Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Question for John Barsness on the TSX

Geeeez!

Lasers......can we at least use lasers!!!

Now that would be an interesting wound channel....like a #2 pencil all the way through. Better have a mountain for a backstop. Best part......your venison is precooked!!

Glad the TSX's are magic theory has been put to rest..

Not magic, just better design, materials, R&D, etc....... It's not too late for you to join the TSX club......LOL!

It is quite apparent that you are unable to see the pictures that have been posted, perhaps a better internet connection

kyreloader,

Thank you for posting the results and the load data. They look to be useful for comparison.

I think you stated that you measured length by width by width to obtain volume. Why didn't you just fill the cavities with water?

Was there a reason that you did not match velocities and bullet weights for more direct comparison? What were you using for a container? It does not appear to be identical in each case. Are the little blue pieces in the NBT picture the tip?

I think there must be a reason that the TSX discussion comes up so often and is so controversial. I have never shot a TSX bullet, but I have some loaded and ready to go this season. There are so many different stories about this design, that it seems as if you are talking about two different bullets entirely.
Is it all possible that one bullet could produce so many different results? On the other hand, I seriously doubt that any of the guys are BS-ing. There semms to be a genuine knowledge of how this bullet works, but there are some who don't believe the "Magic Bullet" theory. The pics of the African animals are compelling, but doesn't tell enough about the load itself. I talked to a Custom Ammo maker and he told me when you load TSX bullets, you have to change your thinking from any other jacketed style bullet. maybe that's why the discrepency. Very interesting reading I will say.

As JB stated their is no test media that can match the varied consistency of an animal which consists of bone, heart liver lungs, hair,and skin and the bullet has to perform against a varied media and no test media todate can duplicate all of these at the same eime

To say that this is a small wound from a TSX is ridiculous




This is the exit from the same bullet that passed through the heart




TSX exit most of the time are like the one above, but the vitals look like a blender went through them

Klikitarik,

I wouldn't get too far afield with the assumptions that because copper is toxic it too will be banned. Yes copper is toxic but, it is much less so than lead and much less readily absorbed. I can't say that the consequences of copper ingestion in other species are not much more severe that in humans, nor that they couldn't be catastrophic. After all, we damn near killed off many of our raptors on a global scale.

They way we win is to be right. Right every time and with sound arguments every time. The Heller decision while based on a suit to establish a right to keep and bear for defense of life and limb also contained a very, very important finding that will be amplified in years to come. The right to bear arms in order to restrain the hand of government is now part of our heritage in specific terms. With that in place we stand on much more equal footing with the government. In order to restrict the use of lawful weapons the government must now bear the burden of proving the necessity of doing so. That is a huge advantage to us. Because of that we must be right and we must be well reasoned. Otherwise we could lose what we've just won to damn fool nonsense.

I think you are right in a lot of your thoughts. As far as assuming goes though, I think we need to assume a lot of things so we are ready for just about anything. It seems pretty clear that bullet content is an easy loophole for the gun grabbers, one that doesn't require so much effort in the courts. It should, however, require plenty of evidence from the lab. And we need to do whatever we can to make sure they are held accountable scientifically every step of the way in the lab. Assumptions and speculation play great with the media and much of the public - as long as it moves things the direction which their agenda blows.

There is an awful lot of "evidence" out and about - and has been for a long time- of sick waterfowl, sometimes with shot in their gizzards, which are assumed to be lead poisoned. That is nothing more than evidence for a possibility. The proof requires a necropsy involving tissue samples. We need to be ready. It is way to easy use to use a camera to win these arguments in the courts of public opinion, while factual data takes time, effort, and money.

If you think copper won't be on "their" agenda next, look here:

http://www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/Field%20Notes/FieldNotes2002.html

You need to read down to where it talks about three chick deaths.

(And I was under the impression that lead was slow to leave organisms. According to this, they measure high levels of lead in a few birds, but these same birds can lose those lead levels in a fairly short time.)

jwp,

ALL the bullet makers that I have extensive contact with are almost constantly tweaking bullets. This is the reason the Nosler Ballistic Tip performs very differently than it did when introduced 20-odd years ago, but even the Partitions get tweaked. The same thing occurs with practically every brand. Not many are exactly the same bullet they were 5 or 10 years ago. Wel, a few are, but not many.

I know that bullets from all manufacturers are tweaked on a regular basis for a variety of reasons including easy of manufacturer and never stated to the contrary that I am aware of.

My contention is that field testing on acctuall animals trumps test media

"A couple of days ago Mule Deer wrote, "On average, however, bullets that shed some weight do create bigger immediate wound channels and hence do kill quicker that bullets that retain all their weight, like the TSX and several others."

Isn't this just what Roy Weatherby preached 50 years ago? Take a cup and core bullet intended for a 30-06, rack the velocity up about 500 fps, and it explodes, killing instantly. Of course, it has to get into the chest cavity before it explodes.

BS!

Most definitely not BS. The results speak for themselves. Why do you have so much trouble accepting them??

They were factory loads, Ron (Federal I believe).

On the test media thing you are correct.
The problem is I have actually shot stuff with TSX as wells as many other "regular" bullets before I came to the conclusion I have.
The phot is clearly manipulated to make the damage look worse than it is. For starters it was taken from very close. The lung is also splayed over to make the wound channel more oblong, so no I am not impressed. the l;ast animal i shot with a accubond didn't have a heart save a strip of raged, minced flesh. No 100 yard dash involveL either.
And once again you can not deny that bullets that penetrate deep do so by having less resistance. less resistance comes from less frontal area and less frontal area results in a smaller wound channel. Not to mention that a monolithic bullets doesnt have the shrapnel effect of disintegrating bits of lead and copper.

True and I am speaking from experience. Albeit objective experience free from brand loyalty, cheer leading and agenda pushing.
Physics and basic mechanical principles speak pretty loudly as well. There isn't a magic bullet.....

Very true. TSX bullets have less resistance than other lead bullets do, not because they have narrower frontal diameter, but because they have petals, rather than a blunt, round front end. For example, an arrow head would penetrated a wall, destroying the 1"x1" section of drywall. A golf ball would also penetrate a wall, destroying the same 1"x1" section of drywall. Which would encounter less resistance? The frontal diameter of both objects is roughly the same.

BWalker you can have any view that you want but to accuse me of manipulateing the photo's is pure BS and you are most certainly full of it.