Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game .308 180 ttsx or 168 ttsx

Which of these two bullets would work best on elk,deer, bear. I’ve heard the 168 is the best all around due to being able to run speeds up. Will be using in my 06 and 300 win mag

I'd be buying the 168TTSX for that.

I haven't used them, but the 168 is supposed to open at lower velocities.

That

I've used a lot of 180gr TSX that worked to perfection in both my 300 Win and 30/06

168.

I’ve had excellent results on game with the 168 gr TTSX out to 300 yards from a .300 Weatherby. I just haven’t shot at anything farther than that. I’m sure it would work anywhere velocity was sufficient.

If only those two choices……. the 168 for the 06! Perhaps the 180 for the other. If you wish to stay with one bullet weight……the 168! memtb

You can kill anything with hooves with the 130 TTSX.

Perfect 300 Savage and 308 bullet.

168

I am using the 168 in my 30-06 for Elk this season. 58 grs of H4350 is giving me 2850 fps out of a 22” barrel. Supposedly they will expand down to 1500 fps. At 400 yards I am getting almost 2100 fps, which I consider the ballistic max range for expansion that is realistic

!68 in 30-06 or 308 and 180 in 300 Win Mag or 300 H&H

Couldn't agree more with UpThePole for my needs. You need two things for proper terminal performance: adequate bullet impact velocity and adequate target impact resistance. Traditional composite bullets (copper + lead, etc.) are much more forgiving in this regard than monolithic bullets. While I don't have the capability to compare hardness and tensile comparisons with Barnes, Nosler, & Hornady, my personal impression is that Barnes TSX & TTSX bullets are the most "stout" and I would never intentionally shoot any game animals at ranges where impact velocities fell below 1800fps. The heavier the animal the better the performance so if the intended is a smaller deer, I would be cautious at ranges where velocities fall below 200fps. On the other hand since the minimum impact velocity for the LRX line is about 200fps less (1600fps), you may find their LRX 175 gives you more flexibility given the bullet weight range you've chosen.

I use the 168 in my 30-06 and my 300 Win. Mag. My 300 Win. Mag. is mostly a safe queen anymore.
I get more done with less these days. I'm a fan of 308 Winchester. it does the same thing with less recoil. (Within reason)

I agree. It wasn't one of the choices the original poster mentioned, but for 'normal' hunting ranges, it is a wicked SOB in non-magnum 30's.

That's sort of "6 or a 1/2 dozen, which is better?" But I think I'd go with the 168 and I'd bet it would leave a good exit hole. I like both cartridges. Depending on game, if the expected yardage is long, Or the game was large or both I'd go with the 300 otherwise the 30-06.

I would try both weights for accuracy in each rifle, and let the rifle show what it likes.

The 168 gr TTSX via an FN Mauser 30-06 performed flawlessly for me in Namibia in 2017.

This, and I’d take the 168 if all else was equal. More velocity is generally a good thing with mono’s.

fwiw - Barnes designed the 165 TTSX specifically for the .300 Win Mag and that is what Barnes uses in their factory ammo for .300 Win Mag, not the 168. The 165 has a tangent ogive, which generally is easier to dial in on seating depth than a secant ogive such as used on the 168. I use the 165 in my .300 Win Mag and stuff falls down as dead as they do with the 175, 180, 190, and heavier. Dead is dead. If you want to stretch out a bit, look at the 175 LRX, which fills the spot between the two weights about which you asked.

From Barnes webpage, scroll down to FAQ, the third question:

https://www.barnesbullets.com/product/tsx/


IS THE 168-GRAIN .30-CALIBER TSX THE SAME AS THE 165-GRAIN TSX? IS IT REALLY A MATCH-GRADE HUNTING BULLET?

These bullets have different ogive geometries. The 165-grain TSX incorporates a shorter tangent ogive in the nose profile. It’s designed for cartridges with short magazines such as the .300 WSM and .300 Win Mag. The 168-grain TSX BT has a secant ogive which lengthens the nose profile and has shown superb accuracy downrange. It offers the best of both worlds because it’s also a premium hunting bullet offering exceptional terminal performance. It is best suited for cartridges such as the .308 Winchester, .30-06 and .300 Weatherby.

Yes, absolutely this thought process.

I started using 168 grain TSX bullets in my .300 Weatherby when I built it in 2009. Those bullets worked great on elk here in Montana, and exotics in Texas. A few years later I switched to 168 grain TTSX bullets as I thought they grouped a little better in my rifle. Those bullets also worked great on a Montana bull elk, a hunt in New Zealand, and multiple hunts in Africa.

Several years ago I put a Leupold scope with their CDS dial on my .300 Wby and I worked up a load with the 180 grain TTSX bullets and had Leupold cut a custom CDS turret for that load. That is the only bullet that I now hunt with in my .300 Wby.

If I was to hunt with a Barnes bullet in my .308 Win or a .30-06 I would use which ever 168 grain TSX or TTSX bullet shot best in that rifle.

30-06 168 ttsx 45k off 58.7 H4350 lapua case fed 210m 2900ish 22.5 inch barrel. Kills elk and moose just fine and very accurate. I have tried this load in 3 different 06's and they all shot around .5 @ 100 yards.

165 TTSX for the 300 & 130 TTSX in the '06.

Copper likes speed. I would go with whatever I could get moving, likely 130s.

I’m using the 168TSX in my .308’s. Every animal I’ve taken with the 168TSX has been literally a bang-flop with 10 seconds (or less) of death kicks. My experience with this bullet has been fantastic BUT I have yet to shoot an animal further than 25 yards with it so I can’t speak with personal experience as to its long range performance. 😁. I would like to take a “normal” shot for our western hunts but the last 5 or 6 deer I’ve killed have been at distances of 15 feet to 60 feet…weird that I have no trouble getting within knife fight range but since I’d like to take a longer poke I’ll probably continue to be “stuck” shooting them within powder burn range.

Needless to say that catching the bullets has been tough. I caught 1 168TSX on a Sitka Blacktail buck of all animals. He was standing facing me at about 10 yards unsure of what I was when I fired. I tried to slightly angle my shot hoping to not tear open the guts and it worked perfectly. The bullet was recovered under the hide on the rear end of the buck bulging the hide. The bullet took out the heart and lungs and caused the insides to turn to mush. It sent a couple pieces of rib fragments through the hide that looked like an exit wound or 2. The buck’s legs folded and he literally dropped in his tracks. That bullet looked exactly like the picture perfect mushroom for an advertisement which is precisely what all the TSX and TTSX bullets that I’ve seen myself or recovered myself.

I use TSX and TTSX in all my hunting rifles and I have never had a bullet “failure”. The 165 ballistic tip in my .308 shoots identical to the 168TSX. My .338WM and my 35 Whelen are the 2 rifles that are still using cup and core. I’ll be working up some monolithic Barnes loads for those rifles eventually but the way they are shooting with C&C bullets I’m not in a hurry.

I had a hard time finding the 168 TTSX when I was doing load development with my -06. I did luck into a couple hundred 175 LRX bullets. I have them moving at 2900 fps and found the stability and accuracy I was looking for. Still need to fine tune it to perfection but I am excited to see how they perform on game. I have heard good things.

No experience with the 300 Win Mag, but I'd go with a 130 TTSX in a 30-06.

Have killed, and seen killed, big game from deer to elk with various TSX, TTSX and LRX bullets from 130-180 grains in .30-caliber cartridges from the .308 Winchester to .300 Winchester Magnum. Have yet to see any significant difference in how any of them killed stuff, or penetrated, or grouped at 100 yards, or whatever--and even less difference between the 168 and 180.

But no doubt there HAS to be some difference, at least among those Campfire members who dote on minutiae.

180grain in the 30-06, 300win mag. The 180 grain out of my 300 win mag reload is over 3000fps. No need to go with a lighter bullet with that velocity. I do use the 168grain bullet in 308 Winchester, it's a prefect match for the 308.

Since Barnes makes both a 165 grain and a 168 grain version of their .308 TTSX I was curious what is the difference in them. I sent an email to Barnes with my question and here's the reply I got.
I'm sure plenty of guys on here have used the 168 TTSX in their magnums though.


Hi John,

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 TTSX requires a minimum impact velocity of 1800fps for bullet expansion and the 168gr TTSX only requires 1500fps.

Thanks, Ty

Ty Herring | Consumer Service

Barnes Bullets disclaims all possible liability for damages including actual, incidental and consequential, resulting from usage of the information or advice contained in this message.
Use the data and advice at your own risk, and with extreme caution.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Always begin loading from the minimum "START” charge and carefully develop loads by increasing in small increments of 2% towards the Maximum load.

Barnes Bullets, LLC
38 North Frontage Road, PO Box 620, Mona, UT 84645
Phone 800-574-9200 | Fax 435-856-1040

With virtually 100% weight retention I’ve moved from the 168gr. TTSX down to the 150gr. TTSX in my 30-06. It’s my anything from mice to moose bullet. I get 3000fps out of my 24” barrel with Big Game powder and 5 shot groups well under an inch! I’d have no issue using them in any 300Mag!

Elk Country

I shoot the 168 gr TTSX out of my .308. I go to 180 gr out of 30-06 and 300 Wby.

I'd run a 150 in a 308w. No need for a 168 or 180. Speed is what works well with these mono metals..

The 150 requires more velocity at impact to open than either the 130 or the 168. I verified that with Barnes.

Correct - and the 168 will carry more velocity farther out than the 150.

Yup, I just got an email from them this morning when I asked about minimum impact velocity for reliable expansion.
TTSX .243/80 = 2000 fps

TTSX .308/130 = 1800 fps

TTSX .308/150 = 2000 fps

TTSX .308/168 = 1500 fps

According to JBM ballistics, a .30 150gr TTSX started at 3000 fps hits 2000 fps at 450 yards. A 168gr TTSX started at 2850 hits 1800 fps at 550 yards.

You get 100 yards of additional terminal performance with the 168s. I used these velocities as they are approximately what I achieve in my 30'06. The 168s are more difficult to get to shoot well than the 150s in my rifle, however FWIW.

Whichever one your rifle shoots best. I’ve killed or seen game killed by 30cal “x” bullets from rabbits to eland in 130,150,168 and 180grain weights at ranges from just off the barrel to around 600 yards…as long as they’ve hit where they were supposed to they all worked very well.


With that said I’d probably pick the 168 IF that’s what my rifle preferred.

168's no question

168 in 06 hands down.
The 300 has the powder to push the 180 where they need be. Or 168s, one and done

That’s great info. Thanks.

I didn’t know that about the 150’s I’ve been using, I didn’t realize they were that “tough”. I think I’ll stick with 168’s in my .308. They both shoot great and I was thinking of trying the 130’s but it goes against my grain to go down in weight with the 30 cal.

I’ll have to look into the 210 and 225 for my .338 win mag….great more minutiae for me to fret over. 😂

While living in the west I took several elk using my 30-06 and 168 Tipped TSX, now back east I am using a 308 Win and 168 Tipped TSX for bear and deer they have worked so well I would gladly use 150 grain Tipped TSX's..

Some really good information made this an excellent thread. Thanks to all who contributed.

Does anyone know the minimum reliable expansion velocity of the Barnes 7MM 120 grain TTSX? I have email to Barnes, but no reply yet this weekend.

I hope this link works.

previous thread

There seems to be some variation in what they recommend.

This^^^

Try using big game and gain at least 50 fps. I’m
Getting new average of 2950 with the 168s using 56.5 gr. Of big game /CCI in tikka with 22”. Little over max load (2940-2960 fps).
I don’t know if it was due to warm weather or my tikka got faster as it used to be around 2920

Barnes employees at the SCI Convention advised me that the 30cal 168TTSX was in reality the first LRX, it just wasn’t labelled LRX.

I have used this bullet in my 300WSM on white tails, mule deer and moose. In Africa on 17 species from springbok to eland. My load has the bullet at 3100fps. If I do my job, it will group three shots in a half inch. I could perhaps load to 3150 or more, but I didn’t want to a problem in the heat of Africa.

It is a great bullet.

When shooting the TTSX, it is better to drop back in bullet weight, get more speed to help the bullet open up better.

130g TTSX in the 308 is what my family uses for white tails and hogs, never have recovered one. 3100-3200 does not suck.

I used the 168 gr TTSX to kill my only Elk in 2010 with a 308 Winchester, a cow who went about 20 yds after the shot. I used the 168 gr because it shot the best in my rifle. No problem with expansion or penetration.

The short answer is “yes”. They would both work. If it were me I’d be checking in accuracy. But then to me accuracy is needed, even if it isn’t.

Many years ago we stopped using the wonderful and highly praised 200 grain Nosler Partition in our 30-06 rifles and went to the 180 grain Barnes X. Both killed and worked great and a few years ago I switched to the 168 TTSX and find it is about perfect for what we expect a 30-06 to do.

Besides the higher velocity the felt recoil is noticeably easier on the shoulder compared to the 200 gain Partition. I also watched a penetration test on You Tube and the 168 TTSX and the 200 grain Partition penetrated almost the same in the test media.

If I was running a .300 mag. of some kind I would try the 190 grain LRX if it fit the magazine. But, the wide window for the impact velocity of the 168 TTSX makes it a near perfect choice for almost all big game scenarios here in Alaska.

A case full of H4350 in Norma brass with Federal 210 primers gets me about 2,836 fps mv with 5 shot groups at about and inch at 100 yards with my old pre-64 Mod. 70 Featherweight. If I can ever find some Big Game powder I will try it with a Federal 215 Match Primer and see if I can get to 2,900 fps mv with acceptable MOA moose accuracy.

I am going to find me a couple box's of the old 200 grain TSX bullets for a up close "pissed off big bear" load for when I pull the scope and use the Brockman's pop up receiver sight, that is a cool little sight I wish was still made. I just can't imagine a deeper penetrating load for a 30-06.

The 150 ttsx is plenty. I think you could do most things with the 130 but the 150 offers a decent balance of speed and bc. I've shot diagnolly through a moose with a 150.

If the 168 will really open down to 1600 fps that's a really good argument towards using those. They my be the best all around if that's true.

Bb

The 150 gr. Barnes TTSX bullet will kill anything on the op's list easily. Always drop down in bullet weight using mono bullets. I used 235 gr. Barnes Xbullets in my .375 H&H .

I'm guessing you didn't read the thread.

If the 168 wasn't available, would anyone NOT use the 180 TTSX in a 30-06?

And what limitations would you put on it if forced to use it?

Thanks,


Okie John

I'm almost out of 168 TSXs for my .30-06. I'm going to try the 130 TTSX and 150 TTSX and see which shoots better in my gun. I'm not at all worried about penetration with the lighter bullet. The base will drive through even if you lose petals. With the TTSX needing a higher velocity to open than the TSX, I'm not worried about losing petals. Just go with whichever shoots better.

You guessed wrong my friend.

So you'd rather use a bullet that is harder and takes an additional 500 fps more to open to an equal diameter?

Seems like something Barnes should fix to me.

I personally would go 168gr in both the 30/06 and 300 Mag. My camp shoots the 168gr out of 30/06 rifles. Through my limited experience but also through experience of friends, don't expect many animals to go straight down after being hit by a TSX unless you breakdown some sort of skeletal structure. Also, if you hit them correctly don't expect them to go more than 50 yards either. A lot of bullets will do that, but this one may do it from more angles than some. I had one experience where I wondered if some sort of fragmentation may have helped down the animal a little quicker - a little better shot placement may have helped as well.

Arizona gave me a coupon for free bullets one year when I drew the Kaibab. They encourage hunters to go lead-free up there so I figured why not? They fly well and work fine. I don't shoot past 1/3 of a mile, so really don't see how this bullet won't continue to work for me. Plus, I have enough on the shelf that economically-speaking I won't be making a change any time soon.