24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
-->
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,430
A
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,430
My apologies as I’m sure this question has been asked and answered many times over but I ain’t shy. What is the difference between the 165TTSX versus the 168TTSX in .30cal?….(other than 3 grains of weight 😁). I shoot the monos almost exclusively and the Barnes have been my favorite for years. In my .308’s I use the 150TTSX or the 168TSX and both have performed perfectly, I’ve never needed a follow up as most have dropped in their tracks, literally. I’m looking for a middleweight mono for my’06 and wondered if one had a thicker “jacket” for magnum velocities? I find it hard to believe that they’re identical except for the 3 extra grains…

Thanks in advance.


�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.

---------------------------------------------------------
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
GB1

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,948
B
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,948
According to Barnes, the 165 has a shorter nose profile for cartridges like the 300wm so they will fit in most magazines, it also requires a slightly higher impact speed of 1800fps vs. 1500fps for the 168 TTSX. If I were going to pick one to use in the 30-06, it would be the 168, however the 165 would work fine as well...


Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.

BSA MAGA
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,541
G
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
G
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,541

Difference Between Barnes 30 Caliber 165 TTSX vs. 168TTSX; Response from Barnes

Originally Posted by jerrywoodswalker
You probably knew this already.

But I was wondering what the difference was between Barnes' 30 Caliber 165 grain and 168 grain TTSX. What is the purpose of having two bullets with only a 3 grain difference? I got this response from Barnes. I knew the BC was different from their spec's, but the rest was new to me. The Bold is my emphasis.

Jerry

"Hi Jerry,

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 TSX and TTSX require a minimum impact velocity of 1800fps and the 168gr TSX and TTSX require 1500fps in our water tank test for minimal but reliable expansion. We suggest 100 to 200 fps above these minimum for good bullet expansion and good wound channels.

Thanks, Ty

Ty Herring | Consumer Service

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,430
A
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,430
Thanks guys. I figured there was a difference but not something to consider really, at least not in the’06.

I’ll stick with the 168 TSX.



�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.

---------------------------------------------------------
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,948
B
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,948
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
Thanks guys. I figured there was a difference but not something to consider really, at least not in the’06.

I’ll stick with the 168 TSX.


Not much. Just consider the 165 like you would a 180gr protected point partition. Made for the 300wm for the some of the same reasons.. Your question was a good one, as I had researched the same thing a while back when I ran across a bunch of 165 and 168gr TTSX's. Didn't know which ones to buy and why there was a 3 grain difference. I figured I'd buy both styles because they were priced right, also figuring one may work better in the 300wm, 308 Norma mag, 300WSM, 300WBY, 30-06 and 308. Its good to have choices and 30 cal is never a bad one. I'm like you, I'll probably stick with the 168's for my 308 and 30-06, while saving the 165's for my magnums. This thread reminded me that I ran across a great deal on some 7mm 140gr TSX today. A small town gunshop I visited had some for $25.99/box.. Had to snag them at that price!! I've also been doing some shooting and load work up with my 7mm08, 308, 300WBY, and 30-06 with barnes lately. The barnes bullets seem to produce fine accuracy, but I'm wondering why a lot of guys say you need to run them way off the lands (.100"+). I've tried from .025" - .100" off and find that I achieve better accuracy/precision with the bullet closer to the lands (.025" off). You say you've ran a lot of Barnes bullets, is there a sweet spot for most Barnes bullets? In terms of seating depth and distance off the lands, or jump as some guys call it.... I'll admit, I'm new to Barnes bullets, as I usually use partitions, Hornady interlocks, Sierra GK, and WW power points on big game. Finally decided to give in and give the Barnes a try..


Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.

BSA MAGA
IC B2

Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 591
S
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
S
Joined: Nov 2018
Posts: 591
I believe the 168 is the better of the two bullets if it shoots the best .
The 168 shoots great in my 300 wsm , but it’s Winchester with a long magazine box. OAL is not a problem.

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 151,003
Campfire Savant
Offline
Campfire Savant
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 151,003
I use the 168’s in a 300 win mag. I like them, very accurate!!

Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,157
S
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
S
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,157
The 168 is actually an LRX bullet before they were marketing them as LRX. Great bullet and excellent in the 300 wm!

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,590
Dre Offline
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,590
“ The 0.308" 165gr TTSX is a shorter ogive than the 0.308" 168gr TTSX. We offer both for different cartridges to work within SAAMI COAL limits. The 308 168gr works well in the 308 WIN and 30-06 which allow more exposed bullet to be seated out further. The 165gr was designed for cartridges more like the 300 WIN MAG which require a shorter ogive to work within SAAMI limits.

When handloading, you can use either in a 300 WIN MAG just realize with the 168/175gr that you will need to seat it out a little further that the SAAMI max COAL and check proper fit and function in your particular firearm.

They all function to similar velocities. The 168gr and 175gr LRX will open up at a lower velocity (around 1600 ft/s) than the 165gr (around 1800 ft/s). For best performance we recommend keeping impact velocity a few hundred feet above this minimum.

Thanks


Greggory Sloan | Ballistics Lab Supervisor
Barnes Bullets, LLC”


All of them do something better than the 30-06, but none of them do everything as well.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,975
L
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
L
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,975
I've had excellent results with the 168 TSX in a NULA .308 for elk hunting at up to 320 yards. At that distance, velocity was probably around 2,000 fps or a little less. Muzzle velocity was 2700 fps using H4895 powder. Some years later, I switched to the 150 TTSX at 2850 fps because it was slightly more accurate than the 168 TSX in my rifle. Results with the 150 were the same as the 168.

IC B3

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,475
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,475
Originally Posted by bsa1917hunter
The barnes bullets seem to produce fine accuracy, but I'm wondering why a lot of guys say you need to run them way off the lands (.100"+). I've tried from .025" - .100" off and find that I achieve better accuracy/precision with the bullet closer to the lands (.025" off). You say you've ran a lot of Barnes bullets, is there a sweet spot for most Barnes bullets? In terms of seating depth and distance off the lands, or jump as some guys call it.... I'll admit, I'm new to Barnes bullets, as I usually use partitions, Hornady interlocks, Sierra GK, and WW power points on big game. Finally decided to give in and give the Barnes a try..

I’ve shot a lot of Barnes in a bunch of rifles, and 0.050” off the lands nearly always gives excellent results.

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,296
B
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
B
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,296
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by bsa1917hunter
The barnes bullets seem to produce fine accuracy, but I'm wondering why a lot of guys say you need to run them way off the lands (.100"+). I've tried from .025" - .100" off and find that I achieve better accuracy/precision with the bullet closer to the lands (.025" off). You say you've ran a lot of Barnes bullets, is there a sweet spot for most Barnes bullets? In terms of seating depth and distance off the lands, or jump as some guys call it.... I'll admit, I'm new to Barnes bullets, as I usually use partitions, Hornady interlocks, Sierra GK, and WW power points on big game. Finally decided to give in and give the Barnes a try..

I’ve shot a lot of Barnes in a bunch of rifles, and 0.050” off the lands nearly always gives excellent results.


I’ve not had a Barnes really shoot till it’s .050 off and quite often .075-.100” has been better in a number of rifles.

Not saying you’re not getting fine accuracy, but I usually get one outta the group till I sink them a bit deeper.

Lots of folks report seating to the middle of the top groove and getting pretty good results as well. I’d tend to agree with that as that’s about where I’ve ended up with a few.

Last edited by beretzs; 10/27/21.

Semper Fi
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,475
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,475
Originally Posted by beretzs
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by bsa1917hunter
The barnes bullets seem to produce fine accuracy, but I'm wondering why a lot of guys say you need to run them way off the lands (.100"+). I've tried from .025" - .100" off and find that I achieve better accuracy/precision with the bullet closer to the lands (.025" off). You say you've ran a lot of Barnes bullets, is there a sweet spot for most Barnes bullets? In terms of seating depth and distance off the lands, or jump as some guys call it.... I'll admit, I'm new to Barnes bullets, as I usually use partitions, Hornady interlocks, Sierra GK, and WW power points on big game. Finally decided to give in and give the Barnes a try..

I’ve shot a lot of Barnes in a bunch of rifles, and 0.050” off the lands nearly always gives excellent results.


I’ve not had a Barnes really shoot till it’s .050 off and quite often .075-.100” has been better in a number of rifles.

Not saying you’re not getting fine accuracy, but I usually get one outta the group till I sink them a bit deeper.

Lots of folks report seating to the middle of the top groove and getting pretty good results as well. I’d tend to agree with that as that’s about where I’ve ended up with a few.

Every once in a while a load shoots best for me seated deeper than 0.050” (up to 0.125” off the lands, IIRC), but on average 0.050” has been a sweet spot.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,281
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,281
My 208 LRX's have enjoyed .075" off from my 300 Win Mag. Tested between .025" to .150".

Alan

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,948
B
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,948
Originally Posted by beretzs
Originally Posted by Jordan Smith
Originally Posted by bsa1917hunter
The barnes bullets seem to produce fine accuracy, but I'm wondering why a lot of guys say you need to run them way off the lands (.100"+). I've tried from .025" - .100" off and find that I achieve better accuracy/precision with the bullet closer to the lands (.025" off). You say you've ran a lot of Barnes bullets, is there a sweet spot for most Barnes bullets? In terms of seating depth and distance off the lands, or jump as some guys call it.... I'll admit, I'm new to Barnes bullets, as I usually use partitions, Hornady interlocks, Sierra GK, and WW power points on big game. Finally decided to give in and give the Barnes a try..

I’ve shot a lot of Barnes in a bunch of rifles, and 0.050” off the lands nearly always gives excellent results.


I’ve not had a Barnes really shoot till it’s .050 off and quite often .075-.100” has been better in a number of rifles.

Not saying you’re not getting fine accuracy, but I usually get one outta the group till I sink them a bit deeper.

Lots of folks report seating to the middle of the top groove and getting pretty good results as well. I’d tend to agree with that as that’s about where I’ve ended up with a few.

Thanks guys. Not to side track the thread, but when I tried the loads seated at .050", they were bigger. I found decent nodes at .025 and .100" off. Maybe I need to try .125"+ off?

At .100" off, they look like this:
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Another .025" deeper and it would be right to the edge of the ring. Roughly. I could try "middle of the top groove", like Scotty suggested? That would probably be somewhere around .150" off the lands.

Groups were kind of weird. First 3 shots were sub 1/2 moa and the next 2 out for both .025 and .100" off lands. Here's the .025" off group:
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

Here's the .100" off the lands group:
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

.025" off the lands with CCI 200 primer:
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
Seems like the magnum primer is making tighter groups, but double grouping... In most cases with C&C bullets, you seat deeper if you are getting double groups. Are the mono's the same? If you guys think seating deeper will produce better precision, I'll give that a try. Thanks for the help..

I'm hunting with the .025" off the lands and CCI 250 load this week. Will be good enough for elk, but I think I can wring more precision out of it.. I also have 4 boxes of the 140gr TSX to experiment with too, so I may play around with that bullet and see if it acts the same as the TTSX..


Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.

BSA MAGA
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,296
B
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
B
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,296
I have seen exactly what you’ve just shown a bunch with the Barnes, ETip, Hammers and ABs.

I think you’d be happy to try them deeper myself BSA. Sometimes you’ll hit that spot where they really come together.


Semper Fi
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,975
L
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
L
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,975
As for seating depth, I treat Barnes like other bullets. Granted, they usually provide best accuracy when seated deeper than other bullets, but not always. It's worth seating them long to make certain and it only takes a few more bullets during load development to find out.

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,163
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,163
I'm still looking for those 208 LRX. Should be fun with them.


Randy
NRA
Patriot Life Benefactor





Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,948
B
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,948
Originally Posted by beretzs
I have seen exactly what you’ve just shown a bunch with the Barnes, ETip, Hammers and ABs.

I think you’d be happy to try them deeper myself BSA. Sometimes you’ll hit that spot where they really come together.

Thanks Scotty. I appreciate the help. I'll try seating deeper probably .125 and .150" off the lands. Now that I got my elk hunting out of the way. 5 day seasons suck!! I like more time/longer seasons. It takes us 3 days just to find them sometimes/most times...


Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.

BSA MAGA
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,948
B
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 47,948
Originally Posted by Hammerdown
I'm still looking for those 208 LRX. Should be fun with them.

Using a RUM? Maybe the next best thing is the 175 LRX? My 300WBY loves them..


Originally Posted by raybass
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style.
Originally Posted by Pharmseller
You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole.

BSA MAGA
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
AX24

163 members (338reddog, 2UP, 35, 44mc, 007FJ, 19 invisible), 1,496 guests, and 887 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,190,600
Posts18,454,582
Members73,908
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: 0.057s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 0.9055 MB (Peak: 1.0819 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-04-19 10:14:48 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS