Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Monolithic differences

One difference from personal experience is the lack of consistent performance from TSX’s on deer compared to TTSX’s which have produced completely consistent results.

The worst performance was a TSX in a .30-06 to shoot a buck in Saskatchewan. The TSX went through both shoulder blades without opening. Shot through both shoulders the deer ran about 150 yards. The buck was just shy of 300# on the scales. So there was plenty of body mass for it to open in addition to hitting bone.

TTSX’s have always opened with most falling where they stand. One time, shot placement was to the lungs just to see how the TTSX would perform not aiming for the CNS or shoulders. The .260 120 grain produced holes about the size of a quarter. The buck ran about 30 yards and did a face plant burying his antlers.

So, there is one difference from actual observation. Used the TSX on about 5 - 10 deer and no pigs. TTSX’s have been used on many times that number of animals - lots and lots of pigs, too many to count.

Those interested in the monolithic bullets should check out Hammer Bullets. There are lots of reports that its easy to get Hammer bullets to shoot tight groups, and they perform well on game. I have no connection to Hammer Bullets, I am just a happy customer.

For example: https://www.longrangehunting.com/threads/hammer-bullets.234862/ The posters that have used the product pretty much universally praise it.

Anyone used the 270 85 or 95 grain on game? They should be very fast but I'm thinking they are made for the 6.8 and may not hold together on game at the 3600 fps that could be generated. What's your experience?

I have pushed them TSX and TTSX bullets pretty fast and tested them into water jugs. !130 grain TSXs and TTSXs out od a 300 WM run about 3580 when you get to accuracy near the top end. I have killed deer with them at that speed without any sign of losing a petal. But, I am shooting deer and not shooting heavy bone. I have tested 25-06 80 grain TTSXs into water jusg without losing petals. I have tested 85 grain TSXs out of a 270 into water jugs at somewhere above 3500 without losing petals. I have hit heavy bone with TSX and TTSXs in 243 and 270 without seeing any evidence of lost petals. The only Barnes bullet I have seen lose a petal was a 150 grain XLC at 3250 FPS that I put into the mouth of a deer. It went through all the molars on one side and then through the atlas and brain stem which I was shooting at. That one shed a petal which hit one of the spinal processes on above the pelvis and did an impressive job penetrating.

I may have lost petals on other Barnes or monos, but I have never recovered any bullets to know for sure. Also never lost a deer with any mono nor ever needed a second dose for any deer.

Cutting Edge Bullets do not lose there pedals, they are called "Blades" they do cutting-slicing as secondary projectiles. The base keeps penetrating and will tend to penetrate deeper than other monolithic bullets that keep there "pedals".
Having used Partitions for several decades, moving to Barnes for a couple years, was not impressed with the non-grooved version. Now after shoot close to 200 animals with Cutting Edge Bullets Raptors and Maximus several thousand in to "wet paper media". Only bullets I will ever use will be CEB's, unless something better comes along. I do thinks there will in my life time....

They themselves refer to them as petals. But you're right, they don't lose pedals, as they aren't bicycles...

coyotewacker,

Gee, thanks for the "correction." I wrote "petals" (not pedals) because that's what most hunters call them. And yes, I am personally quite aware of how they work, since my wife and I have used Raptors in calibers from .224 to .308.

I would disagree with your statement about monos that lose petals (or blades, or leaves, or whatever somebody might call them) penetrating deeper than bullets that keep theirs. In my experience, in both game and "media," it depends on various other factors, including how much remains the frontal area of the remaining shank. Quite a few bullets that have lost all their petals end up expanding slightly anyway. Plus, there's the fact that bullets retaining their petals weigh more, which has some effect on penetration, though it's not the only factor, as many hunters assume.

I found these a couple weeks ago and ordered up some for .277 and .308. I don't know a thing about them other than the folks who answered the phone when I called were very friendly. The customer service person put me in touch with their R&D person when I had questions regarding their starting load data and he was quite friendly as well.

https://badlandsprecision.com

Great posts. Thank you mule deer and others.
I love ttsx and have been using them for 10 + years. I am now working up load with LRX. I also have never found or recovered a bullet, always a pass through from 40 to 400 on deer and elk.
I have looked at other monos, but lack of Driving bands or relief grooves has kept me away.

If you live in Utah you have to at least "try" Barnes bullets and Browning firearms! ha Just kidding, but both are good. I have only played around with the GMX & ETip, in 30 caliber. Never had a rifle that liked them more than Barnes TSX or especially, TTSX. Maybe I just didn't "hold my mouth right" or seated them right, I wasn't impressed enough to stay at it...plus...maybe I'm prejudiced....I live in Utah!

I tried the handgun Raptors and was less than impressed. Penetration was severelying lacking and the petals or blades as you prefer did exactly nothing that I could detect.

MILES58
Thanks for your response. Water jugs and wet paper tests tell us a lot and I find then informative. You said. "I have hit heavy bone with TSX and TTSXs in 243 and 270 without seeing any evidence of lost petals." That's what I looking for. Were any of these 85 or 95 grainers.

Since Miles says he's never recovered a TSX of any variety, it might be iffy whether one lost any petals.

But have not only found petals from Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets around the entrance hole but the exit--some near where the shank of the bullet was recovered, but also around the rim of the exit hole itself. As an example, found a petal from a 300-grain .375 Fail Safe at the edge of a fist-sized exit hole from a BIG Cape buffalo. Have seen the same variations from other petal-type bullets, but then my wife and I been shooting "petal" bullets since the late 1980s.

We also skin and butcher ALL the big game animals we put in the freezer, and I have helped with the skinning and butchering of most of our other big game animals. The exception is Africa--where I've often been in the skinning shed, or offered a tip for any bullet or fragment recovered.

I've got a small box of recovered X/TSX/TTSX/LRX bullets. Most have retained their petals, but I'd say about 30-40% have lost at least one petal, and a few have lost all their petals. Makes no difference to me. I've not made any observations correlating killing effectiveness with petal retention.

Jordan,

As I have noted here and there for quite a while, neither have I.

I have put some 243 80 and 85 grain Barnes through heavy bone. I have put 110 and 130 grain .270 Barnes bullets through heavy bone. I have put 130 grain .308 Barnes bullets through heavy bone. I have put 250 grain Barnes bullets through heavy bone at much lower velocities. I have only seen the one instance in which I could say I say any evidence of a shed petal. That is out of between 50 and 100 deer killed with them and ZERO recovered bullets. Of those deer I gave away one or two but probably butchered them as well as butchering and eating all the rest. I recovered no bullets or petals and I even keep an eye out for them while gutting. Most of the deer I have killed that were shot through heavy bone were shot through the atlas inside of 10 yards. One was shot through the atlas at 165 yards. One deer shot with a .270 110 grain TTSX was very impressive to me. The bullet went through the onside shoulder blade and made a fist sized hole in it. It then went through four ribs near the spine which that close to the spine are about an inch wide. After that it took out about a fist size chunk of the bottom of the spine, two more ribs and then made a quarter sized hole in the off side shoulder blade. That bullet made a caliber size entrance hole and a caliber sized exit hole in the hide which would seem unlikely. The wound channel was arrow straight. The wound channel was fairly consistent and like almost ll the wound channels I have made with Barnes bullets, about 3 inches plus or minus. Usually I cannot even guess at wound channel inside the chest because it is often as not just red soup. That particular deer was killed at near 300 yards.

In my opinion testing bullets is not real positive correlation of what happens when it hits Bambi. I think that testing a bullet at maximum velocity into water to see if it comes apart is pretty likely to show me if that bullet will come undone at that velocity. I also believe that testing into water at minimum velocity (at which I expect to hit a deer) will show me if it will still expand decently. Beyond that, bullet performance in test media is useful only for comparing one bullet to another in that media. That is not what interests me because things like bullet deflection which is very important to me is pretty difficult to get a meaningful handle on outside of a deer's body.

I have been killing deer with Barnes bullets for a long, long time. The first Barnes monos I killed deer with were in the 90's. I have never seen any evidence of a mono not expanding or losing petals or failing in any way using Barnes Xs, XLCs, TSXs, TTSXs, Several types of Barnes ML bullets, GMXs or E-Tips. I have only shot a few deer with the E-Tips and GMXs though. I have examined a like number of deer killed by others with Barnes and other monos that I loaded. Many of them I also assisted in butchering. Out of all of those there have been two recovered bullets, one from a deer and one from the ground after it exited. Neither of those shed petals.

John, since you're staying engaged with this thread (much appreciated!) perhaps you could share any advice on seating depth for the E-Tips. I've followed your writing on these and you always mention it's critical but I don't recall any specifics other than "deeper than other bullets." I've been trying to get some 90 grain E-Tips to shoot in a .243 and they seem best at .100" off the lands, which is as far as I've gone so far.
With all your experience, what trends have you found with E-tip optimum seating depth? If you were to start working up an E-Tip load on a new rifle/caliber combination, what depth would you start with, and which direction would you move if you were not happy with the initial seating depth?

Thanks,
Rex

Rex,

Generally I start a little farther off the lands than with lead-cored bullets, around .050 inch instead of .030 or so. If that doesn't work like I want it to, then I start seating deeper, usually around .03 for each trial. Have often gotten better accuracy at around .1 inch off the lands, but in some rifles it's been much more.

One I remember specifically was a Mark V Weatherby in .270 Weatherby Magnum. I started handloading for it with 130-grain Ballistic Tips, because they have an ogive very similar to E-Tips. Got fine accuracy (as I recall around 1/2" for 3 shots) with the bullets seated as far out as possible to fit in the magazine, which in a Weatherby is already quite a ways from the rifling due to the long "freebore" chamber throat.

Then I switched to 130 E-Tips, with the same powder and seating depth, but they grouped into about 2". So I started seating them deeper, two turns on the seating-die screw each time. The first groups (2 turns) were around an inch, and the second groups (another 2 turns, 4 in total) were around what the Ballistic Tips had done, a little over 1/2".

Thanks very much John! In your first sentence do you mean ".050 inch instead of .030?"
Cheers,
Rex

Yep, good catch.... Just changed it.