Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Rear core shift in partitions and A-Frames:

I researched it a bit and I was wrong. I did find my 270 Win handload in an old Handloader Magazine article featuring Jack O'Conner. 150g Partition 58.5g H4831 CCI Magnum primers Way too hot by today's conservative standards. I get 3020 fps out of my BDL with that load. Like I say too hot by today's standards.

colorado,

Thanks for your follow-up.

But I'll also comment on your take on O'Connor's 150-grain load. The H4831 he used was the original military-surplus powder--which varied far more in burn-rate from lot to lot than today's made-in-Australia version.

Have used 58.5 of the new version with 150 Partitions in more than one rifle (including my Jack O'Connor Tribute Model 70) and never had the slightest indication of high pressure, including the velocity of around 2900 from 22" barrels.

Don't know why both Hodgdon's and Hornady's data for 150s is so conservative, especially when Hornady's latest data for 130-grain bullets includes O'Connor's original 62.0 grain load.

I made the mistake of using IMR 4831 with H4831 data once. That was truly the wrong thing to do. Blew the primer and expanded the case head enough to ruin a M700 extractor. Never bought another can of it. I used both the surplus 4831 and Hodgdons H4831 a lot back in the olden days. I load 57.5 grains of H4831 now under a 150 grain bullet. Most accurate in my present bolt 270's.

I’ve never had trouble with Partitions, but I can see how an A Frame rear section would be more durable. I’m sure those types of failures are statistically immaterial.

M.D. you mentioned you use mostly monos these days. Why is that?

They are not. The swift uses a soft copper jacket and the rear core appears to be much softer lead than the partition.
I have a recovered Aframe that is basicly a pancake because of this.

The Partition Golds did NOT have a steel insert in the rear core. Perhaps, you're thinking of the winchester Fail-safe which did.
The Partition Gold simply moved the " partition" forward to enhance retained weight.

I have used a lot of 150 grain Partition Golds and love them . I have one shot kills on up to Blue Wildebeest with that bullet. I wish they still made them. I probably couldn't afford them though!

The A Frame has heavier construction and it’s bonded? Like I said, any failures are probably immaterial. You’ll have to excuse me for dismissing your experience.

Seems you are mistaken.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1010460490?pid=278640

https://forum.nosler.com/threads/part-vs-gold.1356/

https://forum.nosler.com/threads/partition-partition-gold-the-same-bullet.9689/

OK ...... I am the F*****NG guy who asked if anyone has seen any failures in the TTSX and the LRX. My intent was never meant to bad mouth either of these bullets and get people to use Noslers! On the contrary if you go to the nosler forum you will see that we encourage talk and discussions about ALL kind of bullets. Not just Noslers. TTSX LRX and Hammers are all in fact very popular over there, and I personally use these more than any other bullet in my hunting rifles.

The reason I asked the question is to see if anyone had been having any trouble with these 2 types in particular as far as expansion is concerned. This is why I specifically mentioned these 2 types and and not to include inputs on the TSX and regular X. I have no hidden agenda here guys.

The only person I know of that has had an issue with the A-Frames is the moderator of another hunting forum Hit a shoulder bone on a cape buffalo at short range. Knocked him down but needed another shot, found the lead had squeezed out of the rear cavity. Most people on that forum swear by A-frames on buffalo though. I love them. I do load the 570g TSX in my 500 Jeffery at 2300 fps They feed so nicely and the Barnes 570g Banded Solids shoot within 1/4" of them with the same load. Hope this helps a bit.

Yes, Aframes have thicker jackets of much softer material. In addition the front core, which is bonded is much softer. The rear core isn't bonded at all.
If you have ever recovered a Aframe you woukd see the rear core/jacket almost always bulges.

IIRC, Bob Hagel had some issues with the A Frame when shot into his bullet test box. Some did come apart. I have no idea if this translated to performance on game. His testing was some time ago, so the bullet construction may also have changed.

OK ...... I am the F*****NG guy who asked if anyone has seen any failures in the TTSX and the LRX. My intent was never meant to bad mouth either of these bullets and get people to use Noslers! On the contrary if you go to the nosler forum you will see that we encourage talk and discussions about ALL kind of bullets. Not just Noslers. TTSX LRX and Hammers are all in fact very popular over there, and I personally use these more than any other bullet in my hunting rifles.

The reason I asked the question is to see if anyone had been having any trouble with these 2 types in particular as far as expansion is concerned. This is why I specifically mentioned these 2 types and and not to include inputs on the TSX and regular X. I have no hidden agenda here guys.[/quote]

Fotis: your question was reasonable and formed without any obvious bias. I saw it as nothing but a simple clear question asking those of us with experience with the TTSX.

Thanks for all your contributions to this forum and its conversations.

Thank you!

I did dig out Hagel’s book and he did indeed have A Frames come apart at high velocity. Both in testing and on game. Of course he was not one to leave any velocity on the table when loading. He thought A Frames were best used below 2700fps or so.

On my first African safari, which was 20 years ago, I used 200gr A-Frames in a 300 Win Mag. I recovered a few bullets, from a kudu and a gemsbok as I recall, and each of them was swollen significantly at the rear. I don’t believe that I have recovered any since and can’t recall ever recovering a Partiton. I wouldn’t hesitate to hunt again with either brand of bullet.

Then again, Nosler took me on an elk hunt so I’m probably irreparably biased.

Sorry not to respond to your question earlier, but hadn't looked at this thread in a while: Do use more monos these days, but as noted in my post also quite a few other bullets with solid shanks, even if they have lead cores up front. As noted, this bypasses the entire "issue" of rear cores. Probably have used more Trophy Bondeds than any other of the front core/solid shank, both the original design and Federal's Tipped version.

All this "experimenting" is partly due to my job, which involves testing a variety of bullets, both in the field and beforehand--and the variety of new Wonder Bullets keeps increasing. But both Eileen and I also like the deeper penetration of monos, which allows us to use smaller, lighter-recoiling cartridges, something many hunters prefer as they get older. Plus, we're primarily meat hunters these days, and monos tend to ruin less meat.

Some other comments on what's happened here since the last time I looked:

Dennis is indeed wrong about Partition Golds: They had a steel cap inside the rear core, similar to the Fail Safe's. I know this due to sectioning some while field-testing Golds when they appeared years ago. (Killed my last animal with one in 2001, which is some indication of how long the Golds have been gone. They hung around for a while after that, but not all that long.)

I never could see any definitive difference in their on-game performance compared to standard Partitions, and in fact at the time the Nosler folks told me that Winchester (the other half of Combined Technology bullets) insisted in putting the steel cap inside. They also cost more than standard Partitions, which is probably a big reason they weren't produced for very long.