Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Barnes TTSX, dissapointment

I have had about 4 total failures with Barnes Bullets including obersvation of some more by hunting partners and in all fairness I have seen them perform to perfection on buffalo in various calibers....

I also agree with Mule Deer that it takes hundreds of animals to come up with a correct account on any bullet..but if I get 4 failures from a bullet, then you can bet your sweet bippie that I am not going to give that bullet any more chances, even if it is a fluke...That is just my unforgiving nature or at least until a lengthy amount of time passes or I take a nap and my past life disapears, then I usually will give it another chance!

We've got the little oinkers here, too. Great thing is, they decided to BAN HUNTING in about three counties were the pigs are most abundant so they can "study them". Not sure if the PGC caught the memo from other states that feral pigs are a pest and nuisance, not a new game animal worth studying..

"Re: Barnes TTSX, disappointment"

With the all around quality of today's big game bullets, I think that disappointing shooting failure rate far exceeds the bullet failure rate. There will always be more bad shooters, or badly placed shots by good shooters, than bad bullets.

But then I think NBTs are a great all around bullet so what do I know.

I hope I will bring GOOD NEWS back from Africa. I have forty of the little jewels loaded, packed and ready for action. These are of the 210 gr TTSX from my pre 64 338-06. Accuracy is great and now we shall see if they work on eland, nyala, sable, kudu, zebra,etc. Will advise results on my return the third week in June. If I get one negative result it will be a steady diet of 375 H&H, 300 gr Woodleighs for the remainder of the hunt.

I don't know if this is the right way to look at this.

A design can be proven by a very small number of trials. The manufacturing process used to produce the bullets is proven by statistical analysis of the sampled product more like you describe.

You can have a very well designed bullet that is simply too difficult to manufacture consistently. That certainly was my experience many years back with cup and core bullets. The were less than consistent as related to accuracy and less than consistent when they hit game. Steadily we have improved both design and process to where today we have very highly predictable accuracy and terminal performance.

Today we face limitations of design running up against actual use. A cup and core bullet will deform and deflect on hitting bone, even rib, to the point it may not produce a lethal wound even when properly aimed. Too much velocity on cup and core bullets can guarantee failure resulting from rapid deconstruction of the bullet. Too little velocity on any bullet can guarantee failure due to inadequate expansion.

Damage to the bullet from normal handling may cause failure to expand in the case of the monometals or failure of the bullet to fly true. Regardless of the result, damage from normal handling can cause failure and needs to be considered separately from failure related to design or process.

If the design has changed, even slightly, during the test then 50 or 100 or 200 trials do not make a test. Likewise the manufacturing process and the end user's handling.

It is my considered opinion that for instance Barnes has had process problems related to the hollow point design of the X bullet, and that they have had some design problems with the TSX bullets, and that those problems resulted in changes the end users have noted in the bullets and likely in the performance of the bullets. I have noted changes in NPs and other bullets over the years that are in all probability much the same.

With the tolerances in process being so tight, and the precision of design being so critical today I think we need to reconsider how we look at bullets. Small changes like slight alloy variation or tool wear or minute machine adjustment are entirely capable of radical alteration in performance. I can see working up a load for a rifle and having maybe a box of ammo left out of the 50 or 100 you started with, and the next box of bullets comes out of a different lot with different performance characteristics, maybe forcing a modification in your load.

You and I may have very different loading practices that could well effect the test. Maybe I don't chamfer and debur and that buggers up the boat tails a little bit and my accuracy sucks now and then. Maybe you just throw charges out of the measure and into the brass without weighing, and now and then you throw one light enough to make a difference. Thus your test and my test are not equal.

The instant test, a single shot on a single animal, the pencil holed pig, is of an by itself a valid test. We need to understand how a monometal bullet with a protective plastic tip could have done this. Normal variables would not seem to account for this radical a failure since the monometal construction would seem to make for more uniform performance.

Obviously a high percentage of failures would indicate either a bad design or bad process or both. Barring that, correct performance on two or five or ten or 100 tests by one individual probably do not matter so much as say 25 by a number of people.

This is why BOB made the Partition!

This is why BOB made the Partition!

This is why BOB made the Partition!

Ray: I have not used Barnes bullets on game, but notice a lot of the "problems" seem to be associated with the smaller calibers; I notice (hear, read) the guys shooting animals with the 375's seem very pleased with them.I looked at a couple of 235 TSX 375 bullets that were pretty impressive, fired into eland and kudu.

Do you think the somewhat larger cavities on the 375 help uniform expansion? Or is it just easier to make larger caliber bullets that expand well?

What bullet weights and calibers did you see have a problem?

Bob, Ray: you guys both know by now I'm a big TSX fan,never seen anything dissappointing happen with any of them in any cartridge.However, as Mule Deer stated, I am one of those more in the "sample" realm of dozens, rather than hundreds, of animals.
As I go along I've found fans and detractors for literally every kind of bullet on the market. I'm a Nosler fan,and refer to the partition as one of the few sure bets in life, but I've heard the opposite....Was just talking to Mule Deer yesterday about Sierra boolits ( I am not a fan...) Bottom line of course is that I've seen erratic terminal performance with GKs, and the bottom line with that of course is because we recovered them from DEAD animals....not exactly bullet "failures".....So you go with what you like, and what works for you, and then we all have something to discuss around the Campfire, virtual or real...
Ingwe

The vitals on a hog are farther forward than many folks think. Behind the shoulder is likely a liver or gutshot. Just above the leg/body junction, through the plate are the goodies if one isn't taking the ear shot... Farther forward will increase the "Luck" with about any bullet. Ear is a DRT. Angles on body shots are very critical, as well.

http://www.dixieslugs.com/anatwpig.htm

Ingwe: My experiences with Barnes bullets are purely anecdotal,except at the range.For some reason I have never gotten around to them.I just watch and listen.My question to Ray was in response to what I have seen on here.

I shoot a lot of Sierra's,but have not used one on game(other than varmints)in years.But they are useful in load work-up because they are accurate and seem to correspond nicely with Nosler Partitions,those sure things.

I would love to try those 120 gr TTSX in my 7mm Dakota, though!

I still wanna pull the tip on a TTSX and shoot something with it.

Sam: Let us know how that works out!

Sam, I can show you how...I'm a "trained professional"
I'll bring the hemostats, you bring the IPAs
Ingwe

You'll be the first to hear Bob!


I don't think expansion will be a problem Ingwe although the BC might not be so great.

IPA's.....Need to go to the store.


Talk to you boys later.

Do ya think Bambi will notice?
Ingwe

I took out a medium size boar ( 100#-120#) last weekend with a '06 shooting 168 TSX's. Shot him between the eyes at approx. 97 steps. No exit but the impact cracked the skin on his cheeks. He hit the ground, did the Curly shuffle one time and gave it up. Maybe a tbl. spoon of blood on the ground. Oh, and a gallon of fleas.

BP...

Miles most of the above is biased BS. Any bullet can deflect on striking a animal.
And if you want to talk about inconsistent performance the TSX has to be right up there.

Quoted by Mule Deer



Very True! I agree!





My first time hunting experience using Barnes bullets on elk mirrored these same results, in 1991

18 years later and a wide range of hundreds of animals shot by various hunters and calibers, Barnes bullets still polarize the peanut gallery.



Why is that?

My take, because it is a known fact that Barnes has no way
of controlling the copper they buy and use.

It's all in the copper good and bad.
They buy copper on the open market that is not suitable to making bullets.

It comes down to a crap shoot when you shoot them.

That may be good enough for some but not for me.

I would rather shoot a good cup and core than a Barnes.