_646229.shtml

And that's just copper. Iron is also very toxic, one of a handful of most common ways youngsters are poisoned. And even aluminum....

No, copper is not a final answer....

Geeeez!

Lasers......can we at least use lasers!!!

Now that would be an interesting wound channel....like a #2 pencil all the way through. Better have a mountain for a backstop. Best part......your venison is precooked!!

Glad the TSX's are magic theory has been put to rest..

Not magic, just better design, materials, R&D, etc....... It's not too late for you to join the TSX club......LOL!

It is quite apparent that you are unable to see the pictures that have been posted, perhaps a better internet connection

kyreloader,

Thank you for posting the results and the load data. They look to be useful for comparison.

I think you stated that you measured length by width by width to obtain volume. Why didn't you just fill the cavities with water?

Was there a reason that you did not match velocities and bullet weights for more direct comparison? What were you using for a container? It does not appear to be identical in each case. Are the little blue pieces in the NBT picture the tip?

I think there must be a reason that the TSX discussion comes up so often and is so controversial. I have never shot a TSX bullet, but I have some loaded and ready to go this season. There are so many different stories about this design, that it seems as if you are talking about two different bullets entirely.
Is it all possible that one bullet could produce so many different results? On the other hand, I seriously doubt that any of the guys are BS-ing. There semms to be a genuine knowledge of how this bullet works, but there are some who don't believe the "Magic Bullet" theory. The pics of the African animals are compelling, but doesn't tell enough about the load itself. I talked to a Custom Ammo maker and he told me when you load TSX bullets, you have to change your thinking from any other jacketed style bullet. maybe that's why the discrepency. Very interesting reading I will say.

As JB stated their is no test media that can match the varied consistency of an animal which consists of bone, heart liver lungs, hair,and skin and the bullet has to perform against a varied media and no test media todate can duplicate all of these at the same eime

To say that this is a small wound from a TSX is ridiculous




This is the exit from the same bullet that passed through the heart




TSX exit most of the time are like the one above, but the vitals look like a blender went through them

Klikitarik,

I wouldn't get too far afield with the assumptions that because copper is toxic it too will be banned. Yes copper is toxic but, it is much less so than lead and much less readily absorbed. I can't say that the consequences of copper ingestion in other species are not much more severe that in humans, nor that they couldn't be catastrophic. After all, we damn near killed off many of our raptors on a global scale.

They way we win is to be right. Right every time and with sound arguments every time. The Heller decision while based on a suit to establish a right to keep and bear for defense of life and limb also contained a very, very important finding that will be amplified in years to come. The right to bear arms in order to restrain the hand of government is now part of our heritage in specific terms. With that in place we stand on much more equal footing with the government. In order to restrict the use of lawful weapons the government must now bear the burden of proving the necessity of doing so. That is a huge advantage to us. Because of that we must be right and we must be well reasoned. Otherwise we could lose what we've just won to damn fool nonsense.

I think you are right in a lot of your thoughts. As far as assuming goes though, I think we need to assume a lot of things so we are ready for just about anything. It seems pretty clear that bullet content is an easy loophole for the gun grabbers, one that doesn't require so much effort in the courts. It should, however, require plenty of evidence from the lab. And we need to do whatever we can to make sure they are held accountable scientifically every step of the way in the lab. Assumptions and speculation play great with the media and much of the public - as long as it moves things the direction which their agenda blows.

There is an awful lot of "evidence" out and about - and has been for a long time- of sick waterfowl, sometimes with shot in their gizzards, which are assumed to be lead poisoned. That is nothing more than evidence for a possibility. The proof requires a necropsy involving tissue samples. We need to be ready. It is way to easy use to use a camera to win these arguments in the courts of public opinion, while factual data takes time, effort, and money.

If you think copper won't be on "their" agenda next, look here:

http://www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/Field%20Notes/FieldNotes2002.html

You need to read down to where it talks about three chick deaths.

(And I was under the impression that lead was slow to leave organisms. According to this, they measure high levels of lead in a few birds, but these same birds can lose those lead levels in a fairly short time.)

jwp,

ALL the bullet makers that I have extensive contact with are almost constantly tweaking bullets. This is the reason the Nosler Ballistic Tip performs very differently than it did when introduced 20-odd years ago, but even the Partitions get tweaked. The same thing occurs with practically every brand. Not many are exactly the same bullet they were 5 or 10 years ago. Wel, a few are, but not many.

I know that bullets from all manufacturers are tweaked on a regular basis for a variety of reasons including easy of manufacturer and never stated to the contrary that I am aware of.

My contention is that field testing on acctuall animals trumps test media

"A couple of days ago Mule Deer wrote, "On average, however, bullets that shed some weight do create bigger immediate wound channels and hence do kill quicker that bullets that retain all their weight, like the TSX and several others."

Isn't this just what Roy Weatherby preached 50 years ago? Take a cup and core bullet intended for a 30-06, rack the velocity up about 500 fps, and it explodes, killing instantly. Of course, it has to get into the chest cavity before it explodes.

BS!

Most definitely not BS. The results speak for themselves. Why do you have so much trouble accepting them??

They were factory loads, Ron (Federal I believe).

On the test media thing you are correct.
The problem is I have actually shot stuff with TSX as wells as many other "regular" bullets before I came to the conclusion I have.
The phot is clearly manipulated to make the damage look worse than it is. For starters it was taken from very close. The lung is also splayed over to make the wound channel more oblong, so no I am not impressed. the l;ast animal i shot with a accubond didn't have a heart save a strip of raged, minced flesh. No 100 yard dash involveL either.
And once again you can not deny that bullets that penetrate deep do so by having less resistance. less resistance comes from less frontal area and less frontal area results in a smaller wound channel. Not to mention that a monolithic bullets doesnt have the shrapnel effect of disintegrating bits of lead and copper.

True and I am speaking from experience. Albeit objective experience free from brand loyalty, cheer leading and agenda pushing.
Physics and basic mechanical principles speak pretty loudly as well. There isn't a magic bullet.....

Very true. TSX bullets have less resistance than other lead bullets do, not because they have narrower frontal diameter, but because they have petals, rather than a blunt, round front end. For example, an arrow head would penetrated a wall, destroying the 1"x1" section of drywall. A golf ball would also penetrate a wall, destroying the same 1"x1" section of drywall. Which would encounter less resistance? The frontal diameter of both objects is roughly the same.

BWalker you can have any view that you want but to accuse me of manipulateing the photo's is pure BS and you are most certainly full of it.

How is your experience objective when it is obviously biased in the other direction? Your posts prove your obvious bias against TSXs.

I have been loading my own ammunition for 52 years. I have been killing deer with that ammo for 48 years. I carefully examine every single one of them. When I started many bullets were much less reliable. Accuracy wise it was bad enough. Performance wise they sucked. Core lokts came along. Partitions came along. Neither were all that good at first. I have everything available today and I have no bias other than I want the best I can get. I Use TSXs and TTSXs because I don't find anything better. I can match the accuracy. I can match the performance most of the time. I cannot match it all and get non-toxic loads any other way.

When I can take a little 85 grain TSX and put it in behind the diaphragm taking two ribs on the way in and then perfectly lay open the heart to expose all four chambers and valves and destroy the lung to the point of no remaining recognizable lung tissue and still have enough starch to take the first two ribs one the way out of the chest and make it most of the way up the neck before it exits, about 30 inches of penetration, I recognize it for what it is. I have seen enough bullets hit ribs like that and not penetrate the body but instead just slide around outside just under the skin. I have seen enough bullets come undone hitting rib much less heavier bone. I have seen enough bullets fail to expand.

I don't consider Barnes bullets magic. I don't consider them perfect. But, I do recognize the best bullet anyone has yet offered me and I recognize enough ignorant BS from people with their head so far up their backside they are looking at the world with a belly button perspective on life. I don't give a tinkers damn whether some fool wants to use something else. I use other bullets when they are better for the job at hand.

For big animals I intend to eat there is nothing even close. For big animals that may well do you harm if you don't kill them they are the bullet of choice by the people who know what they are about. Not all of them maybe, but certainly most.

We live in a world full of opinionated fools who have no idea of what they are about. Some of them don't believe lead is poison. Some believe all manner of nonsense. Every time they run their mouths they influence more fools, and sometime people who just haven't been around long enough to know what they are looking at.

Barnes has led the way and given us something good enough to make the other bullet makers follow. That will make things better yet. It will make Hornady better. It will make Speer better. It will make Nosler better. It will make them all better. It will make us better.

You don't like them? Don't use them. I like them and I like what they have done and are doing to bullet technology. You think lead in your food is harmless, well maybe you ought to consider whether you might have already had too much.

I like the Win. FailSafe. Lead is good; just don't eat it, or green meat........but then I am around lead 24/7 so take it (advice) FWIW.

Precisely... The TSX is one of if not the finest hunting bullet for rifles on the market and any one that claims that they don't shread the vitials is most certainly full of it.

For big bore handguns the wide meplat flat point hard cast still rien supreme other than for the magnificent Punch bullet

Hawk the Failsafe was a great bullet and it's replacement is a lesser bullet

Muledeer,
I could not agree with you more.
Many people relate the appearance of a recovered bullet to killing power believing that the prettier it looks the better it kills.
Others relate killing power to penetration, strictly.
I love to have so many options, and I constantly try this bullet or the other, but I have shot too many animals in the ribs with "soft" bullets that produced instant kills to think a monolityc is the only way to go.
Regards,
BBerg

You dont see me hyping any bullet companies.
And I dont dislike the TSX. I am just aware of where all that penetration comes from and its a trade off I dont want to make for a deer bullet.

No, I haven't seen you hype any bullets, but I also haven't seen you miss a chance to bash the TSX or any other Barnes bullet for that matter. The opportunity presents itself and you don't hesitate to let it rip.

Perhaps,

I have never fired one; I still have a good stock of FS's.

Do you have any pictures to back up your BS?
Your posts are always of a negative nature..

I agree with this one; Many do not like the way many lead cores, even the premium ones, lose weight (because it can sacrifice penetration).

I have a 338/250 NP Gold recovered from media that retained about 85% of its weight and penetrated a lot of dry newsprint. (Sorry, not very scientific). A 358 250 cast softnose (lower S.D., lower speed) penetrated just as deep but did not have a nose left; it "spent" itself creating the wound channel. Alas, it did the same work, actually it created a larger "wound" at its greatest point, because it has no jacket....but recovery style is everything.

Personally, the Barnes bullets I have used/seen in action have created wounds to vital organs that were never lacking; I don't put much creedence in creating the largest possible wounds, just adequate ones. The use of 224's on deer sized game generally points this out, as does 270 v. 338 on elk arguments...

Wow - Some of you guys get pretty serious regarding these Barnes bullets. Me I tried the original X and was less than impressed. I have not dropped any game with the new TSX or TTSX. Have to say for game up to caribou I have never felt lacking with any good cup/core bullets. Elk and up have been handled just fine thank you with Nosler Partitions and Bearclaws. I just may have to try the Barnes again.

My posts simply point out the design trade offs of the TSX. That is to say they trade of wound channel width for penetration and ultimately kill thin skinned game less decisively than a cup and core.
Its the cheerleading squad that takes this as negative, but it is 100% factual.

Now that doesn't make any sense.

Of course you are apparently blind and can't see any of the pictures of the massive damage to the vital organs.


Here one for you and this wound was created by a flat point solid from a 454 notice that the leg is missing, it pulled off during skining. The poor hog when down instantly

It's funny, just a couple of days ago I hit a very large bodied buck (probably close to 280lbs live weight) with a 100gr TSX out of my .25-06. Of course, you probably would predict that he ran for 100 yards or more before dying, because of the "trade-off" in a quick kill for penetration, that you associate with this bullet.

Well, that buck just reared up on his hind legs and fell over backwards, kicked a couple of times, and lay still. It was all over in about 2 or 3 seconds. The bullet did, indeed, exit the off-side of the buck, so there's your penetration. However, inside the ribcage of the buck was lung soup. There were no significant chunks of lung left, and the entire cavity was like a stew, full of blood and chunkies.

How much quicker of a kill can you ask for?

Yes, TSX's will kill quickly. All bullets will, on some animals. Often this is helped by rib fragments. But examples of one don't prove anything.

What I am talking about is the average kill, over dozens or even hundreds of animals. Eventually, if enough animals are shot with bullets that don't expand very widely or lose some weight (fragments) during that expansion, then some animals will go quite a ways before dropping. I have seen this fairly often with TSX's, as well as some other super-penetrating bullets.

One example is the pronghorn buck mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Despite a good hit through both lungs with a .25 100-grain TSX started at over 3500 fps, he went around 150 yards before falling. That's the farthest I've seen any animal go after a good hit with a TSX and similar bullets, but have seen quite a few go 50-100 yards before falling from solid heart/lung hits. The percentage of such long death runs I've see is higher with petal-type bullets than with "softer" bullets. And that is to be expected.

This does not mean I don't thionk TSX's (or any other similar bullets) aren't good bullets. I do, and use them a lot. But they have their limitations, like any other bullet. And the limitation of such bullets is the relatively small frontal expansion, with no extra damage done from secondary bullet fragments.

I have shot all sorts of bullets into both animals and test media, and the biggest factor in penetration is NOT retained weight, but frontal area. And frontal "area" is not just the width of the mushroom, but the overall area. X's and similar bullets have spaces between the petals. This overall smaller frontal area is the biggest factor that allows such bullets to penetrate deeper, NOT retained weight.

As an example, Wooldleigh Weld-Cores are designed to open up very widely, and retain 90% of their weight or more. During a bullet test on cull animals, I once observed my friend Ron Spomer shooting a 100-pound deer with a .416 wildcat using a 360-grain Woodleigh started at 2650 fps. Ron wanted to see what penetration would be like, so took a rear angling shot. The bullet hit just behind the rear of the rib cage on the right side--and we found it under the hide just inside the left shoulder. It retained around 92% of its weight, but it also opened up to about 2.5 times it's original .416 diameter. And THAT is why it didn't exit.

I have done many, many bullet tests with Nosler Partitions, which as many of us know, tend to lose the front end on expansion, leaving a relatively small mushroon. Often the weight loss is 35% or even more. Yet Partitions will generally penetrate almost as deeply as TSX's of the same diameter and weight in media--and also penetrate very deeply in game. The reason? Relatively small frontal area, which is more important in penetration that weight retention (see Woodleigh example).

Partitions do tend to stop under the hide more than TSX's. I suspect, however, that this is because of the more rounded mushroom of an expanded Partition, rather than the petal-front of a TSX (or E-Tip, or whatever). I have seen too many Partitions go lengthwise or close to it on deer and elk to believe they don't penetrate a LOT. Yet many hunters assume they won't because of the lower retained weight, because we've been told (especially by some gun writers, who should know better) that retained weight is the only factor in penetration.

Many, many shooters fail to realize that designing ANY expanding bullet is a series of compromises. The laws of physics make it so. There is no bullet made that opens up widely AND penetrates deeply. Those are mutually exclusive things.

That is also there is no such thing as the perfect bullet. That doesn't stop most of us from deciding there is, usually based on a handful of animals--or even one.

Jordan, I was going to reply to your post, but I think JB sumed it up pretty well.
I might also say that I have shot several deer with my 25-06 AI using the 100 gr TSX. One ran a significant distance despite a good hit, the other two ran about fifty yards or so. All hits where heart/lung shots.

Not that you need any support for what you have already stated on numerous occasions in this regard. However, I had a classic case of what you state here on a moose I shot - several times - with 140 grain bullets out of a 6.5X55. Two were Partitons, two were A-Frames. The shots were all broadside from the left side, all through the ribs, all including muscle of, but no bone of the leg(s).

The Partitions were both stopped by hide on the far side.



...with some obvious weight loss. The A-Frames, which I didn't recover, were both in the muscle of the offside leg, presumably a bit heavier - and broader- than the Partitions.




Very true. And I think those of us who have been disappointed by certain bullets at times, have been so because we may have been a bit too enamoured by them initially - speaking for myself anyway.

I appreciate the breadth and depth of the experiences you relate so well!

Thanks!

In the tests I (and others) have made with A-Frames and Partitions, in general they both penetrate to about the same depth, everything else being equal. The A-Frames generally have a larger frontal area (which tends to stop them when they run into the far-side hide) but retain more weight.

Or at least they do in lighter weights. As I have written before, the biggest Nosler Partitions have the partition mocved forward, and are designed to retain 90% of their weight, give or take 5% or so. This now applies to all of them of 9.3mm or larger, and may to some smaller ones as well. One 225 .338 Partition I shot into a musk ox retained around 85% of its weight, and all except a small fragment of the front core was gone.

As a good friend who also tests a lot of bullets once said to me, "The more I do this, the more variables turn up!"

One thing we can count on, though: bullet placement is still by far the biggest variable in the whole equation.

Now that we are comparing frontal areas of expanding bullets and quickness of kills, is it safe to say a 338 will kill deer sized game quicker than say a 257 Roberts or 270, all else being equal?

Perhaps you need to put your thinking cap on as its a pretty simple concept...

Woundwound channel depth is lenght which is penetration, in essance you are sayinbg that the TSX trade off is less depth for more penetration

Yep makes no sense, again you are rambling.

JB on nearly 100 head of game I have yet to see a less than massive wound through Vital organs with TSX, yes the exits through the hide and the path through heavy muscle is small than some cup and core bullets, but NOT the path through the vitals.

In my expereience the TSX puts game down extremely faster and is in no way slower to put game down than in other type bullet that I have seen used and on average I'd rank the TSX as one of the faster bullets when it come to putting game down. That is my experience with the TSX and I'd expect the E-Tip and GMX to be equally effective.

I check out the wound chaanel very closely on every animal that is taken and I have seen nothing but massive damage to vital organ with TSX bullets. 100 Animals is a fair smple IMHO

I've shot about 30 big game animals or so with TSX's, and the vast majority of those were DRT or within a couple of feet.

Sure there are bullets that have a greater expanded frontal area. There are bullets which drop animals quicker than does the TSX. But how fast do we need them to drop??? Probably about 27 of the 30 animals I've shot with TSX's have fallen within about 5 feet. The other few have gone about 100 yards or less, and all 3 of them had a blood trail a blind man could follow. Some of them were shot in wooded areas, and regardless, I never lost a single one.

There is no perfect bullet. There is no magic bullet. Bullets are surely full of compromises, from weight retention, to expanded frontal area, rifle fouling properties, B.C., construction material, ease of expansion, toughness and ability to hold together, and lets not forget about $$$price. The list goes on. Each of us needs to pick the bullet that best suits our hunting style and conditions. It just so happens that the TSX is the best bullet that I have used so far, for my hunting style and area.

If I hunt an area where I don't want the animal to go very far, am able to ensure a broadside shot, and am not hunting animals larger than deer or antelope, I may just use the 100gr Sierra GK or the 110gr AB load that I have worked up for that same .25-06.

Good hunting guys, and thanks for a great discussion!

I thought the one that Oswald shot was a "Magic" bullet

Sorry, my mistake

Check out these 2 30 cal 200 grain Partions that a friend of shot recovered from a Bison

Here is the picture and his description

I intended to type width. Of course you knew that..

Any idea of the impact velocity>

No but I will ask him and find out.

BTW as it pertains to rambling, once again you are bringing up pictures of other bullets like Nosler Partitions and wide meplat pistol bullets. What this has to do with a TSX I will never know.
Got some self validation issues?

Of course you will never know, your incapable of knowing, that's not news

Miles58, I couldn't blame you one bit for your love of the TSX- compared to the bullet mayhem you witnessed growing up. That many bullet failures would tend to make a guy REALLY value a bullet that always penetrates.

But please consider this. I started hunting the year 2000... or 1999... can't remember now, but anyway- recently.

I'm not the briniest sardine in the can, but I have now killed just over 20 big game animals, including two elk.

I have never seen anything even remotely resembling bullet failure. All I've seen on deer from Corelokt, Partitions, Accubonds, Ballistic Tips, Silvertips, Interlocks, and a couple others are exit wounds- except for a deer this year that was a true "test of a bullet", in which I screwed the pooch and shot a blacktail through the ball of the hip joint at 40 yards with a magnum rifle. The bullet penetrated over 39", ending up under the bucks chin!

So... I respect your opinion and how you arrived at. But since I've NEVER seen penetration to be a problem, it hasn't led me to desire a solution- especially at the expense of a (on average) quicker kill, as Mule Deer talkes about.

This isn't TSX bashing, it's just my attempt to explain why THIS hunter isn't all a-flutter over the copper bullets.

One of the most well known and best gun writers of our time, who has also written chapters in books on bullet ballistics, gives us the scoop of his experience and testing with bullets and still we have some that refute it.

Amazing.

I think this thread should have been over after Mule Deer's last 2 posts.

KYRELOADER Its amazing the lengths the cheerleaders go to.

I guess that you think that no one eles's experienced result and proof of such results counts

Hawk1,

Not that I have noticed--except with bullets that open up widely with relaively little resistance. In other words, I have seen more difference in how a .338 put deer down from the bullets used than the initial diameter of the bullet.

Now you expect me to read your mind?

What's amazing is some inability to grasp result even with picture attached

It's called considering the source...

I mean no ill words here, but I much respect Mule Deer's opinion due to his credentials and his years of writings/publications. The man helped write a book on bullets. I dont need much more than that.

His opinion/experience matters more than most to me.

That's not a problem, but that doesn't change the fact or the results that I have posted along with picture that prove beyound a shadow of a dought the results.
Your choice

And I made it.

I have a ton of info and pictures, maybe I'll write a book will that make my info more "Valid"?

Thanks JB;

I haven't noticed either

Yes it would. Years of experience and testing and talking to bullet companies means alot to me.

It wouldn't be anymore valid than it is now, because you clearly have an agenda.

What is the title of this thread?

You are still full of BS. Do you have any thing of value to add? Any picture? Anything?

Lemme see if I can dig up some trumped up gut pics.....

You as wipe there is nothing trumped up in the photos that I have posted, you lack of intellegence knows no bounds

My azz. The zebra heart photo is so bogus its not even funny and for a variety of reasons.
And even then its still not very impressive.

Again you are full of bull [bleep].
Now you have started with the personal insults again since you are essentialy calling me a liar and a fraud

You truely are a real 100% bon-a-fide Dick Head

Not I who cast the first stone in regards to insults, but yea I am essentially calling you a liar and fraud....
Do you think people are so stupid as to not notice that you took that zebra heart photo from very close distance and that you splayed the lung off to the side to make the wound look larger?

They are as they fell. You are a real piece of Sh..t and that is apparent for all to see

I guess JJHack is wrong about TSX bullets as well? According to you they are worthless

http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php/topic,121982.0.html

More from JJHack

http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php/topic,121982.0.html




BWalker I don't expect you to get it, just want to save you the trouble of posting to let us know that you don't get it.

More from JJHack

http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php/topic,121982.0.html

Catch what? "...complaints with how they." With how they what? Well??



Or what about this?



Seriously? I am certainly no physicist but you better run that by me again:



I see how this works!


And then this:







Well, so you'll just discount it like that? And I suppose the same is true of the deer which TJT shot in the guts. That shot led to its demise - and he even recovered it. All good?



You've complained about lack of pictures more than once to posters. Yeah, well, what if we do? I do post some, but you don't like them since you choose what meets your approval for public consumption. I don't care since what you think means less and less with every post you make. But to use "still being manufactured" as an excuse. I wonder how many people are actually hunting with the latest and greatest rendition of their chosen bullet. Seriously, the old XFB pictured was a bullet which worked very well for me a number of times. In fact, judging from those I otherwise recovered, that bullet worked virtually like the best of what the TSXs do now. (And I suspect it would be okay to picture a North Fork or FailSafe even though they don't make them?)

Let's see what you did with this example:




The barely intelligible first quote above was a response to this. So what do you really mean?




What's amazing to me is how some people don't accept the fact that more than one person's experience can be valid. And that being right doesn't always meaning having to prove someone else wrong.

The facts appear to be that you choose to accept those pictures and details (and perhaps posters) whom you approve of. That's okay. Perhaps it's common. But attempting to prove others wrong to the world simply because you don't approve of what they offer from their experience is cheap. We can all decide those things for ourselves.

None of is a perfect human being nor a perfect hunter. And some of us don't write - or type- all that well. I don't see anyone bashing you too badly for the latter fault!

So, with a somewhat apologetic inclination for the preaching, but also a desire for vindication on behalf not only of others, but also myself - whom you have targeted in some of your recent posts, I hope that you will allow us to find some respect for you based on what you know and share, not because you are always trying to be the "rightest" one.

Your bullet is not produced any more.

180 grain of copper is the same weight and has the same momentum of as 180 grains of lead maybe you better go and brush up on your physics.
Weight is weight when both bullets weigh the same the momentum is the same at the same velocity


Of course sharing info is the intent, but some want to discredit the info with nothing of substance. Every thread that I post my results with TSX (not X bullets) you run out that photo of the old obsolete X bullet that hasn't been produced for YEARS as proof that TSX bullets fail. Post info that is current and I have no problem with that. How is the posting of a bullet that hasn't been produced for years relevant to a discussion of TSX bullets which are in production?

Wow. That was not only unnecessary, but rather pathetic. To what length will you go to discount the photos posted by jwp? If there is one thing I know about him, he is not a liar and I suspect you would be feeling his size 10 if you even suggested that he is a liar in his company. I think it is rather sad that grown men (I can assume that most of you aren't teenagers posting on this thread) cannot discuss without it regressing to what this has become. BWalker, have you ever shot a zebra? Have you really used TSXs? Well then, let's see the photos. Anyone this interested in bullet performance and this invested in proving the ineffectiveness of Barnes bullets surely has made the effort to document their findings in the field. Right?

This might be one of the worst topic/threads I've read so far.

That Zebra heart fell on a tail gate of a truck??

That Zebra heart fell on a tail gate of a truck??
Whitworth, once again I have used TSX and am currently using them. I dont get off by taking pictures of gut piles though. As I said previously our deer season opens tomorrow and I will be sure to take some gut pics just for the cheerleading squad.

Yes BWalker they did. Since the Zebra was hanging and the skiners were standing in the bed of the truck

Isn't it quite apparent that hte skinner (that's the guy holding the knife with the rubber glove on) is bent over holding his knife for size comparison

Yes, it is. Its also apparent how close the camera was and that the lung is pulled over to the right hand side of the pic. Even if you discount both of these points its still not very impressive.

That is correct. However, it has been out of production in that exact form for only about four years, maybe five. And the bullet which replaces it is virtually identical in construction except it has grooves to help it shoot better.



I have never argued it was anything different. My argument is that having equal momentum at one point does not mean two objects will always retain the same momentum. My point in that thread was that I had my doubts that the material (copper) may not be carrying that momentum well enough for a target as resistant to penetration as moose can be. I further doubt that a smaller bullet of similar material and construction would be better. I was not attempting to discredit the XFB, XBT, XLC, TSX, or TTSX. I happen to think the old 225 grain .338 XFB was a pretty darned good bullet. But I also have some doubts about the distance which was being considered. Would another bullet have worked better in that exact situation? I don't know. It's farther than I like to begin shooting at moose with anything I use nor would I recommend it. That particular shot distance was a misjudgemnet on my part. My mistake IOW and I feel responsible for the bullet not working better because I should not have taken a shot. Still, the bullet neither penetrated well nor did it create much trauma - other than slicing an artery- in its unexpanded condition.




FWIW, I liked the original X versions very much and they worked very well nearly every time I used them on dozens of animals, large and smaller. In fact, there was a time when I might have been considered a "cheerleader" for them. And at that time JJHACK was poo-poohing them loudly. Obviously that has changed. Some of my favorites simply vanished and, being tired of getting something different whenever I had loads worked up, I simply decided to stop messing with them for awhile. I have shot some TSXs and they do seem to shoot well easier than the old grooveless bullets. I have yet to shot any animals though and probably won't until I see where they're going in their designs - and I've done more tests. The X design does have a bigger window of "workability" than many bullets do - and I like that. But, of course, no one likes what happens on the fringes of that window regardless what bullet is being discussed.

I suspect the TTSX may be the culminating product in the design with fewer later tweaks.



I think Barnes knows some things they don't make a lot of waves about. And, likely, the TTSX is an answer to that.

(But refering back to the "308" thread, I'd still like to see what such a bullet does on smaller stuff "way out there" before it gets touted as an "all distances, all purpose" bullet.)

Momentum for cooper of the same weight is the same as lead of the same weight momentum of any material of the same weight and speed is the same no matter what the material

Of course, but having equal momentum at a given moment does not mean that two different objects will still be equal in their momentum at a later point in time. The shape and density of the objects affects that. Even aluminum - or styrene foam- have the same momentum for a given object weight and speed. That doesn't mean they will all be carrying the same momentum after some distance of travel.

Less dense objects will always have momentum issues which denser ones don't have. While the hardness and toughness of copper, and the design and construction of the X bullet design combine to mask that problem within the "window of performance," it still is a physical limitation. I happen to believe, based on what I saw and attempted to communicate, that that copper slug no longer carried enough speed, momentum, power, or what-have-you, that it needed either to penetrate well or to expand. That was why I had issues with the use of the similarly constructed 150 TTSX in 30 caliber for that distance and target. I could be wrong, but until I see some evidence to the contrary - which no one has offered in that thread or elsewhere that I have seen- I am still going to stand with erring toward caution. It has nothing at all to do with my saying TSX or TTSXs are not good in general. That is neither intended nor implied.

Dude,

Get a 458 Winny and 450 North Fork solids....

Your going to have issues with almost any expanding bullet sooner or later if tumbling and deflection are your criteria...stuff that gets a fat face can deflect, genuflect, and not go straight; just plain nature of the beast...when they still kill despite that, well?

Yes, of course and that's precisely the point. From the outside of the animal I am shooting at the heart/lungs. Deflection means I miss what I was aiming at. Like the lead poisoning, it's not a question of if, but one of how much. The problems arise when the bullets deflect enough to kill poorly or not at all. Both of which I have seen more of than I would like to have.

So you are going the 458/solid route? Seems the best way to minimize your issues.

I use the old 90 and 95 gr X bullets and the 85gr TSX in my 243 with 35gr IMR 4350 and whitetails go straight down. i have never measured the exit hole on a deer i have taken with one, but if my memory serves me right i would say it would be between 1-2 inch wide exit holes, and thats pretty good for a little 6mm in my book.

I think I might go to a 375 of some sort first. If that doesn't work good enough then I have a reason to get a 500.

Didn't find the answer to my question regarding the comparison of wound channels created by a lighter and faster X bullet vs a heavier and slower standard bullet (such as an interlock) when fired from the same rifle, but page 22 really made me laugh. Spit my coffee on my desk. The words reminded me of the board meeting during Jim Carey's Liar Liar ......Dick head etc.
dan

For what it`s worth, I found on the web, extensive results on wound channels done by the US Army, with corresponding charts etc. If you enjoy that type reading and associated data, it might be worth looking up. Answeres or addresses many issues broched on the topic here. I did find it interesting, proving some old-wifes tales to be just that..tales.

As for me, JBs` statement in part about a large hole equating to killing power fits well with experience in using my 45x110x500 74 Sharps,1250 fps, which dose make a big hole and on deer and lopes, killed very quickly.