Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters TTSX…No Grooves

The listed BC’s for the 338 win mag Vor-TX ammo using this bullet are different than what is listed for the component bullet. This is pretty interesting.

I thought the groves shorten the bering surface. The copper bullets are long for the weight in each caliber.
The twist in most barrels was wrong for the original bullets. Hasbeen

That IS very interesting!

I would try 'em in your rifle and see how they do. The big problem with the original X-Bullets--and some other monos--was they had relatively little flexibility if a particular rifle's bore/groove diameter didn't match up well with the bullet--or at least that particular manufacturing lot of the bullet. If the particular batch matched well, then the bullets tended to group well. If they didn't, then they didn't group well. (I experienced this over and over again with various brands of monolithic bullets.)

The grooved shank of the TSX pretty much solved that problem--as did the grooves in many other monos, like the current Hammer bullets. But that doesn't mean these bullets won't shoot well in your rifle, especially if you experiment with seating them a little deeper.

It's not bearing surface length that drives twist.

My understanding was the grooves gave displaced copper somewhere to go. Supposedly reduced copper fouling and pressure.

Exactly.

And they do.

But that doesn't mean a groove-free "TTSX" won't work well in the right barrel, whether in terms of accuracy or bore-fouling.

Years ago, shortly after the TSX appeared, I had a long conversation with Randy Brooks during a mule deer hunt in Sonora. I mentioned that I'd found the recent standard, ungrooved X-Bullets consistently had grouped well and didn't foul nearly as much as the early versions. Randy said that was because as the company became more successful, he could afford to buy higher-quality copper--which resulted in more bullets that were more consistent in diameter and finish.

Which is partly why I suggested trying these "groove-free" bullets and seeing how they grouped.

Explain the difference between a 244 and 6mm Remington.
It comes down to twist. 244 is a 1 in 12
6 mm is a 1 in 9 1/2
Basically the 100 grain bullet is too long for a 1 in 12 twist.
So they renamed the 244 to 6mm and only changed the twist. Then it would shoot the 100 grain bullets accurately.
Hasbeen

Interesting thread indeed. I’ve been a big fan of Barnes ever since they introduced the original X bullet. Back then I was young and poor, versus being old and poor now but I digress, so I hunted everything with my 338wm. I was trying several different factory loads trying to determine what shot best out of that rifle. My rifle loved the X bullets…..actually my rifle shot everything I fed it into an inch or less EXCEPT for the Patition. The Partitions stretched the groups out to roughly an inch and a half which for most practical purposes is fine but since I knew that I had more accurate options I eliminated the Partition from future use in that rifle.

The original X bullets were very accurate and I did not notice copper fouling nor did I know that was a possibility but I used to clean my rifles religiously and obsessively so I wouldn’t have been predisposed to fouling. Interestingly enough I still have that rifle because it’s so damn accurate and not particular in bullets or weight. I don’t sell freakishly accurate rifles anymore so that rifle won’t be going anywhere. It is the ONLY big game rifle that I still shoot cup and core bullets through but once those several hundred are shot I’ll be using monos for 100% of my big game hunting.

I never would’ve guessed in a million years that Barnes would have their “Newly” designed TTSX or TSX without grooves PLUS I never would guess that Barnes would work overtime trying to keep it a secret from their customers!?…

I’d be interested to see recovered TTSX’s from factory ammo that were recovered from game that didn’t have the relief bands?

You don't mention when you first tried X-Bullets, but I tried them in 1989, some 165-grain .30s. This was in an Ultra Light Arms .300 Winchester Magnum, which I was already very familiar with, having work up handloads with 165 Hornady Spire Points, 180 Speer Grand Slams and 200-grain Nosler Partitions that all went well under an inch--and each used a different powder. Eventually tried 3 shots of each handload at 100 yards and ended up with a 9-shot group that went around .9 inch.

In the same rifle, with a clean bore, I could not get the 165 X-Bullets to group under about an average 1-1/2 inches , no matter what powder was tried.

I know Randy Brooks well, as mentioned in an earlier post, he told me personally that he had problems getting the original Xs to shoot consistently, due to not being able to get consistent, pure-as-possible copper in the early years--which caused variations not just in weight but bullet diameters. This also why the copper-fouling problem varied from batch to batch of the original bullets---which also varied from rifle to rifle.

This is also why Barnes introduced the XLC with the blue coating, which tended to reduce copper-fouling. But they also varied considerably in accuracy, due to the above problem with variations in copper--and the soft coating also tended to gum up seating dies. When Randy could get consistent, pure copper around the mid-1990s, those problems largely went away--the reason the XLC also went away.

I know this due to testing a bunch of the various models of Barnes Xs during those years, and reporting to Randy and Coni what I'd found. (So did some other gun writers I know). Which is also partly why Barnes sent me one of the very first batches of TSXs, which basically solved all those problems. In fact my wife was the first person to report to Coni on an elk killed with a TSX, in the fall of 2003, a 140-grain from Eileen's Ultra Light Arms .270 Winchester. (We were also some of the first folks to field-test the TTSXs when they appeared in 2007.)

John, I tried to like the Barnes bullets early on, like you. The first ones shot poorly from my 300 Win Mag and coppered up the barrel something fierce. So I tried the blue ones as well. They were better, but not great.

Then the TSX's... Oh my goodness. Accurate on the first try!

I've used 'em time to time, and I do like them very much. That was a bold move by Barnes, going to those grooved bullets. And it worked.

Regards, Guy

Interesting about the copper quality affecting the original X bullet diameter. The way I've always understood it was, they ended up grooving the bullets as a pressure relief to give the material moved by obturation somewhere to go. Used to be a difference in load data for them with the X bullet from the TSX and TTSX too.

Like due to G1 BCs being dependent on velocity. At least that’s what Sierra’s position was when I questioned the differences between what is on a box of bullets for reloading vs what’s on a box of factory ammo loaded with their bullets.

An update on this. The “groove-less” Barnes bullets yielded no joy in the 340 Weatherby. They also caused considerable copper fowling. Like MD said, they might work great in some applications. But this was not one of those.

I used the original X bullets when they first came out. Mostly 165s in my 300 Wby. They shot well. When the boattail version came out i tried them. No joy.

When i started shooting a 340 Wby i tried the X bullets. They shot terrible. About this same time Barnes made some X bullets undersized so they could be NP3 coated by Robbie Barkkman of Robar fame. They were colloquially called "OX" bullets. I still have a box of 150 grainers.

I talked to Randy about my 340 issues over the course of a year he gave me 3 boxes of various bullets to try including the blue ones. I never could get them to shoot so i gave up on them.

The thing the got the "OX" bullets going was that the very high velocity rifles would foul very quickly. By the 4th or 5th shot you would blow a primer or of a case.

About this time laser rangefinders started becoming mainstream and the need for the ultra high velocities was no longer there.
The TSXs indeed were much easier to tune.

My experience with original Barnes and the blue coated ones, we're not very good experiences lacking accuracy.
the TSX and TTSX now that's a whole different ball game . I've shot many of them and very happy with..

I have access to a machine shop. I’m half-ass thinking about chucking them up in his lathe and putting the grooves in myself! I ran the idea past my machinist buddy and he said it wouldn’t be hard for him to grind a tool for the job! Might be fun!

It’s obvious Barnes isn’t going to do anything about them and I’m not gonna let them go to waste, so why not!?

Elk Country

if you do, please let us know the results

That could be interesting 😊

Sorry I missed this earlier. Length does matter, but it isn't the bearing surface length.

They are not going to work worth a chit. Expect the copper fouling to be prevalent with other cartridges as well. There's a reason they started putting grooves in their bullets. This reminds me, I should have bought more boxes of Barnes bullets I saw yesterday at $19.95/box!!!