Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa Thoughts on the TSX performance 2009

There actually is no mystery to what is happening. It is a matter of terminal stability or the lack thereof.

One of the more endearing traits of a functioning TSX is the symetry of the opened bullet. Second, the front section is perpendicular to the centerline of the bullet.

These two traits conductive to terminal stability.

A failed TSX is lacking these atributes neccessary for "shoulder stabilisation" - hence tumbling occures - just as it would aon a spire pointed full metal jacket.

A tumbling bullet can not penetrate as far and as straight as a terminall stable one.

As a side note: this excample shows the dynamic nature off the often cited SD-Factor - the ratio of bullet mass to crosssection.
It changes with the opening of the bullet, as it does when the bullet turns sideways, then changes back when the bullet travels backwards... (as the concept is only a valid one to penetration when momentary bullet mass traveling viewed in relation to the area facing the direction of travel).

To conclude - the length of the bullet has nothing to do with the tumbling - the reason is the lack of "shape".

Interesting now are these points:

Percentage of failure to open?
What bullets do not open? Small dia. hypothesis, thank you, John.

Overall, TSX offer solid field performance.

JJ is one of the finest gentleman I have ever meet personally.
I have been reading his post for good grief 10 years now! Since the days of Shooters.com. I enjoy what he writes and he has PM me good advise on occasions. He is a mentor and one to be listened to.

But, he has as far as I know, has used this forum as a sales pitch for Barnes Bullets.

He is a spokesman for Barnes Bullets. He will obviously be biased. No doubt he believes in the product he uses.
But it will be a biased sales pitch.

I would think that if Nosler hired him out and sent him bullets to be used we would be seeing E-Tip reports from Africa.
But we won't because he's not sponsored by Nosler.

What about those of us not sponsored by Barnes who use their product and give the same reports. Sponsorship is not offered to those who do not hit the top of their game. It also does not negate the accuracy or integrity of the report, or indeed the man. Have you considered that his acceptance of their sponsorship may be due the quality of their product? Probably not. If you don't like Barnes bullets don't use them. No need to get in JJs face about it.

I don't know the man, but he seems like an honest fellow to me.
Randy

I didn't get in JJ's face bud. Read my post again.

Didn't I say that JJ is a mentor and should be listened to?

If you don't like my post don't read it.

If you are sponsored by a company you are going to give a sales pitch, that is your job. That's why you are sponsored and that's why JJ is posting this subject here.

He is promoting, it's an infomercial.

I have witnessed 4 similar TSX failures
2 with 140 gr in 7mm RUM
1 with 85 gr in a 240 wby
1 with a 168 gr 300 RUM

So it's okay even when the bullet never passes into/through the vitals as long as you can shoot well enough/(are lucky enough) to cut a major artery with said bullet? (Or can manage to get a second bullet into the animal?)

I was an advocate and defender of mono-coppers when many people still thought they weren't accurate enough to hunt with, and JJHACK was giving his view of them which were sometimes virtually opposite the ones presented here. (And even then I was put off by the fact that no two boxes of 150 XFBs could be counted on to work, shoot, or even look the same. And that factored into being the last straw for me.)

But Barnes bullets...the monos anyway, are bullets which many folks find it difficult to be objective about (not saying that I am either.) But long before they ever came on the market it was well known that even some of the fine varmint bullets of the pinched hollow point design did not have the same reliability of expansion as their otherwise designed brethren did.

But there are a lot of good bullets which will do the job. (Do we realize how lucky we are?) So, though the X design does do a heck of a job in many circumstances, there are others which, though perhaps less spectacular or maybe a bit more messy, can also do as well and sometimes better in terms of reliability. And some are better suited to parts of the range of use that is demanded of bullets these days. So, use what you like, but it is almost certain that when a Barnes or two goes sour, then you stop and think... and at that point, the honeymoon is over. And yes, there are still Partitions (and Swift's answer to many of the complaints about that design) as well as a host of newer good answers.

Here is how I break this argument down every time it comes up- and it comes up often. Not only on this forum, but every time I think I may want to try the newest, greatest thing available.

First priority to me is accuracy- if you can't hit what you aim at, near and far, it really doesn't matter if you're shooting a Polaris missile or throwing a rock. For me, Hornady, Nosler, and Aframes have given me more than acceptable accuracy in what I consider "game bullets". I've worked up very accurate loads with all of them that work in my rifles and don't give me problems.

Second priority and roughly equal to the first is on-game performance. Hitting a target is one thing, putting one through an animal in tough conditions is another thing altogether. I've had excellent results with the Hornady, Nosler Partitions, and Aframes. Not so much with some Sierras and Speers I use to load. Haven't really tried the Barnes X's much since I loaded them a few times with the old Barnes X's. Accuracy was awful and the fouling of my barrel was worse than my .17 Remington. I hate spending more time cleaning my barrel than actually shooting and loading!

Third priority is price and availability. Hornady's and Nosler Partitions are my go-to bullet most of the time just because I can afford to shoot more of them at the range and have confidence in their accuracy. They are easy to load for, give me superb accuracy, and game performance has been more than acceptable on anything I've shot with them.

To me, experimenting with bullets can and has been an exercise in frustration much of the time. Once I grew tired of the frustrating sequences- load, shoot, scrutinize, check seating depth, adjust seating depth and the myriad of other loading crtieria that can affect accuracy, etc..... I realized I already had bullets that performed perfectly for me and didn't create any frustrations at the loading and shooting benches. I like the KISS principle.
Along the way I was told that for my African trip, I should be loading a premium bullet for the big, tough game I would be going after. So, I spent the money on Aframes and set about building a load for them in my .338 for Africa. Luckily, my Hornady 225 bullets use the same load as my 225 Aframe loads and shoot to exactly the same point of aim. Problem solved.
Once I got back from Africa and the afterglow wore off, however, I soon realized nothing I shot in Africa needed the extra "performance" of the Aframe bullets and would have easily succumbed to any Hornady Interlock or Nosler partition at half the price. However, seeing those perfectly mushroomed Aframes that came out of a couple animals was pretty impressive and probably was worth the few bucks I spent. I wouldn't waste the money on them for this side of the pond however, nor will I spend the money on experimenting with the newest greatest Barnes, North Fork, etc.... lump of copper and/or lead unless I feel a need to and so far I just don't see the need. At 56 years of age, I doubt I will find that need before my hunting days are over- unless I hit the lottery and have a chance to hunt thick skinned, dangerous game like Cape Buff, Elephant, Rhino, or something that really does require the extra performance of the premium bullets. IMHO, thin skinned animals, be they here or in Africa, Canada, etc... just don't require an extra premium bullet from my experience. Just put a good bullet where it belongs and get your knife out.

If using the premiums gives you a woody, I'm all for it. Every guy should have a chance to have a woody while hunting once in awhile, right? But I doubt the game will be interested in what is exciting to you and/or the rifle you shoot.....

Sorry so long winded, but these threads just seem to go on and on with no resolution in sight. However, without these discussions, the pics of "failures" probably wouldn't have come to light and there would be no definitive proof one way or the other. And being the contrary, testosterone filled nuts that we are, and having access to this immediately accessible media these days, anecdotal evidence just isn't enough anymore.

Bob

Goshdangit Bob, I love to see you post!

It always amazes me that no matter how many folks say positive things about brand "X" (no pun intended) you always get a few folks saying the opposite. So what I do is look for "trends" and of course the validity of the individual posting the comment. I have limited experience with TSXs except to tell you they are the most consistently accurate bullets I've ever used. I like Swift A Frames, especially on the "other side of the pond" as one of you said. I love my Hornadys and I use them a lot on this side as well as Partitions. I won't use them again on anything faster than 2700 fps however. Again purely empirical, but the picture below shows a 180gr Hornady RECOVERED from an impala shot at 80 yards. It weighed 78-80gr out of a 300 Weatherby. The others shown are from a 375 H&H recovered from Zebra, Eland & wildebeest at ranges from 200-65 yards. Partitions always kill well for me, but I've seen enough blow ups not to use them on "money hunts". Do the TSXs fail? I'm sure they do. I've even seen a few posts of A Frames failing (but very few).

I'll go with JJ's recommendations and for my leopard hunt I have a whole batch o 210 TSX @2930 fps out of my 338.

Thanks for the follow up regarding the Barnes relationship, if that is what it's called.

I'm not now nor have I ever been a salesmen for Barnes, Hornady, Swift, or any bullet maker. I have over the years been contacted and used as a data refrence point by a number of companies that manufacture all sorts of hunting gear.

If I find something that works as I like it to, and they want me to also use it to report back on, then I'm more then happy to assist with the use of the products I like.

If I were contacted by a company to use their cup and core design and they were to sponsor me for this, I would flatly say absolutely not.... no way... no chance. The product must work for me first. These people are not my employeer, they are manufactures of produts and they want them tested to the best levels possible. They actively search out folks who they feel have this skill and ability and then they turn them loose with a supply to report back on.

My situation with Barnes was that I hated that X bullet more then anyone could imagine. I had more lost game, more bizzare recovered bullets, and more barrel fouling then anyone should experience in 100 lifetimes of shooting. They seemed to have a new design, plan, or coating every few months. Everything was a prototype and the load data was just as inconsistant. When people showed up with the X bullet, or the fail safe, I would just cringe and worry about how much time we were gonna hunt and how much time we were gonna be looking for lost game.

About two years after the TSX was introduced a very skilled and knowledgable PH spoke with me about these "new" bullets. I'm not so closed minded that I was blowing him off because my mind was made up. I listened because of the respect I have for him. That season I had several guys shoot game with the TSX bullets. However they were using normal for weight bullets, 250 in 338cal and 180 in 30 cal.

By the end of the season I was impressed to say the least. However I felt that driven faster they would open and cause much more damage. The only way for faster was ligher bullets in my simple mind. So the next year I loaded and took over bullets I bought with my own money and used without any sponsorship.

Upon my return I wrote a similiar document to this post. In that I said very clearly that there were things I did not understand about what I experienced. Enrty and exits that are identical, bullets lodged backwards and so on. But........ no animals lost of the 50 plus we shot with the TSX. No fouling and I was able to shoot a hole touching group the last few days I was there. This after the rifle had been uncleaned for 2 months of hunting every single day and having shot probably 50-75 rounds of the TSX by 6-7 different hunters.

So I was impressed with the positive changes Barnes made and I felt that further study must be made to get me a better level of resolution.

Remember I was.... early on a very strong sceptic, but now a bit more excited about the TSX. The next year we did the same thing again,.... and again the same results. I would guess thinking back we shot another 50 plus animmals and lost a single Blue Wildebeast. That animal was shot poorly by the admission of the hunter and we cannot blame the loss on the bullet or the cartridge. Then again last year, another 60 plus animals, and this years results as well. So what have we now, 250 plus animals shot, and most of those over 300lbs. During all this time we have lost a total of one single Blue Wildebeest which was shot poorly. Not a single animal from Steenbok and jackal to Eland and Giraffe was lost due to bullet placement with the 165 grain 30/06 bullet. How much resolution is this now for comparison? Say 200 animals over 300 pounds some over 500 pounds and some over a ton in body weight. How many life times of hunting feedback is that for a single hunter? At what point do you have to look at this and take notice of the success here?

Any bullet made, at some point will have something people will refer to as a failure. I don't care who makes it, it's probably been posted on the net with a photo and a critical comment. Barnes is not immune to these comments either. What is the ratio of failure, and what is the result of that failure? When a Bullet remains intact and continues on the path you chose with your aim, even a failure to open will destroy the tissue in that path. Compare that to a bullet that sheds the core(s) and or ruptures and leaves a path of torn and twisted jacket material behind. Then minimal remaining mass stops short of the vitals.

That's my opinion, take it for what it's worth here on this free site. We need to create income with the use of our choices, it's not just recreational but rather for a business, its a professional choice!

The last two years Barnes has provided me with some assitance and technical help to make things right with the loads. Everyone can have that with a simple phone call or Email. I was in the que with the rest of you where my support came from. They don't answer the red "bat phone" when I call for support.

So I have used their bullets because I believe in them now. I'm not using them becuse they showed up on my front porch and I had nothing better to use. In this business I use the best options I can find. These trips are expensive, and in many cases the lifes dream of the hunter. The business is not making any money while searching for wounded game, they only make money when shooting additional game. Keep that in mind, it's an important factor in the choices here for us. I want a bullet that will bring to a successful conclusion as quick as possible the death and recovery of every animal. Because that lets us move to the next one.

So what do you think I would choose? A bullet I get for free for a value of 50 bucks a box, or the trophy fees for the business day after day after day? This is a no branier folks. My equipment is chosen based on the greatest likelyhood of success and the most efficient means of harvest possible. Your mileage may very and you can certainly choose to fire any bullet you like. I'm not here to challenge anyones opinion where is differs from mine. I'm simply sharing my experience and you can digest this and use it to make your own choices.

JJ - any observations on the Barnes Banded Solids?

I have some of those in 270 gr / .375 cal also. I suspect some feeding issues with the nose profile.

After reading far too many of these "which is better, bullet X or bullet Y" posts, I have concluded that one should use a premium bullet and it does not matter much, if at all, which one.

I use 180 grain Partitions in .300, 450 grain TSXs in .458, and 450 grain North Fork solids (the best) for specialized situations.

These work. If I shoot something in the chest, there is no reason for a second shot. I can't see the slightest reason to experiment with something else.

Sheister - the opposite is also true. Even when hitting the mark, inadequate bullet performance is going to ruin your day. And not on DG only either.

JJ,

I apologize if I come off sounding harsh but what does it mean to be "sponsored by Barnes"?

I pretty much wrote Barnes bullets off when Ty Herring wrote hunters should aim for the shoulders when shooting big game animals in heavy brush about 4.5 yrs ago in the Barnes newsletter. Folks were writing and complaining about slow kills and losing animals in heavy cover when using TSXs. Of course in a couple days the newsletter was edited and that blurb was deleted.

You've shared some interesting and informative experiences on this forum in the past and I've learned from you. But there are simply too many folks (both old and young) who swear by Nosler partitions for BG up to NA bison or kodiak brown bears.

Thanks,

MtnHtr

I like Nosler Partitions, I have no complaints with them. As I said in the original post here, they are the base line of quality bullets in my opinion.

In their day they were the best available, but even Nosler has moved on with additional options in their lineup. If all I had to use for hunting the rest of my days was the partition I would not feel handicapped, I would however have to select shots with them differently then I do with the TSX. The TSX offers far more penetration then the Partition will.

At the end of the day, I'm just glad that the hunters coming over to hunt with me now are bringing a premium bullet to use. Africa, or any expensive hunt is no place for cup and core designs when many better options are available. In the grand scheme of the expenses for this trip it's a small additional cost. I know they are double or in some cases 3-4 times the cost of cup and core bullets, but then your paying over 2 thousand bucks just to fly there and spend a week or two. It's not like you're just hunting the back 40 afer work and can wait for the just the right shot or try again next time. In Africa each chance you pass could be your last at that animal during the short stay you have available. I'm hoping that the guys coming being the right cartridge, and bullet to take every advantage of each opportunity they have.

I have not used the banded solids on game, The standard TSX shoots fine as it is for all the game we hunt.

I think, if I were headed to Africa to do a mixed-bag safari, I would listen very carefully to what Mr. Hack has to say.

However, there are some obvious differences between a mixed-bag African safari, and deer hunting in America. Or elk hunting. Or antelope.

For instance, In Oregon, we can NEVER (that I've ever seen) be hunting both deer and elk at the same time. They shut deer season down for elk season, in areas where they would otherwise overlap. A guy can choose a great deer bullet in perfect confidance he won't have to use it on an elk.

Anyway, my take is very simple... even on elk, I haven't seen a need for a super-penetrator. Even the Accubond, regarded as somewhat "soft" in comparison to a TSX, has blown all the way through the body of the 4 elk I've seen shot with it. And as Mr. Hack has said on another of these damn TSX threads, the Interbond and Accubond are noticeably quicker killers. The 4 elk shot with them I've personally seen went DOWN. That has more value to me, than putting a TSX 4" deep into the tree behind the elk... and perhaps having him run a lot farther.

Also, having myself been very frustrated by the earlier X bullet's lack of consistancy and then discontinuation after I'd spent a bunch of money trying to find a load for it (in my .358), and seeing all the "banana" TSX's pictured here and elsewhere, it just leaves me feeling like it's still a work in progress- UNLESS you want a super-penetrator. And it sounds like on a mixed-bag African safari, that's a great idea. And I would most certainly give Mr. Hack's words great weight- if choosing a bullet for that.

If choosing a bullet for deer hunting, absolute maximum penetration is pretty far down my personal list. Same with elk. Have not yet drawn an antelope tag, but I can't see why that'd require it. Even our black bears ain't no big thang...

Just my thoughts. Now that this thread isn't just about Africa anymore, I thought it would be OK to post this... I've been holding off out of respect for JJHack, and out of appreciation for his obvious enthusiasm and huge body of experience with the TSX. In no way am I saying that he is incorrect in any way whatsoever.

JJHACK,
Awesome post! The TSX is my go to bullet for big game hunting. For me the TSX shoots like a match bullet plus its a killer on big game and no lead to boot.....

cmg, read my post and you will see that on-game performance is rougly equal to the first priority of accuracy....

I agree with JJ in that paying for an expensive trip like Africa (but could also include guided trip anywhere for that matter), it is only sensible to use the very best equipment. That is why I used Aframes for my African trip and I wasn't in the least disappointed to make that choice. The performance was spectacular, to say the least.
And, yes, I made a bad shot on a Wildebeest that took at least 4 long hours of tracking to find and finish off, just prior to an impending charge by the p.o'd animal. Time that could have been spent looking for the next animal in the bag. Luckily, my bad scope was easily replaced with a scope I had in QR rings and we were back hunting in no time.

In any case, I've found JJ to be as honest and analytical as can be when assessing equipment and as far as I'm concerned you can take his advice without reservation.
If I didn't already have a couple loads worked up for each of my big game rifles that have proven year in and year out to be very effective, I would jump on trying the TSX bullets in a minute just on the accuracy claims alone. Anyone who knows me realizes I don't mind spending money for an advantage of any sort. What I don't like is spending money for no real perceived value- which is why the original Barnes X bullets kind of make me wary of their bullets.

Or, maybe I'm just getting too old and cranky to change now.....

Bob

Hi Jeff -

Actually, I can hunt both deer and elk at the same time if I'm hunting deer on an Applegate ML tag and elk on a general season tag for the coast units which includes Applegate. I had a real careful discussion with ODFW on that to be sure I was legal deer hunting w/o the elk tag in my pocket during that time when the seasons overlap.

There are also some bow/gun overlaps for deer vs elk. For instance I believe the high cascade (119A) deer hunt overlaps with elk in some areas.

You should check the synopsis ... at least last year, there were warnings about where those overlaps occur so that people not wanting to be in an overlap area would know ahead of time and apply for something else.



Like you said, this has wandered a ways from Africa.

Tom

Bob,

read your post. Twas, why I paraphrased it. Guess I misinterpreted your analogy about the on game performance of said rock.

Other than that, I yearn for the age to be a curmudgeon.

Have a ways to go yet, I am afraid. Life is tough.