My apologies as I’m sure this question has been asked and answered many times over but I ain’t shy. What is the difference between the 165TTSX versus the 168TTSX in .30cal?….(other than 3 grains of weight 😁). I shoot the monos almost exclusively and the Barnes have been my favorite for years. In my .308’s I use the 150TTSX or the 168TSX and both have performed perfectly, I’ve never needed a follow up as most have dropped in their tracks, literally. I’m looking for a middleweight mono for my’06 and wondered if one had a thicker “jacket” for magnum velocities? I find it hard to believe that they’re identical except for the 3 extra grains…

Thanks in advance.

According to Barnes, the 165 has a shorter nose profile for cartridges like the 300wm so they will fit in most magazines, it also requires a slightly higher impact speed of 1800fps vs. 1500fps for the 168 TTSX. If I were going to pick one to use in the 30-06, it would be the 168, however the 165 would work fine as well...

Difference Between Barnes 30 Caliber 165 TTSX vs. 168TTSX; Response from Barnes

Thanks guys. I figured there was a difference but not something to consider really, at least not in the’06.

I’ll stick with the 168 TSX.

Not much. Just consider the 165 like you would a 180gr protected point partition. Made for the 300wm for the some of the same reasons.. Your question was a good one, as I had researched the same thing a while back when I ran across a bunch of 165 and 168gr TTSX's. Didn't know which ones to buy and why there was a 3 grain difference. I figured I'd buy both styles because they were priced right, also figuring one may work better in the 300wm, 308 Norma mag, 300WSM, 300WBY, 30-06 and 308. Its good to have choices and 30 cal is never a bad one. I'm like you, I'll probably stick with the 168's for my 308 and 30-06, while saving the 165's for my magnums. This thread reminded me that I ran across a great deal on some 7mm 140gr TSX today. A small town gunshop I visited had some for $25.99/box.. Had to snag them at that price!! I've also been doing some shooting and load work up with my 7mm08, 308, 300WBY, and 30-06 with barnes lately. The barnes bullets seem to produce fine accuracy, but I'm wondering why a lot of guys say you need to run them way off the lands (.100"+). I've tried from .025" - .100" off and find that I achieve better accuracy/precision with the bullet closer to the lands (.025" off). You say you've ran a lot of Barnes bullets, is there a sweet spot for most Barnes bullets? In terms of seating depth and distance off the lands, or jump as some guys call it.... I'll admit, I'm new to Barnes bullets, as I usually use partitions, Hornady interlocks, Sierra GK, and WW power points on big game. Finally decided to give in and give the Barnes a try..

I believe the 168 is the better of the two bullets if it shoots the best .
The 168 shoots great in my 300 wsm , but it’s Winchester with a long magazine box. OAL is not a problem.

I use the 168’s in a 300 win mag. I like them, very accurate!!

The 168 is actually an LRX bullet before they were marketing them as LRX. Great bullet and excellent in the 300 wm!

“ 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.

Thanks


Greggory Sloan | Ballistics Lab Supervisor
Barnes Bullets, LLC”

I've had excellent results with the 168 TSX in a NULA .308 for elk hunting at up to 320 yards. At that distance, velocity was probably around 2,000 fps or a little less. Muzzle velocity was 2700 fps using H4895 powder. Some years later, I switched to the 150 TTSX at 2850 fps because it was slightly more accurate than the 168 TSX in my rifle. Results with the 150 were the same as the 168.

I’ve shot a lot of Barnes in a bunch of rifles, and 0.050” off the lands nearly always gives excellent results.

I’ve not had a Barnes really shoot till it’s .050 off and quite often .075-.100” has been better in a number of rifles.

Not saying you’re not getting fine accuracy, but I usually get one outta the group till I sink them a bit deeper.

Lots of folks report seating to the middle of the top groove and getting pretty good results as well. I’d tend to agree with that as that’s about where I’ve ended up with a few.

Every once in a while a load shoots best for me seated deeper than 0.050” (up to 0.125” off the lands, IIRC), but on average 0.050” has been a sweet spot.

My 208 LRX's have enjoyed .075" off from my 300 Win Mag. Tested between .025" to .150".

Alan

Thanks guys. Not to side track the thread, but when I tried the loads seated at .050", they were bigger. I found decent nodes at .025 and .100" off. Maybe I need to try .125"+ off?

At .100" off, they look like this:

Another .025" deeper and it would be right to the edge of the ring. Roughly. I could try "middle of the top groove", like Scotty suggested? That would probably be somewhere around .150" off the lands.

Groups were kind of weird. First 3 shots were sub 1/2 moa and the next 2 out for both .025 and .100" off lands. Here's the .025" off group:


Here's the .100" off the lands group:


.025" off the lands with CCI 200 primer:

Seems like the magnum primer is making tighter groups, but double grouping... In most cases with C&C bullets, you seat deeper if you are getting double groups. Are the mono's the same? If you guys think seating deeper will produce better precision, I'll give that a try. Thanks for the help..

I'm hunting with the .025" off the lands and CCI 250 load this week. Will be good enough for elk, but I think I can wring more precision out of it.. I also have 4 boxes of the 140gr TSX to experiment with too, so I may play around with that bullet and see if it acts the same as the TTSX..

I have seen exactly what you’ve just shown a bunch with the Barnes, ETip, Hammers and ABs.

I think you’d be happy to try them deeper myself BSA. Sometimes you’ll hit that spot where they really come together.

As for seating depth, I treat Barnes like other bullets. Granted, they usually provide best accuracy when seated deeper than other bullets, but not always. It's worth seating them long to make certain and it only takes a few more bullets during load development to find out.

I'm still looking for those 208 LRX. Should be fun with them.

Thanks Scotty. I appreciate the help. I'll try seating deeper probably .125 and .150" off the lands. Now that I got my elk hunting out of the way. 5 day seasons suck!! I like more time/longer seasons. It takes us 3 days just to find them sometimes/most times...

Using a RUM? Maybe the next best thing is the 175 LRX? My 300WBY loves them..

According to Quick Load (QL), mono metal copper bullets require an additional 2 900 psi to over come pull-out resistance and engraving into the rifling, compared to a cup/core design.

0.050" off the rifling reduces the start pressure by 1 460 psi. This puts the hand loader into more of a safety zone.

I have run the Barnes "X" in a lot of calibers and weights since 1992 and have found that powder charge is where the tuning takes place, no real reference to 'bullet seating depths' , other than that, will the loaded round fit comfortably in the magazine or is ~0.010 to 0.015 off the rifling.

So, bottom line is the mono-metal offers more resistance to pull out and engraving, increasing the jump will reduce start pressure up to a point.

Interesting note, but that will very much depend on the configuration of the bullet (number and placement of relief grooves, driving bands, etc.). I wouldn’t be surprised if that figure was calculated for same-same configuration between C&C and mono, with no relief grooves like in the case of the original X-bullet.

I believe you are correct, Jordan

Probably, as mono's come with more or less grooves or none at all.

The start pressures are probably the same as pull out and resistance to the rifling is still there, however, once engraved (in one bullet bearing surface length) the resistances is now the total bearing surface less the groove diameter.

On a 30 caliber Barnes TTSX the groove diameter is 0.292", this makes the grooves 0.008" deep and generally lands and grooves in rifling are 0.004". The grooves effectively shorten the bearing surface, therefore reducing resistance between the bullet and the bore.

Anyway , it is something to be aware of. The values offered by QL give some perspective of what is going on with mono-metals compared to cup/core or coated bullets.