Has anyone recently (within the last year) done a comparison of the new copper bullets by Barnes, Nosler, Hornady, and a few of the upstarts? It seems to me that could or would be an interesting comparison.

Areas I have interest in are:
Least barrel fowling
easiest to clean barrels after use
Most accurate
Depth of penetration could be looked at, however, with this style of bullet, do any of us really think one of them wont penetrate "DEEP".

John Barsness, have you done any of this of late ole buddy?

I've shot a bunch of the monolithics (and near-monolthics, like the North Fork) in to both media and game. There isn't enough difference in penetration to mean anything.

The plastic-tipped bullets of whatever brand tend to expand more widely, doing more damage. They also expand more reliably than hollow-point TSX's, especially in smaller calibers/.

As far as accuracy goes, they're all very accurate but on occasion a certain barrel doesn't like the E-Tip, probably due to the solid shank.

None of the recent bullets foul barrels any more than standard bullets.

All have proven somewhat sensitive to seating depth.

Do these bullets work at .308 Winchester velocities. What about results when loaded into a larger magnum case? Going on my first black bear hunt in Alaska in the fall and the .308 win and .300 win mag are the biggest rifles I currently have. I understand we will be hunting in an area inhabited by browns and penetration may be an important thing in an emergency. Would like to use the Barnes if they are available again anytime soon (we are having severe shortages of everything). Are these good choices or should I start looking for something with a bigger hole in the end of the barrel?

I have used 130 and 150 grain monos in both .308 Win and 300 WMs. They work quite well. A 130 grain TTSX in a 308 Win is an outstanding deer killer, and by far my first choice bullet for that job in that caliber. In 300 WM, a better BC (heavier bullet) can take advantage of the case capacity and extend range over the 130 grain bullet. If you will be staying inside 300 yards The 130 is fine. A 130 grain TTSX can produce excellent accuracy out of a .308 at 3050 FPS, and usually does.

Black bears are no harder to kill than deer.

In an emergency situation with a brown bear it will be almost by definition a close range problem. I have never hunted brown bears and have no desire to ever do so, but if I lived in their territory and had to be concerned, I'd be quite happy with a Remington pump in .308 Win or 30-06 with even the 130 grain TTSXs. They will easily get through to where they need to go while giving you the advantage of taking a more angled shot if necessary. My experience with them is that they are far, far less effected by bone than any lead core bullets I have used or seen used.

I suppose if I were hunting brown bears I'd probably opt for the 300 WM but I would need some convincing to load bullets heavier than 168 grains.

I suppose one consideration might be that bears have a tendency to being pretty fat and producing sparser blood trails, and the monos have a tendency to making about quarter size holes in the hide. I have seen enough instances of caliber size holes in the hide both coming and going, even while doing incredible damage in between. I guess I'd prefer something other than that happening for black bears which in my experience are shot at close range in the evening, after sunset. I don't know how to guarantee big holes in them though.

John,
Which one will expand to a wider frontal area at the lowest velocity?
Thank you!
Alvaro

Alvaro,

I'm betting the pure copper ones would expand easiest at low retained velocities, but much depends on the twist of the barrel and initial velocity.

Bullets shot from a faster twist barrel at a higher muzzle velocity retain most of their spin rate, even when velocity has dropped off. This helps them expand at, say, 1800 fps, when bullets shot from a slower twist at a lower muzzle velocity might not expand at all at 1800.

Thanks, John...........

I don't want to hijack this thread but could you please elaborate a bit why a faster twist rate would produce more expansion? I get the whole faster velocity thing but the twist rate is new to me. A 1:8 twist vs 1:16 twist on paper is twice as fast but we are still only talking 1 complete turn in 8 or 16 inches - more than the average thickness of a ribcage on most broadside animals.

Increased centrifical force.

Horizontal plane slows done sooner than the rotational plane.

I am not so sure I would buy that.

I don't think I'd buy higher RPM bullets (at least monos anyway) opening up better in animal tissue either. At least not without some pretty exotic testing to back it up.

In that we can spin a cup and core bullet fast enough to when combined with the friction heat from bore travel to disintegrate them in the air. We have no evidence of that same phenomena, nor indeed of any disintegration in monos. We do have evidence of shearing off petals in extreme impacts, but that's a wholly different thing.

I wonder if Barnes has video that might support this. they could well have video showing measurable wound channel size increase with increased RPMs at the same velocity. That might tend to support the proposition.

You're entitled to your opinion...the matter is pretty well settled.Mono's may not fragment,(aside from shearing petals which ain't such a hot thing anyway,depending on you viewpoint)),but that doesn't make them immune from laws of physics,and bullet material is still bullet material.If it's soft enough to expand,it's soft enough to be forced outward from rotational forces as well.

If I've done my math right, assuming 3,000ft/sec, they would be rotating at 270,000 RPM and 135,000 RPM respectively. I'm not sure how much that rotational force difference translates into the bullet opening, but that would seem to be a significant force. Out of curiosity, I wonder how much the force is different for a larger diameter bullet given the same rotation rate? Ex: a .243 bullet vs. a .338 spinning at the same rate. The outer edge of the .338 is further from the center of rotation. That's some serious ballistic gack to consider.

KE = Kinetic Energy
RE = Rotational Energy

Rotational Energy is very small compared to Kinetic Energy

I couldn't leave it alone. For an initial velocity of 3,000 FPS and a 1:8 twist, you get 270,000 RPM. The centrifugal force on a .338 cal. bullet would be 349,933 Gs and for a .243 Cal. bullet 250,544 Gs. Don't know if that's meaningful to a copper bullet.

Do you have a reference for how and who settled this? I's be very interested.

You get more spins in the critter with a faster twist. Again, the horizontal plane slows much sooner than the rotational plane so are getting more buzz saw [bleep] happening inside.

So, the greater the velocity the greater the KE at impact (we all knew that). But the higher the twist the greater the force pulling the bullet apart for a given velocity and the larger the bullet the greater the force trying to pull the bullet apart. No idea if that rotational force is meaningful. Meaning, does it approach the structural integrity limit of the bullet where more force equals greater opening.

Back to the OPs thought though, I would like to see some form of apples to apples comparison of the various monos impacting near 1800 FPS and see how different they are.

This makes some sense, and it forms the basis for my question of Bob. From the videos I have seen of Barnes in gelatin, it looks reasonable that there is more damage with more RPMs. My question about greater expansion bears on this in a big way. Right now were are tinkering with copper bullets in rifles designed for lead bullets. If more RPMs = wider expansion, AND more RPMs = more damage, then we have motivation to look for the top end of what we can do with RPMs.

If i can get 3000 FPS out of a 9 twist barrel pushing a 55 grain bullet, then can we gain equivalent tissue damage to say for sake of argument, a 3600 FPS same weight bullet by simply going from 9 twist to 5 twist at 3000(not that either is necessarily likely)? If this is true then we need to know what we can accomplish using bullets that won't come undone by over rotation, and what if anything radical twist increases might do to pressure.

It comes down to asking the question what happens if we design a barrel to take maximum advantage of designing it for copper or guilding metal bullets exclusively.

I wouldn't either. There's no such thing as centrifical force. It's called centripetal force. You could also use centrifugal force but real physicists don't.

I beg to differ. Unless physics has changed since I took statics and dynamics in college, centrifugal force is the OUTWARD force and centripetal force is the INWARD force.

Forgive my spelling. I'm not a physicists(thankfully).I might get bogged down in my own bullshidt rather than approach these things with an open mind,and observations.

-Ever see a 90 gr HP fired from a fast twist 264 Win Mag fragment in thin air before it reaches a 100 yard target?I have because a friend used to do it regularly and we'd watch the puff of smoke at the range for entertainment.It isn't the speed that causes that...it's rpms tearing scored jackets apart.

-Ever wonder why Berger beefs up jackets for its' high BC target bullets,fired from fast twist barrels,because thin jackets were coming apart in mid air if started too fast from these fast twist barrels?(again, high rpm's).If they will come unglued in thin air, what makes you think that the additional stresses of impacting at high velocity would not be aided and abetted by high rpms's.

-Ever see two bullets of the same weight and design recovered from animals shot under similar conditions,one with the expanded wings at 90 degrees,and the other with the expanded wings off at an angle,and with greater expanded frontal area,fired at higher velocity and a faster twist(both resulting in higher rpm's)? Ever wonder how that happened?

Ever wonder why Bitterroots came with instructions to use a minimum twist rate and velocity level to ensure proper expansion? It might dawn on the clueless that the maker ran extensive tests and proved that higher rpm's resulted in greater and more certain expansion than the same bullet fired at lower velocity and fewer rpm's.But I doubt you've seen that because these tests were run 30-40 years ago;beyond the knowledge of flks who think this shidt is somehow "new" and all ballistic knowledge is less than 3 years old.

If you doubt it, call the maker and ask him...you'll probably be lost in the first 10 minutes of the conversation,much of it being excessively over your head.

-Ever wonder why varmint hunters have noticed greater "explosiveness" from bullets fired from fast twist barrels vs the same bullets at the same velocities from slower twist tubes? You would only notice this if (a)you shoot a lot of varmints;and (b)you pay attention.

-Ever wonder why reduced loads fired at close range to simulate expansion speeds at distance are invalid for testing bullet expansion at distance? Know why? Because rpms' are not anywhere near as high as the same bullet fired at actual distance under full velocity.Might also look into how this effects wound cavitation with expanding bullets that don't fragment;that is if you ever used one..

Those doubting this stuff are likely the same one's who say ..."200-300 fps does not matter"...."rpm's do not matter",nothing matters,and everything ballistic can be explained from the couch with numbers....what a laugh this place is sometimes. .

Num

Yet another factor in expansion of monolithics is the size of the hollow-point: The bigger the hollow-point the more reliably and widely they open, everything else being equal.

This is a large part of why the plastic-tipped TSX's tend to expand wider and more reliably than the plain hollow-points: The hollow-point under the plastic tip is larger, at least in the smaller calibers, say .30 and under.

Plus, the Tipped TSX's retain more velocity.

Bang on.

Also bang on.

Meaning what?

Bang on, spot on, correct etc etc.

Ok thx. Wasn't sure whether it was an "attaboy" or an "aw sh1t".

Obviously Bob doesn't have anything to cite regarding monos opening wider at higher RPMs.

What happens to cup and core bullets is not going to be the same thing that happens with monos at similar speeds and I am pretty doubtful it would be even an applicable comparison at much higher RPMs because no one to my knowledge has yet demonstrated that over revving a mono to the point of self destruction is even possible.

We have long known that running cup and core bullets into flesh at very high velocity and RPMs can produce explosive results. But, we also know that we can do the same thing more or less at well below the threshold of self destruction.

Does anyone have anything??? Does anyone know if holding velocity constant and increasing RPMs increases expansion with monos? I know that if I run the velocity high enough I can shear petals, and that has a tendency to increase penetration from some limited test results I have seen.

We've know from the get-go with the monos that their increased length responds better to fast twist rates, seems a little odd we haven't done the experiments yet.

I would have thought if faster twists make cup/core bullets expand more, it would do the same with copper bullets, to some extent at least. After all they are all metals.

I can hear the howls of derision because my opinion is not based on 37 experiments with 4000 data points: "Experience trumps opinion every time" etc etc.

Anyway whatever reason someone goes onto an internet forum, I didn't come on here because I am a scientist. But most good experiments have their origin in mental experimentation.

All I can add is: cue the soaked newspaper test.

I have a hard time thinking the laws of physics are somehow suspended when bullets are monolithic. I also have a hard time believing there is a downside to more forward or rotational speed. Perhaps, when it comes to monos anyway, temperature is even a significant factor.





???

The laws of physics don't change. But the properties of materials do. Copper has more tensile strength than lead. So it takes more force to pull it apart

This is just a hypothesis. I have no data:

As Bob noted, a thin jacketed varmint bullet is more likely to disintegrate in air than a big game bullet with a thicker jacket and a harder lead alloy core.

So it seems likely that a solid copper alloy bullet would be able to resist even more rotational stress. In other words it could provide more centripetal force so as to resist a higher centrifugal force.

Similarly, a copper is more resistant to deformation upon contact with animal flesh. Which results in higher weight retention and deeper penetration.

I asked Barnes about spin rate vs expansion. This s what I got back.

" In theory increased rotational speed will damage more tissue, but in reality it is such a minor amount it would be very difficult to even detect it. There is a maximum rotation speed, for most bullets, jacket bullets can and sometimes do come apart in air if they are spun too fast. The Barnes bullet�s the all copper bullets cannot be spun to fast to come apart so as far as function it cannot be spun to fast, as far accuracy is concerned, spinning them too fast can be detrimental to accuracy. We have not seen any indication showing that jacketed bullets open wider because of rotational velocity, but with the all copper bullets we have seen enough evidence to suggest that they do not open wider due to the rotation of the bullet."

Bluntly then, at least in the case of Barnes bullets increased expansion due to increased spin rate is wishful thinking. Whether there might be increased tissue damage due to increased spin rate if we radically increase spin rate remains open but in doubt because of the probability of accuracy loss.

Maybe we should think about building a test rifle to see what happens. Right now the rifles we use them use copper bullets in are designed primarily for cup and core bullets and not exclusively for copper. Some of our barrels are very fast twists, but not into the range where just copper can handle to RPMs yet.

Miles,

To put it mildly, I don't think Barnes has any clue about the effect of rotational velocity, based on their statement, "We have not seen any indication showing that jacketed bullets open wider because of rotational velocity."

There's been plenty of evidence of that. Anybody who's used a fast-twist .223 has seen it, but evidently Barnes has missed it.

Also, the point we were discussing wasn't whether increased rotational velocity would case monolithic bullets to open wider than they're designed to. Obviously, they can only open so much.

But there have been numerous instances where monos DIDN'T open fully, or at all, at longer ranges. Would increased spin have helped? I have no doubt it would, based on what other bullets do when spun faster.

Does greater centripetal force reduce over penetration?

John,

I wouldn't be all that surprised that they didn't know, or at least the person who answered my question didn't know. Maybe though their response is just exactly what it says, and a hgh RPM bullet coming undone in a target is not necessarily "opening wider".

My experience with more damage from high RPM bullets causing more damage has been with high velocity in addition to high RPMs with smaller targets. That putting the bullet a lot closer to coming undone seems to matter. 14 twist vs 9 twist in .223 & 22-250 gives me the impression that velocity is much, much more critical than RPMs. The numbers and size of target sample are not huge though.

Might be an interesting experiment to take the same bullet in a 9 twist .223 and a 14 twist 22-250 and catch some in water jugs matching velocity to see what happens to the bullet.

I been telling that to Brad forever. He keeps showing pics of a 53gr TSX shot from a 1-12" twist in apparently cold weather. Cold DO matter when discussing bullet stabilization.

I'm not one that goes with the minimally stabilized is good enough. [bleep] that.

Miles you just aren't going to convince me...and neither is Barnes.

Like Johnny B has alluded to in another thread,you can't assume that bullet manufacturers know everything about their bullets because some times they never try them out to see what they really do.

Did you ask them how many tests they have run in expansion material with progressively faster twist to see the results?That would have been my first question to them.If they haven't,and don't know, well,they simply don't know.

Monos may have different expanding characteristics but based on some to the pics posted above,it appears sometimes they do need all the help they can get just opening to a meaningful frontal area at all.I'm not suggesting the differences are enormous, but I know if I were a Barnes user, I would be turning them over,and driving them,as fast as I could to assist in expansion.It's apparent from their construction that they will only expand so far,like John says....but personally I would like to be certain they do expand as far as they are able.

The guy who opened my eyes to this stuff, was Bill Steigers,who developed the Bitterroot bullet. Rather than guess at this stuff,and debate it ad nauseum,Bill ran his own tests,which were pretty much ongoing over the years.I knew him in the 80's...far as I know, he had been doing these tests since the late 60's.

He did it with bullets from 270 caliber to 375,and IIRC I recall Bill building 7mm barrels with 7 twists,375's with 9 twist tubes etc.Way faster than considered normal for the day.

..reason was that his bullets were very heavy through the jackets,pure copper,and lead cores and bonded....they were built to withstand very high impact velocities,and will expand and retain frontal area better than a Barnes.They were pretty rugged.

What he found is that faster twist facilitated greater expansion,and he was so adamant about it, that his bullets came with a small spec sheet recommending that they be driven at a certain minimum velocity,and in a certain minimum twist for best results.

Since Barnes bullets are made of pure copper(supposedly),and Bitterroots were made with heavy jackets of pure copper as well, I see no reason why the copper in a Barnes could not be lent an assist in expanding,and as John says,it may help expand them at long range;and sometimes maybe up close as well.

In any event,that fast twist has a hand in expanding bullets is such a well settled issue,and is such a relatively "old" conversation dating back decades I am really surprised that it generates so much conversation on here whenever the topic crops up.All I can conclude is that some are simply not aware of it even today.

Miles,

I performed a better test than the one you suggest last summer with the new 55-grain Nosler Varmageddon bullets and prairie dogs. Used both my tang-safety Ruger 77 .220 Swift with the bullets loaded up to 3800 fps (1-14 twist) and a Nosler Varmageddon AR-15 .223 with their factory ammo at 3100 fps (1-8 twist.

The difference in expansion was VERY apparent--with the advantage going to the AR-15. Ranges were from 100-300 yards, and the experiment was repeated many times throughout the day.

I thought I "herd" ARs were morer deadlier....dammed automatic rifles anyway. That must be why!!!

might it not be interesting then, considering the results with different twists at different velocities to see what happens using the identical bullet and velocity but different twist rates. perhaps this has been mentioned but i missed it.

Copper flows under the pressure created by impact, not as much as lead but it still flows, otherwise it would not expand.

And I would expect its expansion to be influenced by the spinning rate, probably not as much as with a cup and core projectile, which does happen, but I can�t see why it would not be affected.

It would be an interesting test... Hopefully, with so many short and long twists rifles in .224 calibers around, someone will find the time and take the trouble.

Alvaro

John,

I am strictly talking about monos. I have no queston about lead spinning very fast is capable of a lot more splatter because it tends to come undone in even small targets. You probably couldn't measure a difference in expansion with calipers on bullet in that case.

Monos are tough enough that if you could recover enough of them you might be able to measure something. According to Barnes you can't make them come undone in the air no matter how fast you spin them, and I think that part of their answer is true. I don't know that we couldn't make the same statement about heavier constructed lead core bullets too. Anyone with a fast twist barrel has to take some light construction bullets and wind them up just to make them go poof.

I remain doubtful that spin rate will do much for expansion with monos while I believe that enough RPMs can make a noticeable change in tissue damage. I can see the forces would try to make it happen, but monos are pretty tough to bend or open more if you try to work on a partially expanded bullets. Fully expanded monos probably cannot be expanded more short of hitting steel or something close to that resistance.

It can't help them open "more" because there are physical limitations to how much frontal area a mono is capable of.As you say,you can't spin the apart,and no one is saying that.... they can only expand so much...but it might help them open AT ALL...and especially as distance increases, and velocity falls off.

And of course there is a difference in how much expansion you will get as distances stretch,and velocity declines....sure they tell us that the bullets are designed to expand down to 1800-2000 fps,but they don't say "how much"..and the faster twist can be a factor in facilitating expansion as distance increases.

With any tough,expanding hunting bullets,velocity and faster rpm's go hand in hand in getting desired results.

There is no such thing as centrifugal force.

Miles,

You keep wandering off point, or misunderstanding my points.

First, I mentioned the Barnes statement on jacketed bullets because it showed whoever "answered" your question didn't know what they were talking about on that point. And if they didn't know the correct answer to that, how do you expect them to know the correct answer to your question?

Next, Alvaro's ("BBerg") orginal question was: "John,
Which one will expand to a wider frontal area at the lowest velocity?"

My answer was that probably one of the all-copper bullets would be most likely to open at lower velocities, since copper is softer than gilding metal. But I also qualified the answer by saying it would also depend on initial velocity and twist rate.

I should also have qualified it by saying different monos are designed to open up more or less widely. As an example, when I first tested Nosler E-Tips in media against TSX's, the E-Tips opened wider and hence didn't penetrate quite as deeply. (Both were 180 .30's from the same .300 Winchester Magnum, using the same load.) This was because the E-Tips had a deeper hollow point, so more of their nose peeled back, making a wider mushroom.

ALL the mono bullets have a maximum diameter they'll open to, almost (but not quite) regardless of impact velocity and rifling twist. (The exception is when they lose petals.) Alvaro's question was not about individual monolithic bullets opening wider, but WHICH MODEL would open wider at lower impact velocities. This is a highly relevant question, since anybody who's used mono's at longer ranges has seen some fail to open--or if not totally fail, not open up completely. And the examples are far more common than with lead-cored bullets.

NOBODY ON THIS THREAD HAS MENTIONED MONOLITHICS COMING APART IN THE AIR--EXCEPT YOU! That was not a point of discussion, and is irrelevant to the conversation.

Also, nobody else on this thread has insisted that monolithic expanding bullets somehow bypass simple physics.

dt: Whatever. You want the correct terminology, go ask an engineer.

Here's a totally off the wall thought from my feeble mind.

What if a higher twist rate results in the bullet having more contact with the material it impacts?

Here's the logic behind it. If you have a zero twist rate the path of the bullet is a straight line. If the bullet spirals it's a longer path through whatever it comes in contact with. The higher value of kinetic energy is what carries penetration forward but the spin effect increases the area of contact by spiraling.

Here's a way to imagine it. If you poke your finger against a desk the area of contact is limited. If your finger twists slightly before stopping the amount of contact is increased.

Increased contact = more expansion

I'm not an engineer so I could be totally wrong and I'm OK with that.

Whatever???? How about let's just keep it simple and call it "perpendicular axial momentum"? ? ?? Us rifle loonies.......er, unapologetic rifle aficionados (I had to google that ) can't not be getting our gack (I don't know a correct term for that - perhaps "Dobrenski's minutia"? ) right!

Klik: I'm worn out...

If no one wants to believe an Internet goof-ball like me,they should at the very least be able to get their thoughts behind Mule Deer on the issue,who has tremendous credibility and is saying pretty much the same things.

Explaining the gack will kill you!

Bob, There are several reasons why you don't often find me arguing with either you or John. The fact that my experience doesn't leave much basis on which to form an argument isn't even at the top of the list. A lot of times it's actually fun to see if I can flush one or both of you out just to get things said in a way that makes more sense than what I am able to say.

Does anyone remember an oddball chambering from many years ago that I think was called the 257 Condor? Could have that wrong.

I seem to remember the inventor claimed super duper fast spin rate caused the bullet to do spectacular things when it struck game.

I don't remember much more than that but someone else might. I think I might have read it in one of those old GUNS back issues you can download.

John, I'll admit to only using Barnes TSX and TTSXs of all the monoliths so far but in a bunch of cartridges ranging from 7mm to 375. In regard to the TTSXs, I've had good accuracy but have experienced about 6 % per box of fifty--at least three--of lost "Ts or Tips" across the spectrim of calibers. They then become TSXs with larger hollow points.

Anybody else see this or am I off the curve?

George,

I haven't encountered that, but have probably only opened 20-25 boxes of tipped mono bullets.

a little bit oof suject, but now that you mentioned TTSXs without the tip let me tell you, out of curiosity, my experience last week at the range.

with the roebuck season opening tomorrow, I went to the range with my K95 kipplaufcuhse and its 22-250, 1:14" barrel and the load I will be using this year, Sierra SMP 63gr, Norma's URP and CCI BR-2.

everything worked out as usual and the rifle printed a 5 shot group of barely one inch at 100 meters.

later into the season there are a couple of areas where we are allowed to shoot wild boar before they start feeding in the wheatfields and sunflower fields to prevent them from making damage, so I always like to carry a couple of cartridges loaded with Barnes bullets and because the 55gr TTSX look so well (!) and because they shot so well in my 1:9.8" twist 5.6x57 I decided to give them a try.

loaded with Norma 203B and the same BR-2 primer I took three shots, two of them hitting like 10" appart, and the third not even hitting the paper!

so I took the tips off the next three cartridges, shot them and printed a nice 0.7" perfect triangle!

it made such a huge difference that none of us at the range would have expected anything like that!

rgds.,

Wow.......a couple of days ago I was just wondering if these bullets would work well in my .308 and would be good for black bear, after reading the discussion don't i feel simple now!

Yeah, see what you started....Lol

Your 308 will work fine on your Black Bear. You just need to hit them in the right spot.

Wish you luck on your hunting trip.

Steehead is spot on!
Rotation cold and humidity all effect stabilization. A marginally stabilized mono can bend the nose over causing no expansion. More rotation equals greater centrifugal forces to pull the petals outward. This is basic logic IMHO

Yep, extra zip and spin are certainly among the reasons reasons for light TSX's killing so well.

sounds about right to me.

I have often suspected some reasons for Barnes issues are related to using standard weight bullets in standard cartridges.I think a person is better off with lighter weights in those cartridges.

Or a faster twist barrel

So which one would you guys pick for an elk hunt this Oct. out of a 270wsm? 130TSXs at 3275fps. or 140TSXs at 3150fps.

Flip a coin, either one will work splendidly

I think just the opposite. Bullets are designed to be used at certain 'twists' to be adequately stable in flight and have a minimum of precession. This is all based on certain altitude conditions or in reality, the density altitude. The higher the density altitude, the less spin it takes to stabilize because the air is thinner and has less effect on the bullet.

The same thing has got to be true when a bullet enters a much denser medium (tissue). It has got to be spinning to remain stable and maintain a straight path. The more it is spinning, the better chance it has of maintaining straight path.

As far as mono bullets expanding, I wouldn't bet my life on the small ones expanding every time.

Great post....maintaining nose-forward, straight line penetration in game has been touted as an additional benefit of faster twist.

Thats easy. Start with a big hole.....

One of the best ways to get a prodigious blood trail is to make them leak out of the nose and/or mouth. Making a serious mess of the lungs is the ticket; you don't need two holes neither of which often leak much in big animals. (It can take a long time to fill the chest cavity with enough blood that the volume is great enough to be forced out one or both holes. On the other hand, bleeding lungs generally make blood pronto through the airway.)

Klik I killed a large mule deer up on the Peace with a 140 AB that stumbled 20-30 feet and left a road map blood trail with no bullet exit,all nose and mouth.

Another caught a 140 BBC from a 7RM at 50-60 yards that was DRT...as the rifle recoiled I could see a plume of blood blow out the nostrils...only time I have actually ever seen that happen.I think the lighting was just right and I was close enough....When I got to the animal the blood was all over his antlers.

Of course in either instance there was no blood trail needed.

wow i hadnt thought about twist rate effecting expansion in mono's

so did i screw up by building my 308win (shooting 130 TTSX's) with a 1 in 11.25" twist? i guess a 1 in 10" woudve been better>?

sako no you didn't screw up....I bet it works fine.Those 130's are probably going fast enough.Twist is one factor in bullet expansion, but there are others.

11 twist 30 calibers are favorites in the target fraternity,who susbscribe to the notion that they want just enough twist to stabilize a given bullet, but no more than that.Usually these are target bullets.

In a hunting rifle,and for using hunting bullets that are ruggedly built,there's no need to be constrained,and faster twists can be used.I'd have built at least a 10 twist,and have had 30 caliber rifles at 9 twist.These were chambered 300 win mag and 300 weatherby.

Damn I read through this thread and all I got from it is a headache!

wa....you know what the doctor said.....stop reading it and the headache will go away.

There is nothing complex here...only among those who would make it so,as they try to wrap their brains around a very simple concept.

Go over to the African forum and read JJ Hacks comments on driving Barnes bullets at high velocity to get them to work well....high velocity and faster rpm's go hand in hand,and is another twist in the equation.Been known for years.

Bob, I understand, and it makes sense that something that is spinning at a higher RPM will expand more after the initial expansion than something spinning slower. Seems people are getting caught up on when the expansion increase would be evident, which of course would be after initial impact and expansion caused by that.

wa...exactly.Early users of high velocity cartridges noticed that bullets fired from 300 magnums over expanded as compared to those fired from,say,a 30/06,and did not penetrate well,even when they had slowed down and impacted at 30/06 velocities.

The difference was the higher rpm's generated by the higher velocity from the magnums.

As to impact in game,as bullets start to fracture upon impact and expand, the twist helps this along,since bullets continue to spin even after impact into animals...faster twist has an effect on the expansion of the bullet.John Jobson was the first guy I read to mention this years ago,and noticed the behaviour shooting varmints wth fast and slow twist barrels.

It may not be noticed much if you just shoot standard C and C bullets with thin jackets,but bullets like barnes, bitterroots,and other tough jacketed hunting bullets are game changers in many ways.There are reasons they perform better with more speed and more twist.

WE dont seem to have a problem understanding why high BC bullets need more twist to stabilize in thin air because it is talked about a lot....effect on expansion and straight line penetration of high velocity bullets in a denser medium like animals is tougher to wrap heads around for obvious reasons.

Interesting though, Bob, is the study of Dr. Ed Ashby mentioned in Gregor Woods' book, Rifles for Africa wherein this study first compared the 22 Hornet and the 22-250 shooting a standard for caliber bullet weight in the TSX. Next, was the 3006 and finally, the 375 H&H.

The slower 22 cal gave deeper penetration, the 165 Barnes TSX in the 06 offered better penetration at MV 2400 vs 2700 and the 375 270 TSX offered better penetration at 2400 MV.

One point of note is the bullets were not given hunting ranges but only mentioned "bushveld" distances which in other areas of the book he describes as out to 300 yards.

The conclusion was that better penetration was found at a lower MV since the petals of the Barnes would expand to a 90 degree angle to the shank of the bullet and would act like a scythe rather than rolling back into a more classic mushroom shape and thus having to push rather than slice their way through encountered tissue. He displays a photo of a warthog shot with a 450 gr TSX from his Lott at 2200 or so MV and the thing shows a four-petaled exit wound through the shoulder. Interesting!

and to get the highest velocity, go lighter weight for caliber which has me contemplating the 110grain TTSX in 308win

I suggest you 'contemplate' the 30 cal 110 gr B C & S D.

I 'contemplated' a caribou with this single T - 120 grain TSX using a 7mm-08 at around 200 yards. While the 'bou didn't like the fact that it was 'too much' for him, I didn't like the fact that it didn't expand much, didn't penetrate a lot - especially in light of the relative lack of expansion, and that it did not provide a very resounding death in spite of it's path through the core of the critter.




This 100 XFB slammed two caribou to the ground at a similar distance; same rifle. The 140 XFBs were equally as effective and appeared to open quite well. I never recovered any of them from anything.

when it comes to monos sectional density don't mean squat. A 110 that retains 95% weight will out penetratey a 150 that loses 50% of its weight

There is a tendency to think that way, it seems. However, while they do seem to be less critical when it comes to weight selection, it isn't exactly true either to think that SD doesn't come into play. You may not see much difference when animals are relatively light though.

That'd be my thoughts as well. I hunted TX last month and there were no shot opportunities past 166yds. If I'm able to go back next year, I'm seriously considering using a 110gr TTSX out of my 30-06. The 165gr Partitions worked well (killed 3 small hogs with 1 shot) but might try the Barnes for R&D next time.

yep, that's not impressive to me either.

I'm a big mono fan. Just a couple related thoughts...

I think the frontal area has more to do with penetration than almost any other factor.

I'm interested in experimenting with the Barnes Long Range TSX as they have designed it to work within a wider velocity window - read: perhaps a bit more explosive in terms of initial expansion????

Waitin' for DeFlave to weigh in on that....

I tested several copper bullets with cow femurs and newspaper.

Etip gmx tsx ttsx

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/7395724/all

I have killed roughly 10 bull elk and various other game with 165 grain X bullets from a 300 Wby. I recovered a grand total of ONE bullet; a mule deer that I shot facing me and the bullet traveled the length of the neck and part of the spine, breaking it in the process. All the rest were complete pass-throughs so I didn't get to see what they looked like. When shooting feral cattle and horses, pass-throughs were not the norm. Generally, a 180 grain X bullet would not exit but I never bothered to dig them out!

They sure do penetrate just fine. I don't think that is ever the question!

Dennis,

Excellent point. Testing bullets in various kinds of media provides some idea of how they MIGHT perform in the field, but shooting animals is the real test.

This is exactly why bullet companies who care about how their bullets perform normally test a new bullet in at least two kinds of media, then test them on actual animals before releasing the bullet for sale. Even then they will probably tweak the bullet further as more information comes in from the field.

There really isn't much point, however, in media testing bullets that have already been on the market for a long time. We know what they will do.

Anymore, I media-test bullets ONLY when something new comes on the market, and then compare the tests to other bullets that might be used for the same purpose. When Nosler introduced the first "heavy jacket" Ballistic Tip, the 200-grain .338, about 20 years ago, I tested it in media alongside the 210 Partition.

The 200 BT penetrated about 90% as deep as the Partition, and made an even bigger hole. That told me everything I needed to know, so I then started "testing" it on big game. It worked great and still does, so I haven't bothered to retest it on media.

When I do bother to shoot a time-tested bullet into media, it's to provide a base-line for a new bullet, as in the above experiment.

With a 300 weatherby you could shoot any bullet out of it and get a kill, different matter for a 30-30>Same goes for my 378 bee. I've shot lots of animals with every produced bullet from all the different manufactures and they all killed them dead.
.

JB: Ive got a question on the monos, specifically the TTSXs...

I find in my .223AI with a 50 TTSX that velocity is 200 feet slower than it is for the same charge behind a 55 grain cnc bullet. I attribute this to less bearing surface and different alloy than gilding metal equaling less pressure.

Does that sound right?


And if so, would stepping up in weight to a 55 or heavier grain TTSX increase the bearing surface and result in a velocity increase???

A very experienced ballistic lab technician told me the bullets he's found that create the LEAST pressure for their diameter and weight are light TSX's. They have the fewest driving bands so have even less bearing surface than heavier TSX's. He often has to go to a faster burning powder with light TSX's to get top velocities.

Plus, the core of a typical 55-grain C&C .224 bullet is usually a relatively soft lead alloy. This can also cause the bullet to "bump up" to fit the bores of individual rifles more closely, increasing pressure.

Less pressure = less velocity.

While 'killing' IS the primary goal of shooting (hunting)animals, 'how' the bullet performs is very important.

I am speaking for a total of one, myself, I demand a bullet to hold together and not to explode or separate in several pieces. When hunting 'stuff' happens and sometimes the bullet does not hit precisely where we want it to hit. Maybe there's been deflection by something unseen. Maybe the animal takes a step or turns at exactly the wrong moment, et.al.

The more violently the bullets opens/explodes the more/greater tissue damage is done. That's fine IF it's in the lungs but I don't want it to pulverize the shoulder, backstrap, or ham. And in some of those instances the death may occur much later and the animal might not be recovered.

We as hunters must determine what we call/determine what is acceptable bullet 'performance'. For ME, just because the animal dies does not mean the bullet performed properly.

Thanks JB!!!

Its what I suspected for an answer....


But usually when I think I have something figured out...well, you know....

For the hell of it I calculated the centrifugal force for you just to see what would happen. Being pressed for time this evening I didn't bother to look into actual rpm values for a 243 and 338, just plugged and chugged with those rpm numbers.

For a 95 grain .243 bullet:
270k rpm = 3,414 lbf
135k = 853 lbf

For 250 gr .338 bullet:
270k rpm = 12,497 lbf
135k rpm = 3,124 lbf

So yes, both bigger bullet and higher rpms yields substantially higher centrifugal force.

I agree with what you say but when you move up to a .375 caliber shooting from 300 -235 grain bullets from all the manufactures, it doesn't really make much difference unless your shooting Rhinos and elephants. Bullet construction seems to come into play more and more as you drop toward a 22 caliber. That is too say -as men become more girly or older they seem to pick up lighter and smaller calibers and try to make up the loss in energy by increasing bullet efficiency. For example-I've killed more than one moose/bears after the bullet had gone through some large trees. Small calibers don't even try.

i dont know if its more girly or taking advantage of advances in bullet construction

Well, I didn't know you had 'flame' retardant suits in Kana-duh .

I agree with your position per the 375. However in the Southern half of the USA we don't have game large enough to NEED 338-458 cartridges. Even using the 8mm RM, which isn't miniscule, you need to use a tough bullet.

How 'tough' is a personal decision.

I hunted with fellas from Los Angeles up here in the great white North. Some packed 458 mag for hunting in heavy brush often encountered in moose and bear country. Depends on the terrain your hunting in I guess, these LA fellas were not girly and didn't smoke dope either, but they sure can knock back the whiskey.

I think there may be something to this notion that a TSX/TTSX spinning fast may assist in internal damage and straight-line penetration. This is the only TSX I've been able to recover, a 62gr bullet from my 1-8" twist 223AI. It went through a lot of meat and bone on a large hog, and while it did not punch through the hide, there was a very good blood trail due to the amount of blood and foam coming out of the hog's nose and mouth. The petals of the recovered bullet were certainly twisted hard in the direction of the rotation.