Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Difference Between Barnes 30 Caliber 165 TTSX vs. 168TTSX; Response from Barnes

You probably knew this already.

But I was wondering what the difference was between Barnes' 30 Caliber 165 grain and 168 grain TTSX. What is the purpose of having two bullets with only a 3 grain difference? I got this response from Barnes. I knew the BC was different from their spec's, but the rest was new to me. The Bold is my emphasis.

Jerry

"Hi Jerry,

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 TSX and TTSX require a minimum impact velocity of 1800fps and the 168gr TSX and TTSX require 1500fps in our water tank test for minimal but reliable expansion. We suggest 100 to 200 fps above these minimum for good bullet expansion and good wound channels.

Thanks, Ty

Ty Herring | Consumer Service

Interesting and informative. Thanks for posting.

Good info

Hmm. I wonder why more bullet companies don't list stuff like that. I always liked the notes in the Sierra manual on their individual bullets.

That is something I've read before, except for the part about the lower expansion threshold for the 168gr versions.

Good info!

I had read the reason for the two before but never knew that the 168 gr had a lower minimum expansion speed.

THANKS

Thanks for the info.

Interesting..

175 LRX = .508
168 TTSX = .470
165 TTSX = .442
168 TSX = .404
165 TSX = .398

jww -

Thanks for posting that. I only use the higher B.C. 168g variety and have often wondered what the rationale was for the 165g variety.While I was not aware of the lower velocity requirement for the 168g, my hunting partners and I haven't had any problem with expansion.

At what distance does the difference in B.C. become significant?




P

Further downrange than most people shoot game at. Around these parts anyway.

I like to give myself all the advantages I can but I also totally agree. Most of the people who shoot at the distances where BC really becomes important are not on line asking for help on .0025 difference in BC which chambering what twist which reticle etc.......

Myself I'm in the category who has to ask questions and need all the help I can get....grin.

Assuming same cartridge (30-06 is what I used), 2900 fps, 10 mph crosswind, there's a 1.5 inch difference between the two bullets in wind drift at 500 yards.

The real problem is the 20 inches of wind drift at 500 yards. If you are a good enough shooter to read the wind, dial or compensate for the conditions (while you could probably have been moving your feet to close some distance instead), and hit your animal with a lethal first shot, you're probably a good enough shooter for the 1.5 inches of wind drift not to matter.

I'm not a good enough shooter for the above. I would choose to close distance instead. A lethal first shot is a high priority for me when hunting.

Edit: not calling anyone out with the above. Just joining in the discussion. And looking forward to trying a 165 Accubond or 168 TTSX on elk in a month!

joeelk- You may have more experience with the various .30 caliber bullets than I do, but several years ago with a brand-new NULA .308, I tried a variety of Nosler and Barnes bullets in the 150 - 168 grain range. However, for some reason I never got around to using the 168 TTSX. Most bullets shot well in my rifle, but the plain 168 TSX BT has been the most accurate. I use a max load of H4895. Muzzle velocity is only around 2,700 but I've found it to work well on elk.

Guess I need to try the 168 TTSX in my rifle.

In this case the BC is far less important than the slower speed for adequate expansion. I've read too much, and seen too many recovered copper bullets. Anything impacting below 2000 fps is just not expanding well and 2200 seems much better. According to the quote above from Barnes they seem to confirm 2000 fps as minimum impact speed for most of their copper bullets. Apparently the 168 gr version will impact well as slow as 1700 fps. That is what would make it a better long range choice.

A 165/168 gr bullet from a 308 will be under 2200 fps at less than 300 yards, at the 2000 fps threshold at about 400. If the 168 will still expand at 1700 fps that will get you closer to 600 yards.

Well, that saves me a phone call. Used the 165 out of an '06 on a moose in Newfoundland a couple years back and it worked quite well, but I'll change to the 168's now that you provided the answer. Doubt there will be that much difference.....+

Thank you for sharing

That is really good information to have, I don't think that i'll be buying any 165's in the near future for my 30-06 particularly since the 168's shoot pretty well.

Bullet------BC----Drift @300-----Drift @400------Drift @500
175 LRX---0.508-----6.4------------11.7------------19.0
168 TTSX--0.470-----6.7------------12.5------------20.3
165 TTSX--0.442-----7.2------------13.4------------21.8
165 TSX---0.398-----8.6------------16.0------------26.3


It only matters on the label and the internet.

I found that the TSX 168 in front of a middlin' charge of RL22 in my 300 Winmag works real well and shoots pretty consistently in my Browning Eclipse. They also work well in my 30-06 Tikka with a max charge of H414. Killed some nice bucks and a good moose with them. Nothing over 200-250 yards.