Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 150 Barnes TTSX

Why?

I've experienced the same thing with Sierra Game King bullets. Never used them again. I've never had a failure with Hornady Interlock's though.

Fotis just posted that same pic a week ago, with a whole controversial discussion to follow.

Bottom line is that using reduced loads to test expansion up close isn't equivalent to using full-house loads impacting at distance. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure that bullet would easily kill any appropriate critter that it hit, given a 1.67x expanded diameter.

Jordan, you may be right.

About 10 years ago I did a "real" test of a 165 TSX. I shot it at 300 yards into wet phone books. I put my chrony up at the 300 yard mark and shot through the screens (daring perhaps, but I had a lot of confidence in that rifle). I'll go back and find my records, and see if I can find the photo.

OK, found it, from 2005:



From a 30-06, 165 TSX on left recovered in wet phone books at 300 yards, impact velocity just at 2,280-ish fps. 165 TSX on right recovered from a 6pt bull shot laying in his bed at 50 yards. Muzzle velocity with both was 2,880-ish fps.

Based on my test, I decided the 165 TSX from the 30-06 was no more than a 400 yard bullet.

Back to your original point, I think you're right. If in fact the test a couple posts back was done with reduced velocity loads, it can't be considered an empirical test.

One problem with reducing velocity to "reproduce" long-range impact is rotational rate of the bullet is a lot lower--and it definitely affect how much bullets open, and hence penetration.

Another problem is that the bullet testing media used by many shooters is pretty easy on bullets. One of the reasons wet newspaper (or phone books, or "wet lap," the commercial base of newspaper) was favored by many bullet manufacturers for many years is that just about any bullet came out in a perfect mushroom, ready for photography. But many sure wouldn't expand the same way if they hit something harder, like a shoulder joint.

Thanks, Brad. Interesting results.

Exactly.

Perhaps that will explain the phenomenon of bullets coming home and gaining accuracy inside of predicted moa at 100 yards? Any way those three bullets photographed in the test are very dissimilar. A 130 grain 6.5 AB has an sectional density of .266. The sectional density of the 7mm Barnes is only .213 the 308 about .240. That is 8 to 20% more density. The 308 was 100 fps faster at test. The copper Barnes still penetrated,had as big a meplat and weighed as much or more. Who is 2 say that ain't working?

How far has that 120 gr bullet traveled if it has a MV of 3000 fps? Answer is between 400-425 yds at lower elevations - further of course for you mountain guys. That's good enough for most.

so is the 130 grain ttsx good enough for elk out of a 308?

Check the game regs. Good enough should be defined by law.

Some states, quite sensibly, don't define good enough by law. Montana dropped their rifle cartridge restrictions many years ago.

But yeah, the .308 with 130 TTSX's will kill elk.

Good friend of mine hunts with the passion of the crocodile hunter. Idaho, wa and Africa. 30-06 with a 130 ttsx. He's never been happier with his choice of bullet..

I hope so. Never had a bad experience with any MRX or TTSX (from .257" 100g to .308" 180g).

Loaded 130g TTSX for Daughter #1's first elk hunt last year and she will probably use it again this year. Her .308 Win launches it at 3045fps. Zeroed for MPBR for a 6" diameter target, zero range is 257 yards at 7500 feet with 302 yards MPBR. At 500 yards it retains 2112fps and 1287fpe with a drop of 31.5". Since her effective range as a shooter is probably 400 yards max, I'm not to worried.

(The ballistic gack is especially for smokepole who requested I post more of it in a different thread.)

Wider expansion than the NAB, more penetration than the Sierra, nearly 100% weight retention and no lead into the meat I feed my wife and kids. I'm definitely picking the one in the middle!

The frontal diameter isn't as important as the frontal area. I have recovered two mono metals with simular expansion to the Barnes pictured and the wound channels where minimal.
I agree on the lead issue. It makes me feel better not to feed my kids lead killed meat, wether the danger is real or not is up for debate. Until it's settled I try to use monos for my personal meat making. However, I'm also release the tradeoffs inherent in this choice.

I've had good success with the 150 TTSX in my 7mm Remington Magnum and the 180 in my 300 Weatherby on elk, deer and boar. I switched when a NBT blew up on entry in the ribs of a big bull bat an angle. To me the biggest advantage of the Barnes is how well they do when encountering shoulder bones or chest & spine they seem to just break them and keep going.

In the 7 I've used the old Corelockts, Ballistic tips, Accubonds and have settled on the 150 TTSX as my do anything bullet. In the Weatherby last season a large cow did a back flip down the hill after the 2nd Barnes hit her in the chest from 550 yards. The combination of excellent accuracy and bone breaking performance is exactly what I want in an elk bullet. My daughter's boyfriend and my grandson will be using 168 or 150 grain TTSX next season in their 30-06's. The grandson's rifle seems to like the 150 grain bullets and in my opinion they will be just as effective.

I don't buy into the lead in the meat scare, but here in nutty CALIFORNIA most areas don't give hunters a choice about lead free bullets.