I dug this out of the internet, from 2017 on long range hunting forum:
Hello Ty,
I have read that the original TSX was designed for a minimum impact velocity of 1800 FPS, and that the TTSX was designed for a minimum impact velocity of 2000 FPS, and that this was true pretty much across the board for all calibers. Is that true? If so, what is the advantage of the plastic tip increasing the BC for a TTSX vs a TSX of the same weight since the TTSX takes more velocity to expand, and the max range for reliable expansion will likely be about the same?
Specifically, I'm wondering about the .308 cal, 168 grain TSX and TTSX that I will be loading for deer and possibly elk where my shots might range out to 400-500 yards. Are there different min impact velocities for these bullets?
I'll be loading them in a 30-06. Do you have any load data using Superformance for these bullets?
Thanks!"
he responded...
"Hi Anthony,
Originally that was indeed the case with rare exception. However as we optimize each bullet, many have changed. Originally we found that the TTSX required slightly higher impact velocity in our water tank test, compared to equal velocities in ordinance gelatin or tissue – so we simply made the TTSX test 200fps higher to offset the difference in real tissue.
The .308 cal 168gr TSX and TTSX are both optimized for the 308 Win and 30-06 ammunition by reducing the minimum impact velocity to 1500fps. Compared to the 165gr TSX and TTSX at 1800fps – optimized for the 300 WSM and 300 Win Mag. See the data attached. We didn't test that particular combination – it may be quite compressed. You should be able to extrapolate a load using the 175gr LRX and 180gr TTSX.
Thanks, Ty"
Here is what I got from Barnes when asking specifically about 165 and 168 30 cal ttsx
“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.
From a few posts back in this thread, it appears Barnes is consistent in their velocity threshold recommendation.
Originally Posted by Brad
Originally Posted by beretzs
Originally Posted by Teeder
That's disappointing. I hoped they would expand better at that velocity.
I was thinking the same. But man, you cannot whoop their track record. One of, if not the most talked about and used Barnes I hear of.
Here's a post from a thread about a year ago on this very bullet:
Originally Posted by River_Ridge
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
From the looks of TrueGrit's bullet, it certainly doesn't seem in keeping with what Barnes says.
Regardless, if you want animals to consistently drop quickly, or you shoot animals at long range, I think there are much better bullets than a Barnes. OTOH, if lead in your meat is a concern (a valid one IMO), or you live in California, then Barnes is your huckleberry.
Agree with beretzs, I've got a box of those myself and will work up a 30-30 load to equivalent velocity to try them on deer. Damn 99's in nice shape with a good barrel in 303 you need a 2nd mortgage for..mb
" Cheapest velocity in the world comes from a long barrel and I sure do like them. MB "
If that’s what you have and wanna run em, go for it. Don’t blame you a bit. But if I had a nice 303 I’d have to try the old 190’s. I am not rationale or make sense sometimes but it all feels right in my head!
We all acknowledge bullets have improve over time. My 303 s are over 80 years old.
And velocity sees to Trump sectional density in terminal performance?
The thing that spooks me is how poorly the less expensive cup and core 180/200 grains do when shot point blank at a beef knuckle if I I remember correctly.
And I am concerned I won’t get enough velocity to use heavier premium bullets effectively.
I have 165 grain hollow points.
150 cup and cores
Lots of heavier cup and cores
No monolithic.
Last edited by Angus1895; 12/31/23.
"Shoot low sheriff, I think he's riding a shetland!" B. Wills
Lots of good bullets on the market these days . I’ve used Partitions, AccuBonds, Tsx Ttsx,GMX with good results mostly in 30 cal , 7mm , and 270 cal. Last 2 my nephew and I got were spike bulls he was using his 270 win and a 130 gr interbond. And I was using my 300 Weatherby with 180 gr interbond. Very disappointed to hear Hornady is discontinuing the inter bond line . They seemed to work really well with picture perfect mushrooms on the ones I recovered.
Don’t sweat the petty stuff, don’t pet the sweaty stuff.
We've shot a lot of deer using TTSX, TSX and lately the LRX with excellent results at all ranges. This year we went elk hunting for the first time since 1992 and ended up recovering a couple of 168gr TTSX bullets. After seeing the results first hand and not reading or seeing pictures of the results of water or ballistic gel test. Honestly, I don't know what to expect from Barnes TTSX anymore. We're going to keep shooting TTSX, LRX bullets and killing stuff with them like we always have....but damn. Using the Burger bullet calculator site, it says a 168gr bullet started at 3250 fps is supposed to be moving along at 2238 fps at 600yds. These bullets were recovered from elk shot between 610 and 630yds with a starting MV of 3250+ fps.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/PrznZsdK/IMG-20231220-170039708.jpg)
