Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa Africa and Barnes

The TSX is good for near-perfect weight retention. From what I have seen or observed in seeing what others have found however, the TTSX appears to be the better bullet even at the not-infrequent expense of some petals. Even the plastic tip in the larger front opening can't overcome the hardness/toughness that copper has versus lead, but it seems to be a significant move in that direction.

I was a big copper fan for a number of years until I was turned off by a number of factors. One of the big complaints leveled against early Xs was the idea that they lost petals and penciled on through. The TTSX seems much more inclined to lose its petals when challenged, yet people seem to be okay with that. Fickle bunch we are, huh?

Many of the early Barnes X's (pre-TSX) also lost their petals. Hunters complained, for whatever reason, which puzzled Randy Brooks somewhat, because he hadn't found petal-retention made much difference in the way they killed or penetrated. But he decided to make customers happy, so fooled around with the design until they retained most petals, most of the time. This made people who judge bullet performance on weight retention happy.

I've shot a bunch of X's, TSX's and TTSX's into big game animals, along with various other petal-type bullets, some actually designed to lose their petals. Like Randy, I never noticed much difference in on-game performance, but no doubt many other people will disagree.

Cutting Edge Raptors lose their petals by design.

What I've seen is pretty impressive, they work.

DF

I was likely one of the most outspoken PH's against the Barnes X bullet for the first decade or so they were made. I never experienced more bizarre and horrible performance in all other bullets types combined!

When the TSX was introduced I had hunters use them with 100% perfect results. It left me wondering if they finally had the metallurgy correct, the bands cut into the base to ride the rifling, and possibly the way the tip was made to increase the way they open.

I had the fortunate opportunity to visit the Barnes plant in Utah and met with the folks there. They had me take a few boxes to load and try on the African game to see for myself. I did this in 30/06, 458 ( for my Lott) and 375HH

Accuracy was perfection, even out to very long 500 yard shots with the 30/06! 5"-6" groups were normal! Barrel fouling was absent, what a huge improvement compared to the effort to clean a barrel after the original X bullets I had used in the past.

Performance on game for me that next season was 100% flawless. This was for many dozens of animals of my own and likely another 50-100 for my hunters that used the TSX bullets.

About this point in my career I have gone from the worst marketing nightmare Barnes could have had, to a 100% converted fan of the TSX product. There was a very important element that came about with this migration. Lighter then normal bullets for the cartridge size driven as fast as possible provided a much better level of performance. Especially with the visual impact of the bullet on big game.

We all know, or should know that the heavier the object the harder it is to slow down. With this, it seems contradictory that I would suggest a lighter projectile. Here is the interesting part of this. With a cup and core bullet, you need to start out with a reasonable weight. As we know those bullets will shed weight at the moment of impact and typically fail to 50% of the starting weight. In some cases much less then that if bones are struck. As the bullet begins coming apart it's mass diminishes and it's penetration begins to slow to a crawl. Sure there are fragments that may cause additional internal damage but they will not provide the bone crunching immobilizing power that is needed to anchor a big animal. Those secondary fragments will often be absolutely lethal over some time period. Where a solid mass has the immobilizing effect instantly with broken bones

So shooting a 180 grain bullet at say 3100fps from a magnum cartridge would have significant "additional velocity" above the design threshold of the .308 diameter bullets originally designed velocity window. It's high velocity impacts will really shatter the integrity of the bullet and cause it to crumble and go to pieces at a far higher rate then the same bullet from say a .308 winchester at 2600fps. Since all .308 diameter cup and core bullets are designed with a velocity window that suits the majority of cartridges used, the 300 Magnums are at the highest end of the velocity design spectrum. What this means is that a 300 magnum needs the toughest bullets made to allow them to stay together long enough to drill through the chest of a big game animal and stay together.

When the TSX came on the scene, They gave the handloader the benefit of stepping down one weight in bullet, and driving them as fast as possible. What this did in most cases was increase the lethal power of standard cartridges into the light magnum category. Take the 270/7mm mag, the 30/06-300 mag as an example. The 7mm mag with a cup and core bullet hitting an animal at 100 yards would in most cases cause that cup and core bullet to explode into countless small bits scattered throughout the body. I've witnessed this more times then I can count. Large diameter wounds that are usually shallow and with brutal visual effect!

Same with the 30/06 and the 300 mag. The 300 mag has astonishing killing power. However it also had the reputation of frequent bullet " failure". Meaning it was very hard to keep bullets intact at close range. I've recovered well over 100's of pieces of copper jacket in lots of big game animals with no piece of lead big enough to pick up. Just lead shrapnel inside the skin and meat.

Enter the 165TSX bullet that is going 2900+fps VS the 180 grain cup and core bullet from the 300 mag going about 3100fps. Here we have only a 200fps difference between the two projectiles. Yet after impact you have the 180 grain cup and core bullet disintegrating and the 165 grain TSX bullet staying fully intact. After personally witnessing hundreds of animals shot with both of these, the 165grain deep penetration and bone breaking power easily trumps the fragmented cup and core projectile of the 300 magnum.

Even when you lose the folded back petals of a TSX bullet, the shank alone continues to drive straight through and bash it's way across and out the exit side. Sometimes all we find is a copper petal or two of the TSX bullet, but there is an exit hole. That is not something you will typically find with a cup and core bullet. Once they begin to disintegrate they don't often have enough remaining mass to exit.

It's easy to imagine then what the power capability is of a 300 mag with a 180 grain TSX bullet driven to max velocity would be! I've seen them use the 165's with spectacular results as well. Now shooting that bullet to 3250-3300fps with near full weight retention is another level of power you have to see to get the full understanding of.

As far as the TTSX is concerned. I'm of the opinion that that little plastic tip is a comforting visual effect. For those nervous about the rumors of old that the Barnes X bullets don't open up all the time. I've never recovered a TSX that was not opened, sure the majority don't stay inside, I agree and understand that. However of those that exit, the damage path and the occasional copper petal show that even those that exited opened up and created a significant trauma path through the body.

I find no flaw whatsoever in the TTSX, I however continue to use the TSX with 100% confidence in them .

Great report, JJ.

Thanks for sharing.

DF

I think one of the reasons the early versions may have lost petals may have been due to the fact that they tended to open wider and flatter - there was more 'meat' in the ogive on them.



...like this 225 gr .338 XFB

The later ones moved toward a sleeker ogive which seemed more inclined to curl tight and small..



...like this 100 gr .284 XFB

This latter bullet had an ogive shape very similar to the TSX which followed it and they seem to be less inclined to open as wide. Some have suggested that the problem in opening that I have seen might have to do with the not-infrequent use of them that we see when the temps are colder. I'm not sure that I buy that since 100 degrees is hardly much when considering metals and metalurgy, but who knows? I'm glad that they seem to work well in warmer climates for whatever reason(s). I still like the idea of their tipped versions for greater consistency and reliability, as well as the concept of shooting bones with them. They are hard to improve upon for shooting bony structres.

Klik,

You may be right about the ogive shape.

I started using more X's with the advent of the blue-coated XLC, partly because the coating did reduce the fouling issue, though it didn't always solve the accuracy problems, by any means. But by the late 90's Randy had come a long way in solving the copper-supply variations, and the bullets themselves were also far more consistent. My rifles started shooting far more X's accurately, and I never experienced any problems with expansion even on pronghorns at 400 yards--though unless the bullet were coated the fouling problem remained.

The TSX's solved the fouling problem, but I did see a few fail to open, but only in calibers from .24 to .30, apparently because the hollow-point was so small it could be closed by recoil-slamming against the front of the magazine. Have never seen any .224 TSX's or over-.30 TSX's fail to expand.

Have been using TTSX's, E-Tips and GMX's since 2007 with zero expansion problems. The only time any has lost any petals was when they hit heavy bone.

Something that has always puzzled me when reading about X-Bullets in the various generations are references to metallurgy/composition. The ads always state "100% Copper". Being a complete ninny when it comes to chemistry (among many, many other often-demonstrated things), I don't understand how the metallurgy/composition can vary.

It can. Not all copper is the same.

Bill Steigers of Bitterroot told me he had to reject as much copper as he accepted,because it did not meet his specs.

I'm no metallurgist,so can't say how it differed but apparently some stuff was not as malleable as others.It can affect how the bullets behave,expand, etc.

Speaking of metallurgy and malleability, isn't the LRX a bit softer, opens easier than the TTSX?

DF

I think it varies. As a general rule, yes. But, some of the standard TTSX are not the same as other. The 30 cal 168 TTSX comes to mind. Barnes quoted a minimum opening velocity of 1500 for that bullet. Others 1600, 1800, and even 2000. They are all slightly different as quoted by various Barnes techs.

I would imagine that copper, like many other metals, can be "100%" pure by some definition of purity, while yet having .04% - or whatever- of something which might affect the character of the metal. Certainly things like cartridge brass can be affected by the simply by the presence of fumes of materials like ammonia. Granted, brass is an alloy, but similarities might apply. Trace materials can be very damning when it comes to chemistry. And then there are factors like heat treatment of the metal. There is no easy way to harden copper alloys that are dead soft without cold-working them. Coils of copper wire that are supposed to have a specified hardness might be quite unsuitable if they are delivered in dead-soft condition. Then again, wire that is delivered too hard could be annealed, but that would add more expense. It might also depend on the entire batch being consistent throughout to start with.

Thanks Klik. It was all explained to me but too long ago and I have forgotten the details.

I do know Bill was very fussy about the materials he used which is one reason the bullets behaved so consistently,even caliber to caliber.

I used the 250 gr. Barnes TTSX in my .375 Ruger on the last African trip.

First critter I shot with it was a black Wildebeest, at a ranged 250 yards. A double lung hit with this bullet dropped him in his tracks, so fast we had to search a bit in the tall grass to find him. Bullet exited.
Used this same bullet on everything from little Springbok to a Sable, with great results, although the only DRT was the Wildebeest.
I have used the 270 gr. Barnes more frequently, and a couple of years ago took a Nilgai bull at 200+ yards, again with a sudden DRT result. The ranch manager I was hunting with said it was only the second time he had ever seen a Nilgai drop in its tracks.
Barnes bullets get used in everything I shoot at big game, either TSX or TTSX. They just work.

Fellas,
In 100 years, when all of us have returned to dust, this argument will still be going on. They will still be arguing about the best caliber as well.

The all copper bullets certainly have an advantage when it comes to penetration and it is without a doubt that they hold together much better than a lead core bullet. I don't think anyone in this thread will argue that. That is the basic laws of science, and you certainly don't have to be a physicist to figure that out.
To me, a Barnes losing its petals mid body of an animal is more a positive than a negative. Those petals, moving at that speed internally, are causing havoc, cutting through flesh, arteries, valves, and organs away from the temporary wound channel causing internal bleeding, with the solid shank still penetrating in a straight line, with the most probability of exiting. This is what I want from a bullet.
To put it into Layman's terms, the Barnes however, is almost too good for what I want it to do. It holds together almost every time, with the odd bullet losing it's petals and bits of shrapnel flying all over internally. (The trait that i am looking for in a bullet.)
If every shot from every single one of our hunters were made with 100% accuracy, on the shoulder, through the vitals, I would shoot Barnes. This is not the reality. Somehow, hunters get shaky in Africa, with strange animals around them, unfamiliar conditions and the desire to not make a mistake on his once in a life time hunt. Hunters get the fever and make less desirable shots. It's part of reality. Therefor, I use a bullet that first and foremost, has the quality to kill effectively when the bullet is placed in the correct area. For this, you need a high quality projectile with a strong construction. I also require a bullet that will cause the most body trauma, when the shot is not in the right area. Only a lead core bullet will give me this consistently. (Call it "controlled" failure" if you want.)
I shoot full copper bullets in some of my rifles. They have their place. I fire a 130gr expanding copper solid from my .308 now, at 2900fps. It yields almost 100% weight retention every time I recover a bullet. Does it hit harder than a 30-06 with a 165gr lead core? Never. It penetrates better sure, but just because the .30-06 loses 40gr inside the animal, does not make the .308 hit harder.
A simple example would be, to put yourself in the shoes of a meat hunter. What do most guys shoot for the least amount of meat damage? Full copper, expanding solids, or lead core bullets? It is without a doubt that the full copper bullets cause less meat damage than the lead core bullets. Meat damage, means body trauma. Body trauma slows any living being down, which increase our chance for recovery exponentially.

The only way that I can achieve what I am looking for in a bullet consistently, is to shoot a high quality lead core bullet from a powerful magnum caliber , such as Swift's, Rhino's from RSA, Accubonds etc from a .300Mag.

You do not get deader than dead!

3100fps from a .300Mag? Send me some of that powder and I'll send you lead core bullets that yield better than 50% weight retention.
I've had pass through s after breaking the shoulder on Blue's at 200yds with that .300, and all of the recovered bullets that we have managed to pull from the animals were between 75-87%. These are from the Federal Fusion range, which I try and shoot as far as availability is concerned.

The best that we get out of my .300Mag at safe operating levels with 180gr is 2880fps. Bare in mind, our powders are way behind the USA's availability and quality.
I would not shoot anything lighter than a 180gr in a .300Win, just as I would not shoot anything heavier than a 165gr in a .30-06. I think those are the two sweet spots on those two calibers.

Good luck chaps. There are very few actual bad bullets on the market today. I've said it before, one failure from a bullet manufacturer, does not make it a bad bullet.

Yeah, also had a hunter shooting that combo. Those 250's are deadly out of the .375H&H. I think it's a great combination between hitting power and a relatively flat trajectory.
I would not hesitate to recommend that combo, should it work in any hunter's rifle from plains game to Cape Buff.

Speaking of petals spinning off, creating havoc, has there been BG, PG reports on the use of Cutting Edge Raptors?

These are designed to have petals spinning off, doing damage while the core bores on thru.

My series of one medium sized hog, purposefully chest shot with a 135gr. Raptor out of a .308 was DRT with impressive tissue damage. Chest shot hogs often run off, this one got nailed.

Cutting Edge bullets seem to be as accurate as TTSX/TSX and other monometals.

DF

Marius: We can routinely get 3150 fps with 180s out of 300 Winchester Mags with NO problems whatsoever, as well as over 3K with the H&H. Like JJ well described, put me in the Barnes column!

Good for you guys. We don't have the luxury of premium powders on this side. We have one producer, which is local. My offer stands, send me some of that powder and I will send you decent lead core bullets. Apparently yours don't hold up very well.

Here is a question. When you buy your powders for any one of your weapons, and you already have your load that works for your rifle, let's say 4064, do you have to check online from the manufacturer, whether the powder is running hot or cold, and adjust your powder measure for that batch, or will each container be the same as the previous one you bought?

I've never called to ask, but wouldn't bet on powder manufacturers admitting lot to lot variation. They'd have to make that admission before giving out that info.

Don't count on it...

We generally find this out thru experimentation, loads clocked and compared.

DF