Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters .30 Cal Ballistic Tip Question

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.