150 grain Tsx, H4350 and the '06,,,,

56-59 grains, yes?

You are on the right track. I happen to use IMR 4350 in my 30-06, but the Hodgdon version is pretty close. I shoot 59 grains of IMR 4350 in my rifle behind the 150 grain Tipped TSX for 3000 fps. I have not managed a 1/2 inch goup with this load as of yet, but have gotten darned close. Starting around 56 or 57 grains is probably a good idea.

I have, and use Imr4350, with 150 SGKs, very accurate. 56 grains is a great practice and target load in my '06.

But I picked up a jug of H and now it's time for hunting loads.

62ish in one of my rifles. That's Hodgdon's max for a 150. I never got the claimed velocity from it.

Make sure you seat them .050 off the lands, not just shy of the lands. Don't ask me how I know.
If you do that, most data for other bullets should be pretty close. Work up, and see. In my '06, 61 grs. shoot really well with the 155 Scenars.
The other thing is that brass can vary and so can the best, or top loads. So, work up. I'd start at 57 grs. and see how they shoot. E

Yep...and you may find that you need to get closer to 59 before those groups start to shrink.

Am I the only one who finds the Tsx shoots better closer to the lands, like 5 thousandths off?

My most accurate loads have all been .030" to .011" off. I've never had much luck with them close and I've tried in .224, .244, .264, .277, .284, .308 and .358.

I'm not implying that your rifles don't like them close. Just stating my experience. Each rifle is different. I've also found best accuracy when they're pushed close to max/at max too.

Kenneth: I've also experienced best accuracy seating the TSXs out close to max. recommended OAL with at least a couple of cartridges, namely the .308 Win. and .257 Roberts.

I've noticed some of the new ttsx bullets have just a tiny bit of contact at caliber width before going into a groove...almost as if to just get the bullet centered. On those I wouldn't be afraid to snug up to the lands at all.
Nosler is doing the same thing on some of the latest etips......the have a wide band machined in just a smidge below the ogive.

What I've found is that the top end is very close to the standard cup and core bullet if they are seated at .050 off. But that doesn't mean that closer than that won't result in better accuracy. E

My experience with TSX/TTSX in all calibers is that they do indeed like a little jump and in most cases, a good crimp. The only exception is my 280AI, which doesn't shoot crimped bullets quite as well. Although the difference averages about 1.25" crimped vs .75" uncrimped. The recoil isn't bad, so crimping to reduce further bullet seating in the magazine is not necessary. If the mag/action length isn't limiting, I usually start at .050" and find the sweet spot there or very close. The ejection port on My Montana Ls requires deeper bullet seating to be able to extract unfired cartridges without a lot of gymnastics. My loaded rounds for the Ls are very close to OAL of factory loaded rounds. That certainly doesn't affect their accuracy and the bullets are well beyond .050" from the lands!

I'm running listed max of 62gr H4350 150grTTSX average 3050fps

Where is 62 grs. listed as max?

Would that same number apply to the 150 TSX?

Over at hogdon.com they list 62 grains with a 150 ballistic tip at a 48,400cup which isn't smoking hot. I've pushed the 150ttsx to 3100 w/no pressure signs using win brass and re17 in a 23"tikka.
I wouldn't be afraid towards work up to 62 h4350 in my gun and think it would work out fine.u

Yes what he said. They list starting loads at 56gr and max loads at 62gr.

Ok, My Speer manual lists 59 as max for 150 BTSP and also as being compressed. 62g must be sizzling right along...

1 thing about the Barnes manual, it lacks info like no other.

http://data.hodgdon.com/cartridge_load.asp

Every rifle I shoot them in shoots well with them just off or even a kiss of the lands.

Absolute total BS that they "need" to be way off the lands.

MM

Necromancing this thread after finding a few boxes of 168 grain TSX and, miraculously, some H4350 in stock. Have yet to load for my .30-06, but here's where I'm intending to start:

-One group at each: 54.5, 55.0, 55.5 grains H4350
-Federal 210M primers
-Seating depth set to match the COAL of factory 168 grain TSX ammo that my rifle shoots right under MOA

What changes would you make to my process?

I've always had better luck with a slightly faster powder and 150s. Love the H4350 for 165s and 180s though.

Necromancing, indeed. Nearing necrophilia....

Ahem.

I believe I ran 58.5 grains of H4350 'neath a 165 TTSX for ridiculous accuracy in a budget "bespoke" Marlin X7L. Mid-to-high 2,800's, if memory serves.

FC

Keep reading about guys running loads quite a bit over book max, apparently due to antiquated pressure cutoffs given for '06... think I'll start with the aforementioned charges for now keep a bookmark that it's okay to cautiously proceed upward from there as long as I watch my pressure signs closely.

I’ve loaded 59 grains of IMR 4350 with a 150 Partition for forty years at factory length. This load has shot sub inch in a half a dozen rifles. If I truly had to get down to one caliber, I think it would be a 30-06. I love me an 06!

With the 150 TTSX BT, I've seen better accuracy in three pre-'64 Model 70 .30-06s with H4895 than one of the 4350s. Granted, the 4350s are better for heavier bullets.

I load 59 grains H-4350 behind the 168 TTSX

I used 55.0gr with the 168TSX in my 06 it did very well.

Great hearing all these replies- after winning the lottery today, I've got this weird paternal feeling of responsibility to make sure the components are used as effectively as possible.

168 TSXs out of the '06 are definitely a solid "anything in NA" load. Killed my Nilgai bull last year with the Remington HTP Copper factory stuff I'm using as a template.

The 150gn Partition is a great match with the .30/06. While is is not as sleek as many newer options and the velocities quoted by users are all over the place, it is a great bullet that is utterly reliable on deer sized animals. I have been very happy with it and also shot some really tight groups using it.

That would be a light load in the '06 case. If you are using a modern bolt action in good condition loads up to 62gn would be usual ground for this bullet weight.
You may also like to try Winchester 760 if you have some as this works very well with 150 grainers. There will be very few animals this bullet would be ill equipped for.

+1 for 760. H4350 is pretty slow and Barnes bullets are long-for-weight given their copper construction. You might be crunching a lot of powder to get to the velocity you're looking for. Just depends on what works for you. 760 is more dense and perhaps a bit faster burning.

[/quote]

I load 59 grains H-4350 behind the 168 TTSX

[/quote]


Same here.

I load 59 grains H-4350 behind the 168 TTSX

[/quote]


Same here.[/quote]
same here

Bumping this with a range report. Was getting north of 2900 FPS (2945 average) with just 56 grains out of my '81, 24" Model 70 Supergrade. No pressure signs of any variety, nice rounded primers. Got a tight MOA group with 55 grains, but it opened up to 1.5 MOA at 56. 56.5 grains is next on the list when I get back to my press

59 has worked great for me.

^^^^^^ I agree ^^^^^^^

Same here.[/quote]
same here [/quote]

Same here, great load!

What kinda speeds are you getting? Might be that my chrono was off or something but 2950 with 56 grains seems fast.

Is that a compressed load? Barnes lists a max of 55.5 with 97% density for the 168 TTSX. No pressure signes?

I think the charge has a lot to do with which batch you have. 55 grains behind a 150 in my rifle has very flat primers. 56and the bolt gets very stiff. My old Sierra manual shows 56 as max load. Edk

As many guys that are quoting that charge weight, I'm not going there. Guys that want to exceed the boundaries by that much are on their own... They may not know what pressure signs look like either, so beware when out on the range..

59 grains of H4350 SC with a Barnes 168 TTSX gave 2826 fps and 61,700 psi (m43). I had better luck (as far as velocity) with Superfomance.

This was what I thought initially, but if you look at threads about this combo there are a lot of guys saying their most accurate loads come from 57-59 grains. My rifle is showing zero pressure signs of any kind at 56.

Well, best accuracy might be 57 - 59 grs but what does that have to do with exceeding SAAMI pressure?

Unless those loads are below max? Wish I knew. I can only go by velocity. I will not exceed book velocity for any cartridge. Not smart enough ( or foolish?) for that.

I am waiting for my bullets and brass to get shipped. Very anxious to work up a load for Elk next season

For the 57-59 grain guys- is that a compressed load? I'm just a hair under compression with 56.3 grains H4350 in RP brass seating to a COAL of 3.26"

H 4350 has been slowed down in burning rate since it was introduced as AR2209 whereby I have seen velocities as light as 2880fps using that 62gn load.
This makes it safer from the manufacturers side, but unless you use a chronograph continually, it is harder the monitor the variance in powders either by batch or over time.

I do get very fine accuracy using that 62gn charge but when velocity is the goal, that is where 760 proves ideal with 3080fps usually obtainable from a grain less.

Wanted to update this- was having chrono issues with my previous loads. I'm now getting 2825 FPS with 56.6 grains from my 24" Model 70 Supergrade, so going to try moving up some. No pressure signs as of yet. Copied the factory stuff's COAL as it shot well in my rifle, just varying charge weight now. Have a ladder up to 57.5 grains loaded for my next range.

My load for the 30-06 is 60gr H4350 and Nosler 150gr accubonds at 3.345 coal.

I did some tests with my 7mm08 and found them to shoot best at .020" off the lands. I found it odd that it didn't perform better when they were .100" off.. When I start loading for my 30-06, I'll keep this in mind...

[quote=Eremicus] Make sure you seat them .050 off the lands, not just shy of the lands. Don't ask me how I know.

Why is that?