Other than 3 grains of weight and 0.015 BC and overall length, is there any construction difference or intended use difference between the .30 cal 165 gr BT and the 168 gr BT?

I'm surprised that they make two BT's that are so close to identical to each other.

Thanks in advance. And I apologize if this is a stupid question.

Tim

I don't think it's a stupid question at all.

I've used the heck out of 168 grain match bullets, and 165 grain Nosler Balllistic Tips.

I think that the 168 Ballistic Tip was put into production, catering to those who were enamored with that exact bullet weight.

Regards, Guy

I'm very interested in this answer too. I'm curious if there is a significant difference in construction that would make one better/worse for hunting purposes, specifically.

thanks in advance to anyone with intel on this.

Barnes has 165’s and 168’s also. Wasn’t the military bullet 168? Maybe that’s why??

IIRC, the ogive is slightly different on the 168.

Yes, the ogive IS slightly different on the 168, hence the slightly higher BC. But like Billy Goat above, I want to know if there's any construction difference that would affect it's effectiveness as a big game (primarily deer) bullet (primarily at 30-06 muzzle velocities).

The 165 is designed for the short nose of a std 300 win mag. The 168 is designed for other cartridges that have more leeway in seating depth. That is my guess.

I can guarantee there’s zero difference... they’re both VERY stout bullets, far more than enough for deer, and well ahead of most cup and core bullets IME.

Here’s a little something to chew on:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...let-test-cow-femurs-and-newspaper-part-1

Skeezix,

I bet if you called or emailed Nosler you could get the information straight from the horse's mouth.

To a point... they don’t view the heavier NBT’s as elk bullets, because they have stouter bullets to “push” (Partition, Accubond).. I know better from first hand experience. There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the 165/68... cut them open and take a look.

I mean seriously, a Whitetail will fall over dead from a stern look...

The deer will never notice....

Skeezix,

As others have noted, both are basically the same bullet with slight differences in ogive length and BC.

As for being stout, a good friend of mine shot a cow elk, standing facing him, with a 165 BT from a .300 Weatherby and recovered the bullet under the hide of one of the hams.

Makes me wonder why I insist on the 165 accubond in my 308 for a one bullet does all load.

165 works in the 3006 just fine !! lost count on how many deer dropped to it. D R T !

Brad, Thanks for the link to kman's excellent bullet testing thread! Great info there!

Tim

Ever since I first used the 165g NBT in the Federal load, way back before I started hand-loading that's been my go to bullet in the .30-06. Even use them in my 77 RSI in .308 Win. Simply devastating on a WT deer.

The 168gr version is boringly effective on deer and hogs at .308 carbine speeds. I mean, no fuss, no worries, either DRT or some severe leaking and a short death-run.

You bet Tim, Kman did an amazing job with that test.

To satisfy my curiosity I called Nosler today to find out why they produce the 165 and 168 gr. 30 cal. Ballistic Tips. GuyM and hanco had previously alluded to the answer. What the rep I spoke with told me is that the 165 gr. was produced first and the 168 was brought into production to satisfy service rifle competitors, so they could have a hunting bullet the same weight as the competition bullets they were used to shooting.

Well, it works, does it not?

Is the 168-grain .30-caliber TSX the same as the 165-grain TSX? Is it really a match-grade hunting bullet?

These bullets have different ogive geometries. The 165-grain TSX incorporates a shorter tangent ogive in the nose profile. It’s designed for cartridges with short magazines such as the .300 WSM and .300 Win Mag. The 168-grain TSX BT has a secant ogive which lengthens the nose profile and has shown superb accuracy downrange. It offers the best of both worlds because it’s also a premium hunting bullet offering exceptional terminal performance. It is best suited for cartridges such as the .308 Winchester, .30-06 and .300 Weatherby.

http://www.barnesbullets.com/faq/

Interesting thread. I thought I remembered reading that the 168 was made a little stouter, but maybe I’m rememberimg wrong.

I sent an email to Barnes a couple years ago asking the difference between the .308 cal. 165 TTSX and 168 TTSX. Here is their reply.

Hi John,

Great question! The 165gr versions incorporate a short nose profile, often referred to as the ogive, to accommodate cartridges that require a short COAL (Cartridge Over All Length) requirement, such as the 300 Win Mag and 300 WSM. The 168gr TTSX has a longer ogive than the 165gr TTSX and it provides a more efficient, more streamlined design that allows it to retain its velocity and energy better. We test each bullet and assign it a value that rates each bullets ability to overcome air. This is referred to as the BC or Ballistic Coefficient. The higher the BC value the more efficient it is. So you’ll see a slight downrange advantage to the 168gr versions with their higher BC’s when they are incorporated in cartridges such as the 30-06, 308 Winchester or 300 RUM that can accommodate the a longer finished cartridge length and magazine requirements.

The 165gr TTSX requires a minimum impact velocity of 1800fps for bullet expansion and the 168gr TTSX only requires 1500fps.

I figured Nosler had done the same thing for the same reason. Either I was wrong, or the queried employee didn't know and was just guessing.

Some links, with pictures of sectioned bullets, show that the 168 appears to have a slightly heavier jacket and base, though both the new 165 and 168 are built "heavy."

Pic of new 165, rather heavy
Pic of new 165


Pic of 168, very heavy
Pics of 168 and old 165

My brother used a couple of 168 BT to kill a 330 bull a few years ago.