24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,371
H
Campfire Tracker
OP Offline
Campfire Tracker
H
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,371
Ok so not really a long range question, but since some of you know your way around ballistic calculators...

If my max range is 425 yards or so, hunting deer and elk which Barnes TTSX would better serve me assuming my rifle shoots them the same with regards to accuracy?


150g BC of 420 @3000 fps

168g BC of 470 @ 2850 fps

Recoil should be about the same. I know they both will work, but if I'm going to invest the time and energy to work up loads this will help me get started.

thanks

BP-B2

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,258
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,258
About a inch less drop on the 150, and a touch less energy than the 168 at 425. They are really pretty close at that range, the 168 will do better at longer ranges.


"Life is tough, even tougher if your stupid"
John Wayne
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 150,097
Campfire Savant
Offline
Campfire Savant
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 150,097
I load 150’s in 30-06’s and 168’s I’m my 300 Win Mag. They slay deer, pigs and Aoudads just fine.

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,262
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,262
Barnes bullets ain’t about energy. They’re about penetration. Velocity rules.

Go 150. It will retain more weight and penetrate deeper than a 180 NPT at the same impact velocities, and really outperform it if it is impacting at higher velocity.


What could be a sadder way to end a life than to die having never hunted with great dogs, good friends and your family?
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,884
J
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
J
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,884
My understanding of those bullets is that even the 150's will give more than enough penetration. The important factor is impact velocity, not energy. It needs to be around 2000 fps and most guys say 2200 is better in order to get expansion. According to my calculations the 150s will drop below 2200 fps right at 400 yards. The 168's a little under 400 yards. Assuming those impact numbers are accurate around 425-450 yards is about the limit for either of those in 30-06. Started faster in a magnum would add a little more range.

I confess, I've not taken any game when either was in my rifle, but I have experimented with 150's in my 30-06 and 130's in my 308. I'd save the 168's for magnums. But I don't think either would be a bad choice.


Most people don't really want the truth.

They just want constant reassurance that what they believe is the truth.
IC B2

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,904
D
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
D
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,904
I shoot the 168's in both an '06 and a .308, I don't think you'd be disappointed in that weight. At the distances you mentioned either will be fine, I think the accuracy potential is a bit higher with them than the 150's (in my experience). I've run mine out to 800yds in the .308 and it's right there with the 168 Amax for accuracy and drop.


Golden............
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 696
Q
qwk Offline
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Q
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 696
150's for sure. The expansion will be quite a bit better at closer ranges. I've shot a few deer with the 168's going 2800, and past about 250 yards, they don't expand much. Barnes need 3k+ fps to work their best.

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,160
C
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
C
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,160
Originally Posted by handwerk
Ok so not really a long range question, but since some of you know your way around ballistic calculators...

If my max range is 425 yards or so, hunting deer and elk which Barnes TTSX would better serve me assuming my rifle shoots them the same with regards to accuracy?


150g BC of 420 @3000 fps

168g BC of 470 @ 2850 fps

Recoil should be about the same. I know they both will work, but if I'm going to invest the time and energy to work up loads this will help me get started.

thanks


Funny you posted this question, because I have been researching the exact same thing as I pondered loading up some TTSX for a future elk hunt. Based on my assumed numbers (pretty much identical to yours), I came to the conclusion that it doesn't make a nickles worth of difference to any sane hunting distance. The 150 will be faster from 0-350 yards, but both are plenty fast enough to work. From 350 to 450, they are within 25 fps, so it's negligible. And beyond that where the 168 is faster, I've got no business shooting an elk and if I did shoot one that far, I'd rather have a different bullet.

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,966
L
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
L
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,966
I've had very good luck using the 168 TSX BT in a NULA .308 on a couple of Colorado bulls, one at 266 yards, the other at 319 yards. I would have preferred a 150 Barnes but the 168 shot so accurately, I stuck with it. Muzzle velocity was 2,700 fps, about the most one can expect with a 22" barrel and H4895. I could get slightly more speed with Varget, but not better accuracy. I'm pretty sure you could get at least another 100 fps from this bullet in an '06.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,792
H
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
H
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,792
With the Barnes at the ranges you state, I would let impact velocity decide.

John


If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Chronicles 7:14
IC B3

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,910
M
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
M
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 59,910
Randy,

You might also consider the 175 LRX. I ran the numbers with the 150 @ 3000, 168 @ 2900 and 175 @ 2800, and while there's only a slight difference in trajectory, the 175 drifts less in the wind and at 400 retains just about the same velocity at 400 as either of the two lighter bullets.


“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.”
John Steinbeck
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 947
V
Campfire Regular
Online Content
Campfire Regular
V
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 947
I like the 150 gr. At 7k ft elevation and 40degrees, I am 2” highly at 100 and right at the thick to thin on the crosshairs at 400. I still have 2300+ fps for expansion at that distance. I shouldn’t shoot farther than that.

Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 48
Campfire Greenhorn
Offline
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 48
I'm shooting the 130gr at 3228 very flat to 425yds.


7mmRM the perfect North American cartridge!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,137
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
Randy,

You might also consider the 175 LRX. I ran the numbers with the 150 @ 3000, 168 @ 2900 and 175 @ 2800, and while there's only a slight difference in trajectory, the 175 drifts less in the wind and at 400 retains just about the same velocity at 400 as either of the two lighter bullets.


Wisdom..

Thanks Mule Deer.


Randy
NRA
Patriot Life Benefactor





Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,822
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,822
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
...175 @ 2800...


John,
Are you using "Hunter" to get that velocity?

Ed


"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell



Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Randy, I had a question about the same back in 2005, so I decided to see for myself what a 168 TSX looked like at 300 yards fired into wet, bundled phone books. I set up my chronograph at 300 yards and shot through the sky-screen clocking velocity. The bullet was fired at 2,880 fps from my 30-06. I've lost my notes, but I remember the clock measured right at 2,000 fps or just a bit less at the 300 yard mark.

On the left is the 168 TSX I caught in the phone book at 300 yards, on the right is a 168 TSX I caught at 50 yards in a bull elk later that fall:

[Linked Image]

There's nothing especially "wrong" with the TSX/TTSX, but as John pointed out, at 30-06 velocities I think there are better bullets for use out to 425 yards.


“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Originally Posted by APDDSN0864
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
...175 @ 2800...


John,
Are you using "Hunter" to get that velocity?

Ed


Both Hunter and H4350 will easily give 2,800 with a 175 gr in a 22" 30-06.


“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,822
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,822
Thanks, Brad. I knew H4350 would 'cause that's what I've used.

I know that John has done a lot with Hunter in his '06.

Ed


"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell



Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,425
M
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
M
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,425
Due to feral culling I've had the opportunity to hundreds animals per week, and much of that was done with 30-06s over a few years. There's no way I was going let a chance like that go by without comparing bullets. It would be hard not to, even if you hadn't started with that plan.

By the time I'd used up the stockpile there was no doubt that the Barnes (In my case the 168 TSX) was the slowest killing and best penetrating of the bunch. For your use of 425 yard tops deer and elk I'd use just about anything else first.


Life begins at 40. Recoil begins at "Over 40" Coincidence? I don't think so.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,211
Originally Posted by Model70Guy
Due to feral culling I've had the opportunity to hundreds animals per week, and much of that was done with 30-06s over a few years. There's no way I was going let a chance like that go by without comparing bullets. It would be hard not to, even if you hadn't started with that plan.

By the time I'd used up the stockpile there was no doubt that the Barnes (In my case the 168 TSX) was the slowest killing and best penetrating of the bunch. For your use of 425 yard tops deer and elk I'd use just about anything else first.


It's no secret I'm not a mono/TTSX fan. I have seen (as have many friends) more bullet failures (ie, un-opened bullets) with mono's than any other type of bullet.

I suppose I understand the "lead fear" that is driving a lot of guys to use the mono's, but the idea that they somehow kill faster than more traditional bullets is nonsense.


“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
362 members (280shooter, 204guy, 29aholic, 10gaugemag, 1beaver_shooter, 16penny, 44 invisible), 2,256 guests, and 1,093 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,724
Posts18,400,599
Members73,822
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.088s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.8996 MB (Peak: 1.0520 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 04:56:10 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS