Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Elk Hunting 338 Federal - 160 gr vs 210 gr

Ole 270--

I recovered two 210 gr TTSX from a dirt bank at 400 yards. Those bullets looked indistinguishable from the two shown in my photo above; in fact, their expansion and weight retention were part of the reason I subsequently used them on a very important hunt. Based on a muzzle velocity of 2880 fps, the velocity at 400 yards should have been around 2025, based on a ballistics program. The velocity at 100 yards should have been 2665 fps. So if the 338 Federal can get that bullet going 2665, then it is my 338 Win Mag load, minus 100 yards. So it should get that same terminal performance at 300 that I got at 400.

If the 338 Federal can only get 2435 fps, then it is my 338 Win mag load -200 yards.

Those two TSX's you posted look great; like out of a Barnes ad.

I'm surprised they didn't exit, though. Perhaps SD does still have some meaning, even in the world of mono-metal bullets? Perhaps?

It var a big elk.

I just don't think they had enough steam to push the petals through that thick elastic hide. I think that either shot alone would have been fatal within 50 yards. Together, and he was down inside of 10.

If we learned to throw a quick second shot in, rather than stand there like golfers admiring the shot, a lot of these "what is the perfect bullet?" debates would be even more vacuous than they already are. A lot like the "double tap" that the defensive handgunners are so habituated to using.

I haven't had an opportunity to use the new 160gr. TTSX. I have however used both 185gr. TSX and 210gr. NP to kill several boars. Feral hogs/boar are obviously not Elk, however, they are pretty tough and tenacious animals. Based on my experience, I wouldn't hesitate to use either bullet on Elk.

SD is as meaningless as "teats on a boar hog" when talking about bullet penetration without taking into consideration bullet construction and shape. Flat point solids of less SD out penetrate higher SD round nose solids consistently. SD is totally irrelevant when comparing expanding bullets. Simply stating SD has no validity without taking into account the other variables that are in play

160-gr. Barnes @ 2900 or thereabouts makes me wonder why not stick with the good ol' .308 with a 150-gr. Barnes at about the same velocity. Likely to have better penetration, given the longer bullet. I can't say I'm sold on the .338, as I don't think it would offer much over its parent round.

338 Federal with a 210 grain TSX used on Zebra at about 100 Yards. Judging from the size of the wound channel through the heart, I'd say the 338 leaves a larger wound channel than would a 308 win.








Exit in the off shoulder

Hey JWP,

I agree. To clarify, what I was getting at is that I bet the 225-gn TSX would have exited that elk from his .338. So all the variables are held the same except the SD of the bullet...

You're making an assumption based on 15 grains more wieght and less velocity that may or may not be correct

Utah, for what it's worth, I just came in from digging a 210 TSX out of a packed dirt bank. Range was 320+, 2750 at muzzle, 338-06, should be down around 2050 or so at impact. The bullet looks just like those in your pictures, expanded down to the bottom of the cavity. I shot two of them in there, but only found one. Dirt is not elk and it's only a sampling of one, but it sure looks promising.

Ole-
It is reassuring when a bullet gives an impressive performance from different people in different settings.

Bullet performance is probably generates the most unrealistic expectations of any aspect of gun looneyism. We want one-hole accuracy, two-hole penetration, jelled lung, dead right there performance for 20 cents a bullet in every caliber and weight conceivable. Something has got to give.

I have been shooting TSX/TTSX bullets pretty much exclusively at game for the last 2 years because I wanted to give them a reasonable test. I will admit that one of them failed to open (and when I posted the story and photos it generated a 30 page firestorm) but the remaining bullets I have recovered are impressive, as has been the performance in terms of quick and human killing.

Meaning no disrespect......

I've seen more than one reference to what a bullet looks like after being dug out of a dirt/clay bank. Just what does this have to do with bullet performance in an animal?

To my way thinking, the way a bullet performs in dirt applies only to that dirt into which it was shot and has no direct bearing on how it will perform on an animal.

You guys are comparing apples and oranges.

-Mike-

thought I had enough qualifiers in there

Ole_270,

You did....my comments were not directed at just your posting, there were others that were similar.

My point was that those dirt/clay results are, essentially, meaninless when discusiing bullet performance on elk (or any other animal).

-Mike-

Most recently I would have sided with using the 160ttsx especially if it is a Barnes. However, after running calculation across Hornady's ballistic program (assuming 1602900 and 2102600), the only benefit IMHO in using a 160 gr ttsx over the 210gr ttsx is the 1.1 less drop at 300 and 2.6 less drop at 400. But take a look at the velocity and energy. At 300yds the velocity is almost idenitical but the energy is approx. 400 ft/lbs difference.
I believe you could wack Elk all day long with the 160gr ttsx but the 210gr ttsx gives a little extra insurance at least on paper.

IMHO- yep.

OK, here is my 2 cents.
I've killed lots of stuff, much of it big and tough with various Nosler Partitions. A very reliable, deep penetrating bullet. Very consistant over the years.
On the other hand, the whole Barnes X family has had a somehwhat erratic history. While their TSX bullets appear to have a very good, consistant history for reliability, the bullet in question is not one of those. It's a TTSX. Designed to open at lower impact velocities, etc. It also has a sectional density of only .200. While the light, older X's and even the TSX do surprisingly well when pushed good and fast when it comes to penetration, we aren't talking about one of those here. Just what it will do in an animal at the velocity it is pushed, simply isn't known. Like some have said, it will kill them. Well, so will lots of lessor loads. The question is which is "best."
For my uses, I insist on something that is very reliable and capable, w/o a doubt has lots of penetration on animals like elk. I'm certain I'll get plenty of that with an NP. What I don't know is just how well the new TTSX, especially in that light a bullet will work.
The other thing is that Nosler Partitions retain alot of their weight at lower impact velocities. The 180 gr. Federal NP load in the .308 has a first class reputation on elk class game. Similar, but not quite the same. Still, given the rep of both, I personally would have more faith in the 210 NP.
Now, if it were my .338 Federal, I suspect I'd handload a few 210 TSX's for my hunt. E

This is a very simple question to answer.

You bought a .338 not a 7mm; therefore use the 210 grain bullets!

+1

The 160 has a relatively poor BC and will lose velocity pretty quick. Another bullet to consider is the 210 Scirocco II. Might be a good option for the 338 Fed.

A quick run of numbers shows the 160 has a velocity of 1768 and KE of 1111 @500yds while the 210 S II has 1832FPS and KE of 1566 @500yds. Bottom line, the heavier bullet is also going faster by 500 yds and will hit harder whatever energy methodology you use. The 160 will drop 1.2" less though (-7.8" vs. -9.3"). But, numbers aside, they will both do the job.