Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Faster TTSX vs slower LRX

Question regarding Barnes bullets. I hunt a lot with moderate cartridges like the 7x57 and .308. I’d like to switch to lead free ammo. It seems like the conventional wisdom would be to use a lighter copper bullet at higher velocity, e.g. change from 7mm Nosler Partition 140 gr at about 2800 FPS to 120 gr TTSX at about 3000 FPS. What about using the 139 or 145 gr LRX though? Would the better ballistic coefficient and “softer” construction make up for the lower velocity? Maybe this is splitting hairs.

I think you answered your question with that last sentence. Unless you are chasing very big animals. Why the desire to go lead-free?

What range are you looking at using them?

At moderate ranges like I usually hunt deer around home, say 0-300 yds, I'll use the lighter bullet at a faster velocity. I use 100 gr. TTSX's in my 6.5x47L for deer. In my 7mm rem mag I use the 145 gr. LRX for elk, I like the better B.C. for possible longer shots.

For normal ranges in a 7x57 I'd pick the 120TTSX over the 145 LRX.

I switched to barnes because I get more reliable performance out of them than lead core bullets. I only use the barnes with plastic tips though, I don't trust the hollow point ones to open consistently. I don't care that they're lead free, just that they work better.

I am doing the same with the 6.5x55 and 129 ABLR for a softer bullet and in theory quicker kills. But like the 7x57 just about anything you care to load will work well. Even the cheapest bullet you can find is still likely to be a stellar performer in the old Mauser. For light game I have found the 120 monos perform exceptionally in the 7RM, 280, and 7-08 so should likewise in the 7x57.

Out to about 350-400 meters, it's a wash. Beyond that the LRX will expand more reliably and drift less in the wind.

Yep. In the places I hunt a 300 yard shot is unlikely but you never know. I just bought a .280 Ackley Improved...think I will use the 145 LRX in that and the 120 TTSX in my 7x57.

There may be several reasons why one might go that route

1. Required by law or landowner
2. Bullet performance is in deed superb and reliable
3. Ecologically the lead free bullets do less damage to other species of wildlife.....most notably raptors but such animals that might o feed on the carcass remains might also be damaged.....and even in some case humans as well.

For me it's all three....the last seven big game animals I've taken were all with the TTSX in .30 caliber and .264 caliber. Bullet performance was as good as any I've used in the past and I have no qualms about feeding the meat to grandkids....The benefit to raptors is merely a plus but no matter how one cuts the cake the lead free bullets are clearly winners IMO.

I want to go lead free so I don’t risk poisoning raptors and other wildlife. I don’t want to start a fight about lead free being a political ploy. I do think there is good evidence that raptors can be poisoned by lead.

May I ask.......why the desire to continue shooting bullets containing lead?

Bullets containing lead? Hell, I prefer to shoot bullets that are ALL lead. I know the actual science, rather than the fear-mongering, so I have zero concerns over ingesting lead with my meat. Hell, as a teen, I ate the equivalent of a dove-load every bird season in shot. Your body doesn't absorb pieces of lead. It absorbs very tiny amounts dissolved by the acid in the stomach. And the body can get rid of that lead it has absorbed. Your body isn't stupid. It wants to get rid of toxins.

My advice: don't dissolve lead in acid and drink it. Don't consume lead suspensions.

Millions of people for hundreds of years have shot game with lead pellets or bullets. The symptoms of lead poisoning are pretty evident. For decades, water pipes were made from lead.

But some people can't grasp reality.

They work.

Lead free works better.

Make yourself happy.
I'll use both. Just wish, I didn't have someone standing over me telling me what I had to use.

Yup. After using A-Frames, Northforks, Nosler Partitions and Accubonds on two elk, countless mule deer and whitetails, pronghorns, Kudu, Gemsbok, Zebra and niscellaneous game, I agrree they sure do work and work fine. However after now using TTSX to kill three elk and four mule deer this year, I, again, agree.....the lead free bullets work equally fine if not better. Further, they are actually less costly than some of the (so-called) premium bullets mentioned......and yes, they are quite a bit higher cost than core-loks, power points. interlocks, game kings, hot cores and other traditional cup and core bullets but when one shells out the cash for a non resident elk hunt, it makes sense (at least to me) to use the ammunition that provides the best terminal performance.

This becomes especially true when under African rules, if you draw blood, it's your trophy fee.....if you lose the animal you will be required an additional trophy fee for another animal.....this same rule applies to the ranch where I hunt elk in New Mexico. It's the kind of thing that causes one to use the best ammo he can get (make) and to restrict his shooting to shots well within his shooting capability. For me, monometals fill the bill quite well.

All the bullets mentioned work well. But with the monos I like that if I misjudge a shot and hit more bone than anticipated the monos not only will work but possibly work even better. You could say the same thing about hard cast pure lead bullets at moderate velocities. I agree with MD and others that cup and core or partially fragmenting bonded or partition bullets will usually kill faster than a mono but the difference would be hard to document in most situations.

Well said. I don't like the .gov legislating these types of things and I think the lead poisoning of birds is overblown, but I like mono bullets because I like 2 holes in my game. Sure they may run 10% farther on average or some imperceptible difference, but 2 holes and good blood trails is never the wrong answer in my mind.

TTSX bullets are accurate, my go to bullet.

To the OP, I agree totally with Jordan's post. My wife took a bull elk at 400 yds with a 120 gr TTSX having a 3050 fps MV. The bullet hit just slightly back but still double lunged him, and it did work. The elk walked uphill about 40 yds and didn't get up. But he wasn't dead when she got up to him and he needed a finishing shot. The 139 LRX would actually have a slightly greater retained velocity at 400 yds. And most likely would have been more "lethal".

I prefer to use one bullet for all shooting of game. I don’t pick a bullet for close shots, then change for longer (500+) shots. My preference......go with the heavier bullet. I have concerns (though unproven by myself) about the LRX over expanding and possibly shedding too much weight on close-up shots. So, for the time being.....I’m staying with the TTSX. There is not enough of BC loss with the TTSX vs the LRX, with similar bullet weights, to warrant major concern. I’m trying to gather data on LRX performance on close range, high velocity impacts, for my own decision as to which to choose! memtb

The LRX will probably work better, for you politically correct types.