Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Monolithic differences

Rug3,

Water jugs say something, but I'm not sure what, except maybe a rough idea of relative penetration. Wet paper tests do not, because just about any bullet will mushroom perfectly in wet paper--which is why so many old bullet advertisements showed bullets shot into wet paper.

Miles,

I have several recovered X's, from the ungrooved originals to TTSX's, that have lost petals--including one, shot into the shoulder joint of an axis buck, that lost all 4.

Might post a photo later, but for now I will repeat something that Randy Brooks told me a while back, while we were on a deer hunt together almost 20 years ago, after the TSXs appeared, but the TTSX's had not. He was astonished after introducing the original X when so many hunters thought it was so desirable for X's to retain all their petals. He always though losing petals might help them kill a little quicker, but being a good businessman, he gave customers what they wanted, tweaking the design until X's did tend to retain all (or at least most) of their petals.

Nowadays, the LRX's are designed to open up easily at lower velocities, so do lose more petals.

Mule Deer
Thanks for your response.
I erred in not asking the question I'm really searching for. Was the 85TSX and the 95 TTSX specifically designed for the 6.8 and thus
be made differently, less tough, to open at slower speeds? Apparently the LRX is made to open slower. What's the technological design that makes the LRX open earlier? Are they softer, deeper grooves, what? Is the alloy the same in the 85TSX and 95TTSX as the 110 or 130?

Not sure about the 6.8s, I thought the TAC line was softer but others say identical to TSX & TTSX. Might contact Barnes. The LRX has a deeper hollow point and I suspect they anneal the bullets too.

One Australian writer (and maybe others) anneals his factory bullets but I don't know how well you could control the results? One factor is if you over do it you melt the tip.

I would not necessarily expect that to be the case. Barnes also knows that just making a bigger hollow point in the end will provide adequate opening into ad copy perfect mushrooms. I have tested 30-30 TSX FN and their predecessor the X FN as well as a couple of XPB versions in .357 and .40. With the exception of the X FN 30-30 these are whopping big hollow points. The 30-30 X FN is just large compared to X bullets. The 30-30 TSX FN I tested into water down to 1100 FPS and I still got ad copy expansion. I do not remember how far down I tested the X FN. The .357 XPB I ran down to regular 38 (not 38 special) velocities. Those opened perfectly down closer to 800 FPS into water. The 30-30 TSX FN also opened perfectly and did not shed petals at slightly above 2400 FPS. The 357 XPB did not shed petals at >1700 FPS but I did not test above 1800 FPS. I think if I remember right the 125 grain .40 XPB tested OK at close to 1400, but I am not sure why that number sticks in my head, I usually wont push something that hard.

About 2/3 of the deer I kill are beyond 100 yards. About 1/3 are very close. The average is probably 125-150 yards. I try hard to avoid heavy bone, but the close deer get hit almost always such that the bullet goes through the atlas. Consequently it doesn't surprise me in the least I have not recovered a bullet from a deer shot with a mono. It has been of interest to me that I have only found evidence of a single mono losing a petal. I expected to in the beginning and I have looked hard. Statistically, with that many deer it should have shown up if it was likely to. Probably it is not likely to because I have only high shouldered a few, none in the hips, none through hard bone in the legs. I would not be a bit surprised nor consider it unlikely that out of a couple dozen that got it through the brain stem that some of those bullets lost petals, but at the typical 25-30 feet at which they were killed, recovery of bullet or petals is pretty unlikely.

John i might be one of the few that liked the Barnes before they put the groves on.

In the 35 Whelen,7x57 and that darn 270 Win,i never had a problem with hitting the critter.

Only found one in a deer it came from the 7x57.About 125 yards and it turned up in the right rear leg.
It traveled there under or in side the deer as no holes were in that hide where the bullet was found.

I still have a few boxes left as well as some 75 grain 257 bullets.

plainsman,

I liked the pre-groove X's too--though not until around the mid-1990s. Before then the accuracy was pretty iffy in several rifles I tried them in. Sometimes a decent group (which I define as around an inch, 3-shot at 100) would turn up, but the next group, with the same load, might be 2". This is still sufficient for most big game hunting at "normal" ranges, but then sometimes a flier would show up as well.

This started to get better in the late 90s, at least in my experience--and I was getting samples frequently. First got consistent inch groups with the blue-coated model (XLC?) in SOME batches, most notably the 100-grain in a .257 Ackley Improved I had back then, an Ultra Light Arms rifle. Then in the late 90s more and more X's started shooting not just well, but VERY well.

As I got to know Randy better, discovered this was because he was getting more consistent batches of copper, which meant diameters were becoming more consistent--and they'd also learned more about consistent production. The two I used most were the 120 in a very accurate Ruger Mark II 6.5x55, and the 250 9.3mm in two rifles, a CZ 550 9.x62 and a my Remington 700 9.3 Barsness-Sisk. ALL would regularly group three in around 1/2" at 100--but the fouling problem persisted, which the XLC's didn't totally solve in some barrels.

Then the TSX came along, and took care of both the inconsistent accuracy and fouling problem. We used them the first year they appeared--Eileen in her NULA .270 Winchester. In fact Eileen was the first hunter to give Coni an elk-kill field report for the TSX--which also killed a coyote quite well on the same hunt.

But we also had erratic expansion with some of the early TSX's, especially one batch of 100-grain .25s. But that was totally solved by the introduction of the Tipped TSX a couple years later--which has worked very well in several rifles since then.

I have used several, and have found just about what JB has stated. The early weren't bad, accuracy wise, but lots of copper fouling. Mid years were inconsistent. The later TTSX seems to have found the sweet spot. Still have some original Barnes bullets in 6.5, 165g.

Miles,

As I and Jordan stated earlier, neither of us has found ANY difference in either "killing power" or penetration when Barnes X-Bullets keep or lose petals. I also mentioned Randy's take on the whole thing. I also have found no difference in other "petal" type bullets, whether monolithic or the Fail Safe with its lead core in the rear end.

Retaining or losing petals only became an issue because so many hunters became obsessed with 100% weight retention as THE answer to "killing power"--which is definitely not true. Randy Brooks himself was never fixated on it, as I pointed out. Instead he wanted deeper penetration, which does indeed help in some hunting.

But EVERY time the question of Barnes--or other petal-expanding bullets--comes up on the Campfire, somebody has to mention (as you did) the relative loss of petals. Whereupon some of us who have used such bullets enough to see every variation, from no petal loss to ALL petals gone, feel obliged to mention that we have never seen any meaningful difference in killing power or penetration.

243, 260, 7-08, 270, 30-06, 7mag, 338 WM, 375 H&H....all seated with the front of the first driving band at the case mouth. Start and finish right there. Ymmv.