Thought I would re-awaken this thread with some update material. I have done what I wanted regarding 416 Ruger internal (load data) and external ballistics (changed iron sights) using 300 and 350 TSX (and 350 TTSX). So for terminal ballistics tests I chose as my test - passage and expansion through 2 1-gallon jugs of water, followed by 4 mil plastic tarp to keep sand dry two 8x8 inch boxes filled with construction sand backed by another 8x16 inch box of sand. I shot from 15 yards and bullet passage would include layers of cardboard as well as the sand. I had no idea what to expect but I dog-eared the boxes.
My control bullet was a Hornady factory loaded 400 gr DGX @ 2400fps, and my test bullets were 300 gr TSX @ 2500fps, 350 TTSX @ 2500fps, and Buffalo Bore 350 TSX @ 2600fps all by the same chronometer. The jugs all exploded spectacularly. The 300 gr TSX penetrated midway through the first box or about 4 inches of sand. (I shot this one first to see if I thought I had enough sand boxes lined up.) The 350 TTSX just touched the back card board wall of the first box or about 8 inches of sand. Both of these were beautifully mushroomed @ .785 and .720, respectively. The BB 350 TSX penetrated midway through the second box or about 12 inches of sand but all of the petals were gone (squared mushroom) @ .600 point to point or .500 flat to flat. Finally, the bonded 400 DGX was fired and it came to rest at the same place as the 350 TTSX or about 8 inches and fully mushroomed at .610. Though bonded, no lead was on any of the 6 petals.
The results suggest sand is a tough medium on bullets (no bullet entered the 8x16 inch box and 3 were restrained by the first 8 inches). I fired only one bullet for each load and still had enough water and sand on me to appreciate the beach. The BB350TSX lost petals and might have faired better in flesh. Velocity seemed to be its enemy. I am pretty confident that the 300 TSX will penetrate most critters, precision grouping has been impressive, and recoil noticeably reduced.
The question is whether the 350 TTSX (or a TSX @ 2500fps) should should be considered to perform as well as the 400 gr DGX @ 2400fps, or actually better, because of larger expansion?
Thank you for the test report.
In regards to the question of better, I certainly would view the Barnes equal to, if not better.
I am a monolithic fan. I don't sweat whether the petals are retained or not, on the Barnes type bullets.
The CEB & Hammer types which are designed to shear, I would definitely prefer that they perform as designed.
I personally would choose one of the Barnes 350's over the 400 grain DGX. I am not bashing the Hornady DGX. I think it is now also a good bullet.
I have been fortunate to have experienced good to very good accuracy with the Barnes in 338's, 375's, & 416's. Maybe, I am stuck in a rut. Though, I am anxious to run the 416 Ruger with the 325 Shock Hammers & 325 CEB Maximus over the chronograph and on target.
Edit: I think the higher BC of the 350 TTSX also adds to the flexibility of this bullet.
