OK. I can't stand it. I've heard enough! I've got to try some of the 168 TSX's. You guys have me all worked up over them! They sound like just the medicine for deer/elk and it would be terrible to run into a piggy with one. Does anybody have a favorite load for a 300SAUM with these dudes?

Wayne

56.5 grs Varget, COL 2.80. Not a screamer (2975) but very accurate in two 300 SAUMs

Thank You! Is that from a Model 7 or 700?

I would like someone who has to tried both the 165 and the 168-gr TSX bullets to tell us the big difference, if there is any.

This is one fever you won't be sorry you contracted!

Not a SAUM but they run 3246fps out of my Win Mag. While I was thinking of using a 180g, now I'm thinking of a 165g MRX instead.

I've got a 180 Partition load that shoots fairly tight and will run along just about 3050fps. But after hearing about these Triple Shocks...knock down, weight retention, accuracy and velocity...I just need to put it in the right place. I'm excited!

i have seriously looked at the 168 tsx out of my 30-06 for elk and am thinking i am going to order some. what do you think? 168 or 180 out of 30-06 for elk?

I think if you can get a little more poop out of the 168, and IF it retains as much weight as they say...go 168. The elk may recact as if hit by the 180, without the thump on your end.

The retention is there, the ones that I've seen recovered so far look picture perfect.

The one I found went out at 53 grains and weighed 53 when I recovered it and got it on the scale.

Brads out of his big bull this year did about the same thing if I remember right. It started as 168 and after givng the bull flight 168 it still weighed 168.

IMO the 168 is all anyone would ever "need" if using a 30 cal of any sort.

Mark D

I run them in my WSM, not the same but I was using 67 gr of H4350 to get around 3125 fps, browning Abolt MOA load.

AA2700 for 3100 f/s, outstanding accuracy in my 300 SAUM. Data available on Accurate's website--I used 165 gr bullet data and got pressure signs at 63.0 gr with the 168 TSX-- this is 2.2 gr below max as listed for a 165 gr bullet ; accuracy is best in my gun from 61.5 to 62.0 grains. Start load is 58.7 grains and you should really start there and work up. Also look at N560 for accuracy and velocity.

I have to say I agree with watching out during load developement...especially with the 168tsx--it gets to max loads for me about 1.5-2 grains under what other bullets do...can't say why. Personally I'm getting better accuracy out of accubonds than the tsx's--I wish it wasn't so cause I believe in barnes performance.

kraky,

Define better accuracy in terms of minute of deer at usuable ranges. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Here's the 168 from an elk Mark mentioned...

Looks like a bullet failure to me. No meat and bone on it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well, it was tough sucking the meat outa the petals but I finally managed and didn't use a toothpick or chip a tooth <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Raw or cooked? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I love the way those things usually expand flawlessly. Even in a tough media like sand. Nice picture. Show us the dead elk.

With apologies to those that may have seen it:

No apologies necessary for that dandy! Picture perfect bullet too.

I'm glad you didn't waste the meat from the bullet too! Elk meat's too good. I miss it! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Hey Brad, at what range was that bull taken? I'm just curious about that expansion vs velocity. It looks B-U-T-Ful!

Wayne

Wayne, he was shot at fifty yards laying in his bed snoozing. The shot (only available) went through the liver, angled back through the completely stuffed gut sack and was found stuck in the hide forward the rear leg after I'd got him quartered. The fact he was laying down flattened out his belly and gave that much more elk to go through. Also, I've never seen a more full gut sack on any elk. Completely stuffed.

He stood at the shot totally bummed and I dropped him with a neck shot. The bullet center-punched the spine and exited.

Muzzle velocity 2,855.

I suspect a 168 TSX needs around 1900-2000 fps to open reliably for a useable mushroom but I will test it out "officially" in wet phone books this summer.

Here's another pic of the 168 from the bull on the right and a 168 from behind my 400 yard target on the left. It went into soft, loamy soil where I dug it out at around 420 yards... it weighs, surprise, 168 gr's:

loamy.....wth is that???

Must be a new gun looney term...grins

Mark D

Some played basketball in College, some went to class <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

loam (syn. loamy soil) 1. A generally fertile and well-drained soil, containing clay, sand, and a significant amount of decomposed organic matter.

No wonder he was lying down, he was having a food snooze. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Those recovered bullets look good. I can't wait. Hopefully will get drawn for that limited entry deer hunt and/or the Marble Mnt elk hunt. I'll be ready.

Class there were classes in college???

Oh yeah, b-ball 101, pizza eating 101 and suddsing 101.

Now I remember!

Mark D

Nice bull!! I don't think one can beat the TXS terminal performance and they are accurate as Match bullets acctualy the 180 TXS in my 300 Win shot slightly smaller groups than the 190 SMK

Barnes says the TSX needs 1800 fps to expand reliably, where the MRX and the X bullet both need 1600 fps.

Tell me this:

The main reason to use a TSX is if you MV is in excess of 3000 fps. How far away would your target have to be that you'd have to worry about 1600 fps?

Have we lost sight of reality here?

Jordan, Barnes says a lot of things I don't believe. I prefer to find out for myself. Look at the bullet on the left... for me, that's the smallest mushroom I'd want and the least amount of expansion. It hit the dirt right at 2,050 fps (+-). As I said however, I'll test it out to see for myself.

Who said anything about 1600 fps?

Form a 30/06 shooting 165TSX bullets 2900fps you will still have 2125fps at 500 yards

At 700 yards it will still be at 1901fps
At 900 yards it will still be at 1652fps

I think it's a safe bet that the TSX will function as far as your likley to shoot at big game. That is of course if this is not going along with the typical Barnes "hype".

After all they print different BC's as they go and in different publications as well. Truth is I have recoverd a number of several different early versions of the X that could have been reloaded and shot again. They had impact velocities near muzzle velocity in some cases with wildebeast and zebra for instance being shot at only 50-75 yards. Some were just bent over and not opened.

These were suppose to open down to 1600fps and did not open at or above 3000! Combine this reality with the huge number of people who say ........" they penetrate so great I have never recovered one" It's always left me feeling that many of those did not open either. The few that were recovered looked spectacular and acted as "bait" feeding the assumption that all those that exited were like that also. That's not true however. Many of those exits were very likely non-opened bullets that just zipped through.

I have enough feedback right now from my co-workers here in the safari industry that I have 100% trust and faith in that these TSX bullets are working. Nobody has seen a failure or had any reason to doubt this latest prototype. It's the reason I loaded them up to shoot for myself.

JJ, according to my Barnes manual charts, a 165 XFB started at 2,850 is only going 2,070-ish at 400 yards. Since the trajectory of the 168 TSX exactly matches the regular 165 X flat base charts at my range, I've got to believe Barnes' velocity figure is true. The 168 TSX's BC is vastly inflated and has recently been dropped to the low 400's.

I will shoot it through the chrono at 400 this summer to see for sure but I expect no suprises.

I ran the numbers through my Ohler program using a BC of .380 right from the Barnes Website. Last weekend I shot my rifle with this bullet at 2900 or a tiny bit more 15 feet from the muzzle and then again at 50 yards with the muzzle velocity showing 2825fps, (only did it one time). I think from that we could prove out the BC through calculation. Knowing the velocity loss between two points. Actually I think my ohler program has that built in?

I originally did this to see how close the Ohler program was and it looked dead nuts to me, so maybe the .380BC is correct?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ok just went and programmed in the numbers and using the 2900fps MV then checking again at 50 yards the calculated speed should be 2809fps.

My velocity at the muzzle would have been a bit over 2900 because I was at just over 2900fps at 15 feet.

At 50 yards it was an exact 2825fps. Just slightly higher then calculated due to the slightly higher starting speed. Knowing this I would guess they have actually given the correct BC on the website now???

JJ-twer it me I'd want to run the info over the clock when it was set out at 300 to 400 yds as opposed to 50 yds but that is just me.

I tend to believe this would make for a better truer test.

Just my beliefs. So, if you get bored try this. Same day same load run it at 15' and the at 400 yds and then do your calcs. I'll buy you a brew when you're done and have reported, but you gotta get here 1st...grins

Mark D

Some have opined the grooves in the TSX add quite a bit of drag that becomes noticeable out at range. Heck, I don't know! What I do know is the 168 TSX pulled from the soft soil at 420 yards shows the minimum expansion I'd want on game.

This summer I do plan to put my chrono out at 400 yards and see what the actual speed is (vs guessing) and also shoot into wet phonebooks at 400-500 yards.

Nuttin like actually doing something to see what's what!

Posting same thought's at the same time there Dober... no big suprise!

I would tend to agree with the greater resolution of additional distance. However in workiing with the guys at Hornady when I was doing some "things" for them in the past they only used a short distance(50 or 100 meters) to do the calculations and claimed it was gonna work out to the same end result anyway. Plus it made frequent easy testing possible without needing 400 yards influenced by wind and weather issues. It's complicated and risky to put in a loading book a "fact" when any outside influence has a different effect from day to day. It's why these things are all calculated under a perfect set of conditions.

Had I not been presented with their opinion and technique on this early in my career I would not have bothered with the 50 yard measure to check the BC of the TSX.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest they know their stuff and the resluts you get will be the same. Or close enough, with the outside forces and variables involved which we have little no control over.

Your marginally mushroomed bullet from the soil might meet the Barnes definition of "will still expand down to 1800fps" nobody knows what their definition of "expands" is set at, or is claiming. Heck for all we know if the tip deforms it's "expanded" or maybe if it's greater then bore diameter it's expanded?

Certainly not my definition, but I'm not in the marketing business for them either!

Brad,

Thanks for the elk picture. What a beaut!

Brad,

I'd say you're set on critters between the muzzle and 400 yards. I personally feel that covers alot of ground. Darn nice bull, can't get tired of seeing that guy.

Brad, you'd asked "who said anything about 1600 fps"?

Read the posts above mine. And my statement stands.

Mauser, you were talking about the TSX. This bloke was talking about the MRX...

Barnes is in the procces of calculating the BC's for the TXS while working on the new loading manuel.The BC's previouly posted are for the original X"s. Barnes orignal BC's were calculated with a 100 yard spacing,this time Barnes is useing a 300 yard spacing which will be a more accurate spacing.This should give more accurate BC's out to double the spacing (600 yards). The only way to get a BC that is perfect for your gun is to shoot them out of your gun and check them that way.There are a couple of differences between the original X and the TXS first is the grooves, secound the ogival is also different. I already knew that the .482 BC listed for the 338 cal 225 grain TXS was too high, because when shooting them out to 800 yards they were falling way low. The new BC for that bullet will be around .386. The 180 TXS will not fall as much as most of the others. I have been using .525 for the 180,while the bc listed is .552, which is for the original X.A BC of .525 has worked well for me out to 1036 yards out of my 300 Win.

Following the Hornady idea isn't exactly sound. The TSX is a totally different bullet with deep grooves. The only groove a Hornaday might have is a shallow crimp groove.

Only way to know the velocity of the TSX is chrono it at range.

I agree, Brad.

I have seen pictures published by Barnes showing the expansion at varying velocities. The "expansion" at their minimal velocity, 16-1800 fps shows the bullet tip barely opened up.

Not what any of us would call expansion at all.

Having said that, I am going to give the 168 TX a go in my 300 Win. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ted

Yukoner, that's one reason I've gone to the 300 WSM as my primary rifle with the 30-06 as a backup. I'm confident the 30-06 will work fine to 400-450 ish yards but the extra velocity of the 300 will add another 100 yards to reliably open the TSX while making it that much better at less than 500.

Brad, Sorry I did not mean to imply the Hrnady and the BArnes TSX had any relationship. I only wanted to express the way Hornady determined the BC's to show that they did not need long range to accomplish this.

I have a Barnes Ballistics software program on my computer as well as the Ohler program. Here is a screen shot of the Barnes Program for this topic. This is an MsDos Program so the screen capture is not as clean as it would be with rtodays newest windows driven software. The BC barnes shows in the book for the 165 TSX as I recall was .380
Tinkering with the velocity just a hair up or down would get you there pretty easy. This was with only a fifty yard measure as you can see from the entries I put in.

Ballistic Coefficient From Velocity
This program computes a Ballistic Coefficient based on the
measured change in velocity for a given distance in yards:

Starting velocity (ft/sec)? 2925

Ending velocity (ft/sec)? 2800

Distance between points (yards)? 50





EFFECTIVE BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT: 0.377





[R] Repeat [P] Print [M] MAIN MENU

JJ I understood, it's just that calcing BC's is more "voodoo science" than economic's! Trying to guesstimate downrange velocity with that approach "may" be faulty due to the TSX's grooves. I think I didn't make that point clear.

A bloke that posts here was a former Barnes employee and maintains that beyond 300 yards (or so) the grooves in the TSX start acting like a "parachute" (his words) causing substantially more drag than a typical "smooth" bullet. Of course a bullets BC changes over its flight too which is still more confusing.

Is the former Barnes employee correct? Heck man, I have no earthly idea and tend to think the best way to know is stick the clock out a 400 yards and see what it says!

Regardless, I'm basically satisfied the 168 TSX has enough juice to open out to 450 yards from my 30-06 which is really all a guy needs to know. Beyond that, it seems a 300 Mag's velocity is needed to ensure optimum expansion.

I plan on killing a lot of wet phone books this summer with the 30-06 and 300 WSM at range with the 168 TSX just because. It's good practice anyway and the reults should be interesting.

I was saying that the TSX is supposed to (note, SUPPOSED TO) expand at 1800, and the original X bullet, and the new MRX are supposed to do so down to 1600 fps. Just to clear up any confusion.

Why a 165 TSX? I plan on trying TSX bullets this summer when I get a new rig. The 168 has seem to has attained a cult following! NYS

My Bad <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I have not used the 168, I have only used the 165 grain. Is there another difference besides the 3 grains of weight? Is the ogive much different?

I chose the 165 because it matched the 165 A frames and Interbonds. No particular reason other then that. It does seem kinda silly to make two bullets that close in weight if that is in fact the only difference. If they are the same exact length then the ogive must be different( fatter on the 168). Other wise the 168 would be "3 grains longer"

Hack, the ogive is quite different. The current 168 has a listed BC of 404 and the 165 is something like 380. I have a box of 165's I plan to try but in all likelyhood will stick to the 168's unless they blow it away accuracy-wise (that's gonna be hard).

Not having seen the 168 then, I would have to say it's longer with a better ogive to get that high BC. I would be interested in the higher BC myself unless it starts really compressing my powder too much.

You know we are dealing with Barnes though, in a few months that Ogive could change again!

You guys going to chrony those loads at 300yards and 400yard? Aren't worried that you might accidently plug you machine? I guess you guys got the drop-chart/ballistic figure out pretty well to prevent such a possible accident?

Leo

Yeah we've done this a bit over the years, it is always best to use your buds machine.......grins

Actually with a bit of set up it is not an issue, but you want a good trigger person 4 sure.

Once you get past 500 yds it gets a lot funner!!!

Mark D

Mark,

I don't have a chrony, but if I did I can see myself trying that set up at 300yds......go back to the bench......careful take aim.....shoot.........splat!....I just shot my chrony! then a bunch of cussing at myself and then having to tell/explain to the wife what I just did and how I need to buy another chrony. I can see the expression on my wife's face! (If'n your married, you know what I mean)


Leo

Yeah as we say around here, you gotta pay to be stupid!

It can and does work but one does want to have a grip about what he/she is doing.

I've also heard of more than one being toasted @ 15' so either way one should use his beaner!

Mark D

Funny thing about the 165 and 168 grain bullets. The box for the 168's is 50% larger. The total weight difference is less then the size of one bullet but the box is 50% bigger?

I've thought about the 168's for a long time out of my 300 inw mag. The first reloaded bullet I ever shot was a 165gr. XLC out of that gun but it never hit fur. Come to think of it, that gun has never seen anything but Barnes Bullets with reloads, WOW, never thought of that.

I shoot a 180 TSX at 3050fps with .35" groups at 100 Yards out of a stock Rem 700 SS. I think I'll stop there but when my girlfirend gets her 300 WSM, I'll stick the 168's in that gun and let her shoot game out from underneith me for the rest of my life.

Ain't it grand, fall in love and never fill a tag again, kind of became a habit, errr.....

Here are a few recovered 168 TSX's fired from a 30-06 @2850 fps. All animals were shot just under 150 yds. Starting from the left...

1. Large zebra stallion quartering towards me shot straight through the shoulder and found under the skin mid ribcage. Weight exactly 168 gr. Zebra was shot once more broadside as it danced around which resulted in a pass through. Zebra traveled 30 yds.

2. 38" gemsbok bull quartering away hit 6" behind shoulder. Gembok dropped immediately at shot. Bullet found in offside shoulder. Not sure why this animal dropped so quick unless the spine dips down low as the entry was about square in the middle up and down. Weight exactly 168 gr.

3. Follow up shot on the gemsbok above at PH's insistance. He was raising his head. Only shot I had was straight through the middle of his back as he layed with it facing me. I hit him right through the black stripe down the back and bullet was found under the skin on his belly. One petal broke off. Bullet weight 145 gr.

Off topic but for comparison the last bullet is 180 NP shot from Federal Premium High Energy .308 Win. Gembok shot through the shoulders at about 180 yds and found under offside skin. Weight 108 gr.

All other 168 TSX's on the trip made complete pass throughs which included a 240 yd. shot through another Gemsbok's shoulder. He ran about 40 yds.

So I was very happy with this bullet. I'm planning a return trip next year and hope to hunt eland. I'm trying decide if I should move up to the 180 TSX. I will try some and see how they shoot and then decide.

Oh yeah, the 168's shoot very impressive 1.5" groups @200 yds with a 6x scope in my 30-06.

Wyatt, thanks for sharing... textbook TSX's for sure.

Goota say, no.3 looks, well, short compared to 1 & 2. What gives?

Also, I'm really suprised at the HE NP, it sure doesn't look like a 180 Partition!

Wild guess on the Noz is the front half blew off and the wadcutter part shroomed a bit. Hit some hard bone I'd be for guessing.

Thoughts??

Mark D

Sounds likely Mark... definatey hit something hard from the way it's leaning <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

Still good performance and retained 60% weight.

The short TSX is kind of different. It's almost like the copper compressed. The top 2 grooves are now just lines around the bullet and the 3rd is about 1/2 size. Diameter, if you measure across the intact petals, is the same as the others.

I don't know how tuff a gemsbok's spine is, but it must be one mean mother!!

Ummm, Brad, did I read that you have switched to the 300 WSM over the venerable 30-06??????????

What gives??? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Huntr