Lots of reports and anecdotal evidence has me to thinking that big game hunting, as it relates to rifle, cartridge and bullet choice especially, has changed dramatically over the past few years.
The main reason I see for this is technology...specifically, bullet technology.
I think the shooting fraternity is general is reluctant to change, but a few fringe elements (Loonies, perhaps) become early adopters and fuel the fire. The particular thing I'm interested in discussing is what the various Barnes bullets, starting with the original X and progressing through the TSX and now the TTSX have done for big game hunting and the cartridges we deem necessary to kill any given game animal.
I'd like to divide this discussion into two schools of thought: The American School, where velocity is King, and the African School, where penetration rules the day.
Us Yanks have long had a love affair with high velocity. It sometimes borders on the ridiculous, with some going so far as to say things such as, ".300 Super Duper Magnum is superior to the .300 Chrono Buster Magnum because it generates 100 fps more velocity with 180gr bullets." We all know 100 fps really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but this type of thought has dominated the American School throughout most of our history. It makes sense, because most of our game here is very easy to kill and the vast majority of it doesn't put the hunter in any danger. It simply doesn't matter most of the time what type of bullet performance you get on a whitetail deer...it dies if you hit it in the vitals, sometimes, even if you don't.
The Africans have a distinctly different philosophy. They like long, heavy-for-caliber bullets launched at modest velocities for what they believe will be maximum penetration. Again, this makes perfect sense. First, when the traditions of African hunting were built, there were no good bullets so small-caliber and/or light bullets couldn't be depended upon to reliably take the Dark Continent's large, thick-skinned game. The extra weight of the bullets was needed to make sure the soft lead would hold together long enough to penetrate to the vitals of some of the huge, ill-tempered beasts hunters sought. High velocity often caused these soft bullets to come apart prematurely, so it was (and still is to some extent) considered taboo for Africa.
Now, enter the world of Premium bullets. Old-school efforts like the Nosler Partition were designed to expand but also to hold together for adequate penetration. As a result, somewhat lighter bullets launched faster (to satisfy the American School) could be reliably depended upon to penetrate like their heavier brethren, all the while retaining some 60% of their weight. For example, a 180gr, .308-cal bullet was now as dependable as an older, 200gr version, giving a bit more speed, a little less kick, the same penetration and reliable expansion. Both schools were happy.
Fast forward again to the Barnes TSX (I'm skipping the X-Bullet because it had some accuracy issues that many will not forget....I like to think of it as a "prototype" of today's better versions). Now we have a bullet that will give all the above, but will retain nearly 100% of its weight, allowing much lighter bullets to penetrate every bit as good or better than the heaviest bullets of old. If we use our 30-cal example, we now know a 150gr TSX fired from a .308 Win can be expected to easily penetrate as far as a 180gr cap & core bullet fired from a .30-06. If push came to shove, I'd even bet a 130gr TSX would do it, too.
This has given rise to a modern dichotomy that has caused consternation in both Schools of thought. While the Americans have always liked velocity, there has also been a sizeable minority who follow the African School (or, the Elmer Keith School, if you will) and put their faith in heavy bullets. Ditto the Africans, who learned from the Yanks showing up there on safari that their flat-shooting powerhouses launching heavy bullets at high velocities were a good thing for bringing back repeat business.
Since the two Schools have now considerably overlapped, it seems neither is completely ready to accept this next phase in the evolution of big game bullet design. The velocity hounds like the fact the 130gr bullet can be launched over 3,000 fps from a .308, but they also like the fact that a 180gr bullet can be launched at those speeds from some of the .300 magnums quite a bit better. And for the most part, the Africans still hold light bullets in the same esteem as they do hyenas and baboons.
Ironically, it has been a few African PHs I've been corresponding with who have brought this discussion to the forefront of my mind. I'm in the early stages of planning a plains game safari and was asking about what rifle/cartridge combinations might work for a guy with a bad shooting shoulder. I told all I was looking at the .270 Win, 7mm-08 Rem and .308 Win., all for shooting plains game up to gemsbok, kudu and zebra in size. One came back with, "Go with a .270 Win shooting 130gr TSXs!" Another, "My loaner gun is a .308 Win shooting 130gr TTSXs." The third, "Any of the three will do just fine. I'd use 120gr TSXs in the 7-08, 130gr TSXs in the .270 and 150gr TTSXs in the .308."
To a man, each said the lighter TSX bullets gave equal or greater penetration...even when shot out of these mild rounds...than the heaviest old-style bullets, even when shot from big magnums. They said they had hundreds of dead animals of all sizes to prove it, and they agreed the lower recoil and handier rifles these mild cartridge/tough bullet combos could be made up on improved their clients' shooting and ability to reliably collect game.
My premise: The TSX and TTSX have changed the game for good. We can now use mild cartridges to launch light bullets at good velocity (let's use the 120 TSX fired from the 7mm-08 at 3000 fps) to provide the trajectory and penetration of much larger cartridges firing heavier bullets with increased powder charges and increased recoil. Let's use the 7mm Rem Mag firing 175gr c&C bullets as the comparison. Same velocity, same penetration. The heavy bullet will fly flatter past 300 yards, but the vast majority of game is shot well within that range. The 7-08�s recoil is about 13 ft. lbs. the 7RM about 23 ft lbs. Which would you rather shoot and practice with?
Of course, the TSX advantage also applies to the bigger cartridges, too. Their advantages become even greater when they can fire heavier TSXs at high velocities...so I don�t want to go there at this point. All I�m asking is, are, for the most part, the big magnums becoming moot for general big game hunting because of the advancements in bullet technology? I realize that the long range shooter will still want more powder and heavier bullets for their special needs, but for hunters inside of 400 yards, given equal penetration, are we better off shooting a 7mm-08 and 120gr TSXs than we are a 7mm Rem Mag and 175gr c&c bullets?
"I'd like to divide this discussion into two schools of thought: The American School, where velocity is King, and the African School, where penetration rules the day."
That is no longer the case. While there are still a couple of die-hard subscribers to that theory based on antiquated cup and core bullets, that is changing. The TSX/TTSXs are gaining geometric popularity in Africa among PHs. All else being equal, a 180gr TSX@ 3000 plus will outperform a 220gr cup and core @ 2500. Your basic premise is sound and I agree with it. jorge
I compromised the schools, and my PH agreed with me on the hunt results. 185TSX gr at 2900 from a 338 wm. I collected only one bullet from 6 plains game animsls. The rest were pass throughs,
One animal was shot with a 165grTSX at 2800 30-06. I don't have that bullet as it was also a pass through. My PH wanted to buy my 30-06 rounds from me as they shot very well in his rifle. I left 50 first time loaded rounds with him as a gift
Lots of reports and anecdotal evidence has me to thinking that big game hunting, as it relates to rifle, cartridge and bullet choice especially, has changed dramatically over the past few years.
The main reason I see for this is technology...specifically, bullet technology.
I think the shooting fraternity is general is reluctant to change, but a few fringe elements (Loonies, perhaps) become early adopters and fuel the fire. The particular thing I'm interested in discussing is what the various Barnes bullets, starting with the original X and progressing through the TSX and now the TTSX have done for big game hunting and the cartridges we deem necessary to kill any given game animal.
I'd like to divide this discussion into two schools of thought: The American School, where velocity is King, and the African School, where penetration rules the day.
Us Yanks have long had a love affair with high velocity. It sometimes borders on the ridiculous, with some going so far as to say things such as, ".300 Super Duper Magnum is superior to the .300 Chrono Buster Magnum because it generates 100 fps more velocity with 180gr bullets." We all know 100 fps really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but this type of thought has dominated the American School throughout most of our history. It makes sense, because most of our game here is very easy to kill and the vast majority of it doesn't put the hunter in any danger. It simply doesn't matter most of the time what type of bullet performance you get on a whitetail deer...it dies if you hit it in the vitals, sometimes, even if you don't.
The Africans have a distinctly different philosophy. They like long, heavy-for-caliber bullets launched at modest velocities for what they believe will be maximum penetration. Again, this makes perfect sense. First, when the traditions of African hunting were built, there were no good bullets so small-caliber and/or light bullets couldn't be depended upon to reliably take the Dark Continent's large, thick-skinned game. The extra weight of the bullets was needed to make sure the soft lead would hold together long enough to penetrate to the vitals of some of the huge, ill-tempered beasts hunters sought. High velocity often caused these soft bullets to come apart prematurely, so it was (and still is to some extent) considered taboo for Africa.
Now, enter the world of Premium bullets. Old-school efforts like the Nosler Partition were designed to expand but also to hold together for adequate penetration. As a result, somewhat lighter bullets launched faster (to satisfy the American School) could be reliably depended upon to penetrate like their heavier brethren, all the while retaining some 60% of their weight. For example, a 180gr, .308-cal bullet was now as dependable as an older, 200gr version, giving a bit more speed, a little less kick, the same penetration and reliable expansion. Both schools were happy.
Fast forward again to the Barnes TSX (I'm skipping the X-Bullet because it had some accuracy issues that many will not forget....I like to think of it as a "prototype" of today's better versions). Now we have a bullet that will give all the above, but will retain nearly 100% of its weight, allowing much lighter bullets to penetrate every bit as good or better than the heaviest bullets of old. If we use our 30-cal example, we now know a 150gr TSX fired from a .308 Win can be expected to easily penetrate as far as a 180gr cap & core bullet fired from a .30-06. If push came to shove, I'd even bet a 130gr TSX would do it, too.
This has given rise to a modern dichotomy that has caused consternation in both Schools of thought. While the Americans have always liked velocity, there has also been a sizeable minority who follow the African School (or, the Elmer Keith School, if you will) and put their faith in heavy bullets. Ditto the Africans, who learned from the Yanks showing up there on safari that their flat-shooting powerhouses launching heavy bullets at high velocities were a good thing for bringing back repeat business.
Since the two Schools have now considerably overlapped, it seems neither is completely ready to accept this next phase in the evolution of big game bullet design. The velocity hounds like the fact the 130gr bullet can be launched over 3,000 fps from a .308, but they also like the fact that a 180gr bullet can be launched at those speeds from some of the .300 magnums quite a bit better. And for the most part, the Africans still hold light bullets in the same esteem as they do hyenas and baboons.
Ironically, it has been a few African PHs I've been corresponding with who have brought this discussion to the forefront of my mind. I'm in the early stages of planning a plains game safari and was asking about what rifle/cartridge combinations might work for a guy with a bad shooting shoulder. I told all I was looking at the .270 Win, 7mm-08 Rem and .308 Win., all for shooting plains game up to gemsbok, kudu and zebra in size. One came back with, "Go with a .270 Win shooting 130gr TSXs!" Another, "My loaner gun is a .308 Win shooting 130gr TTSXs." The third, "Any of the three will do just fine. I'd use 120gr TSXs in the 7-08, 130gr TSXs in the .270 and 150gr TTSXs in the .308."
To a man, each said the lighter TSX bullets gave equal or greater penetration...even when shot out of these mild rounds...than the heaviest old-style bullets, even when shot from big magnums. They said they had hundreds of dead animals of all sizes to prove it, and they agreed the lower recoil and handier rifles these mild cartridge/tough bullet combos could be made up on improved their clients' shooting and ability to reliably collect game.
My premise: The TSX and TTSX have changed the game for good. We can now use mild cartridges to launch light bullets at good velocity (let's use the 120 TSX fired from the 7mm-08 at 3000 fps) to provide the trajectory and penetration of much larger cartridges firing heavier bullets with increased powder charges and increased recoil. Let's use the 7mm Rem Mag firing 175gr c&C bullets as the comparison. Same velocity, same penetration. The heavy bullet will fly flatter past 300 yards, but the vast majority of game is shot well within that range. The 7-08�s recoil is about 13 ft. lbs. the 7RM about 23 ft lbs. Which would you rather shoot and practice with?
Of course, the TSX advantage also applies to the bigger cartridges, too. Their advantages become even greater when they can fire heavier TSXs at high velocities...so I don�t want to go there at this point. All I�m asking is, are, for the most part, the big magnums becoming moot for general big game hunting because of the advancements in bullet technology? I realize that the long range shooter will still want more powder and heavier bullets for their special needs, but for hunters inside of 400 yards, given equal penetration, are we better off shooting a 7mm-08 and 120gr TSXs than we are a 7mm Rem Mag and 175gr c&c bullets?
Great post Seattle.....totally agree with your comments.
Agree with your assessment of the TSX/TTSX. I'll even thrown in the other mono metal bullets GMX, monoFlex, eTips, Naturalis, etc.
But as technology goes, I'd like to go to the other side of the spectrum. Bullets that literally explode in thin skinned game. These bullets aren't know for pass through's or as dangerous game solids. They create massive hydrostatic shock like many other Cup & Cores, Partitioned, Mono-metal, bonded, hollow point or tipped bullet but add to the nasty wound channel shrapnel.
Barnes has their Varmint Grenades, which I probably would not use on large Plain's Game but maybe on a steinbuck or a Jackel. Nosler has there Ballistic Tip's which I believe have a newer construction. And Berger Hunting VLD's are know in North America for penetrating a couple of inches and dumping up to 90% of their mass. A lot of hunters want exit wounds for blood trial's. Nothing wrong with that, but if the major organs are destroyed (turned to soup as some have found out) most don't go very far.
I load everything from Speer to Nosler to Berger to whatever. I mostly hunt with Barnes TSX/TTSX/TMZ's and love the results.
No doubt, TSX are good for larger game. For deer sized game, cup n core is fine with me. They kill just as fast for faster and are a lot cheaper.....but I only shoot non magnum calibers.
TSX also shines for speed freaks with their super magnums because the bullet will not fail at high velocity.
Lots of reports and anecdotal evidence has me to thinking that big game hunting, as it relates to rifle, cartridge and bullet choice especially, has changed dramatically over the past few years.
The main reason I see for this is technology...specifically, bullet technology.
I think the shooting fraternity is general is reluctant to change, but a few fringe elements (Loonies, perhaps) become early adopters and fuel the fire. The particular thing I'm interested in discussing is what the various Barnes bullets, starting with the original X and progressing through the TSX and now the TTSX have done for big game hunting and the cartridges we deem necessary to kill any given game animal.
I'd like to divide this discussion into two schools of thought: The American School, where velocity is King, and the African School, where penetration rules the day.
Us Yanks have long had a love affair with high velocity. It sometimes borders on the ridiculous, with some going so far as to say things such as, ".300 Super Duper Magnum is superior to the .300 Chrono Buster Magnum because it generates 100 fps more velocity with 180gr bullets." We all know 100 fps really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but this type of thought has dominated the American School throughout most of our history. It makes sense, because most of our game here is very easy to kill and the vast majority of it doesn't put the hunter in any danger. It simply doesn't matter most of the time what type of bullet performance you get on a whitetail deer...it dies if you hit it in the vitals, sometimes, even if you don't.
The Africans have a distinctly different philosophy. They like long, heavy-for-caliber bullets launched at modest velocities for what they believe will be maximum penetration. Again, this makes perfect sense. First, when the traditions of African hunting were built, there were no good bullets so small-caliber and/or light bullets couldn't be depended upon to reliably take the Dark Continent's large, thick-skinned game. The extra weight of the bullets was needed to make sure the soft lead would hold together long enough to penetrate to the vitals of some of the huge, ill-tempered beasts hunters sought. High velocity often caused these soft bullets to come apart prematurely, so it was (and still is to some extent) considered taboo for Africa.
Now, enter the world of Premium bullets. Old-school efforts like the Nosler Partition were designed to expand but also to hold together for adequate penetration. As a result, somewhat lighter bullets launched faster (to satisfy the American School) could be reliably depended upon to penetrate like their heavier brethren, all the while retaining some 60% of their weight. For example, a 180gr, .308-cal bullet was now as dependable as an older, 200gr version, giving a bit more speed, a little less kick, the same penetration and reliable expansion. Both schools were happy.
Fast forward again to the Barnes TSX (I'm skipping the X-Bullet because it had some accuracy issues that many will not forget....I like to think of it as a "prototype" of today's better versions). Now we have a bullet that will give all the above, but will retain nearly 100% of its weight, allowing much lighter bullets to penetrate every bit as good or better than the heaviest bullets of old. If we use our 30-cal example, we now know a 150gr TSX fired from a .308 Win can be expected to easily penetrate as far as a 180gr cap & core bullet fired from a .30-06. If push came to shove, I'd even bet a 130gr TSX would do it, too.
This has given rise to a modern dichotomy that has caused consternation in both Schools of thought. While the Americans have always liked velocity, there has also been a sizeable minority who follow the African School (or, the Elmer Keith School, if you will) and put their faith in heavy bullets. Ditto the Africans, who learned from the Yanks showing up there on safari that their flat-shooting powerhouses launching heavy bullets at high velocities were a good thing for bringing back repeat business.
Since the two Schools have now considerably overlapped, it seems neither is completely ready to accept this next phase in the evolution of big game bullet design. The velocity hounds like the fact the 130gr bullet can be launched over 3,000 fps from a .308, but they also like the fact that a 180gr bullet can be launched at those speeds from some of the .300 magnums quite a bit better. And for the most part, the Africans still hold light bullets in the same esteem as they do hyenas and baboons.
Ironically, it has been a few African PHs I've been corresponding with who have brought this discussion to the forefront of my mind. I'm in the early stages of planning a plains game safari and was asking about what rifle/cartridge combinations might work for a guy with a bad shooting shoulder. I told all I was looking at the .270 Win, 7mm-08 Rem and .308 Win., all for shooting plains game up to gemsbok, kudu and zebra in size. One came back with, "Go with a .270 Win shooting 130gr TSXs!" Another, "My loaner gun is a .308 Win shooting 130gr TTSXs." The third, "Any of the three will do just fine. I'd use 120gr TSXs in the 7-08, 130gr TSXs in the .270 and 150gr TTSXs in the .308."
To a man, each said the lighter TSX bullets gave equal or greater penetration...even when shot out of these mild rounds...than the heaviest old-style bullets, even when shot from big magnums. They said they had hundreds of dead animals of all sizes to prove it, and they agreed the lower recoil and handier rifles these mild cartridge/tough bullet combos could be made up on improved their clients' shooting and ability to reliably collect game.
My premise: The TSX and TTSX have changed the game for good. We can now use mild cartridges to launch light bullets at good velocity (let's use the 120 TSX fired from the 7mm-08 at 3000 fps) to provide the trajectory and penetration of much larger cartridges firing heavier bullets with increased powder charges and increased recoil. Let's use the 7mm Rem Mag firing 175gr c&C bullets as the comparison. Same velocity, same penetration. The heavy bullet will fly flatter past 300 yards, but the vast majority of game is shot well within that range. The 7-08�s recoil is about 13 ft. lbs. the 7RM about 23 ft lbs. Which would you rather shoot and practice with?
Of course, the TSX advantage also applies to the bigger cartridges, too. Their advantages become even greater when they can fire heavier TSXs at high velocities...so I don�t want to go there at this point. All I�m asking is, are, for the most part, the big magnums becoming moot for general big game hunting because of the advancements in bullet technology? I realize that the long range shooter will still want more powder and heavier bullets for their special needs, but for hunters inside of 400 yards, given equal penetration, are we better off shooting a 7mm-08 and 120gr TSXs than we are a 7mm Rem Mag and 175gr c&c bullets?
Great post Seattle.....totally agree with your comments.
Being new to the "fire," I think your thoughts have been echoed by many of the other members, but none have expressed their opinion quite as well.
After listening to many experienced hunters, it certainly sounds like the magnums aren't necessary and offer very little advantage on any nondangerous game with the newest technology bullets.
The recoil of magnums effects people MUCH more than anyone is willing to admit.
My favorite quote is "it kicks like a mule at the bench but I never notice it when hunting." As if that were a good thing.
No doubt, TSX are good for larger game. For deer sized game, cup n core is fine with me. They kill just as fast for faster and are a lot cheaper.....but I only shoot non magnum calibers.
It's too bad the TSX comes with a couple downsides because the upside is huge. Penetration isn't everything.
If I was trying to make a small cartridge "bigger" I'd look no further. Haven't really felt that itch yet, but maybe someday... Right now I'm more interested in optimizing "normal" cartridges and I don't typically see the TSX as being the best for that. I am about to order another box of 8mm 180's though. Suckers do SHOOT.
"I'd like to divide this discussion into two schools of thought: The American School, where velocity is King, and the African School, where penetration rules the day."
That is no longer the case. While there are still a couple of die-hard subscribers to that theory based on antiquated cup and core bullets, that is changing. The TSX/TTSXs are gaining geometric popularity in Africa among PHs. All else being equal, a 180gr TSX@ 3000 plus will outperform a 220gr cup and core @ 2500. Your basic premise is sound and I agree with it. jorge
This lines up with my view and experiences as well. I am glad to have had a hand in helping to change the views of a couple of PH's with my 300RUM and TSX's over several seasons.
Short answer to the original question: whether in Africa or Alaska or the continental US the game has ABSOLUTELY been changed - for the better and by a lot - by the TSX and TTSX bullets.
The TSX has been a game changer. Smaller caliber rifles are being used to reliably take big game with very light bullets.
You could argue that the Partition will do the same thing, but for whatever reason, the Partition did not launch the current trend of using small caliber rifles with light bullets to pole ax big game.
The TSX has been a game changer. Smaller caliber rifles are being used to reliably take big game with very light bullets.
You could argue that the Partition will do the same thing, but for whatever reason, the Partition did not launch the current trend of using small caliber rifles with light bullets to pole ax big game.
Hmmm...Won't argue about TSX's changing the game BUT...Steve Timm has poleaxed lots of big game with light for caliber bullets, including the old ballistic tips.
At least thats the impression I got, and I'm sure there are numerous others.
The TSX were very accurate in every rifle I tried them in, but due to a bad experience with an XLC, I could never bring myself to use them on live game.
The MRX and later the TTSX are a different story. Still very accurate in all rifles I've tried them in, but my concerns about expansion went away. One antelope made it 25 yards after being hit with a 100g TTSX from my Roberts, but every other antelope and deer we've shot has dropped straight down. Penetration has been excellent, too, as expected.
I compromised the schools, and my PH agreed with me on the hunt results. 185TSX gr at 2900 from a 338 wm. I collected only one bullet from 6 plains game animsls. The rest were pass throughs,
One animal was shot with a 165grTSX at 2800 30-06. I don't have that bullet as it was also a pass through. My PH wanted to buy my 30-06 rounds from me as they shot very well in his rifle. I left 50 first time loaded rounds with him as a gift
Randy
Good compromise of the two Schools. The 185gr TSX out of the .338 Win Mag is a very light bullet but as you've shown, it's a terrific killer. I'd probably have opted for the 210gr in that round to take advantage of all the extra powder capacity, but that 185gr is sure a great performer on game.
I also may have opted for the 150gr TSX out of the .30-06, but again, absolutely no penalty for using the 165gr TSX. My thought is there's isn't much you couldn't kill using that 165gr load.....
The TSX has been a game changer. Smaller caliber rifles are being used to reliably take big game with very light bullets.
You could argue that the Partition will do the same thing, but for whatever reason, the Partition did not launch the current trend of using small caliber rifles with light bullets to pole ax big game.
The TSX did.
JM
The only argument I could make in favor of the TSX over the Partition is around weight retention. A 150gr, .308-cal TSX is very likely to weigh about 150gr if a guy is lucky enough to recover it from a dead animal. A 180gr Partition is likely to weigh about 125 - 135gr....tough to make a case for the Partition penetrating as well as the lighter bullet when the lighter bullet ends up heavier in the end.
I'm not saying that makes one better than the other, but gathering that type of empirical evidence sure makes it easier for a guy to accept that lighter bullets can do the job as well or better than heavier bullets of different construction.
I still prefer the 180 GR Partition for a 'one bullet for all game' in the 30-06..
The softer lead front will expand quickly even in the lightest game, such as Antelope, but the solid rear section will continue to plow through bone and muscle in Elk, Moose, Bear and other large game.
I don't know how much farther Bullit Mfgrs can go as there are so many new and improved versions which continually seem to pop up..Barnes IMO has only two options leave well enough alone or come up with a new alloy that would give the same terminal performance with additional higher SD......My 2 cents....Flem
I still prefer the 180 GR Partition for a 'one bullet for all game' in the 30-06..
The softer lead front will expand quickly even in the lightest game, such as Antelope, but the solid rear section will continue to plow through bone and muscle in Elk, Moose, Bear and other large game.
OLDFENDERGUY:
DON'T KNOW HOW THIS REPLY OF MINE ENDED UP ISIDE OF THE QUOTE FROM YOU BUT AM ADDIN THIS LINE INI THE EDIT MODE TO SEPARATE YOUR QUOTE FROM MY REPLY.....
You are obviously correct on how reliably the PArtition performs and works on game, but the TTSX's also expand quickly and reliably on very light game, easily the equal of the partition in that regard, but then have the benefit of still weighing in at the original starting wieght thus providing superior momentum and penetration. The expanded bullet profile with gaps between the petals also adds to the superior penetration which is why a 150gr 30 cal TTSX will, in every instance, out perform a 180 Partition from the same rifle. I have used the TSX and TTSX on game as small as varmints and the VERY small and light antelopes of Africa and they are very reliable expanders and quick killers of these. My DVD cameraman completely eviscerated a klipspringer with a 30 cal version. Good thing he (Deliberatly) aimed for the guts or there would not have been a 1/2 body or shoulder mount to use. DRT / Bangflop. Did not even wiggle. MY African hunting DVD shows several TSX bangflops on plains game and one on a Cape Buff.
as far as hunting in the united states is concerned, i fail to see any significant change in hunting as a result of the barnes tsx or ttsx. they are just another bullet now available to the shooter. thankfully they are offered in factory loads, or they would be even less known.
we tend to think all hunters are like those that visit this board, when if fact the vast majority just drop by their local bullet store or wmt and grab a box before the season starts. and price drives the train!
i think we all agree that the top selling factory loads (by a very wide margin) are rem express core-lokt or some win/fed bargain offering. that has been true for many years and i can see no change on the horizon (and i'll bet ammo sales stats support this). with costs of everything (ammo) going up, and numbers of hunters (those buying hunting licenses) going down, unless lead is banned in hunting, lead core bullets will always be king simply because they are cheaper, and they work. not a slam on barnes bullets, just an observation. ymmv.
Still don't know why anyone thinks they need a mono for anything in the lower 48. What a waste of money...especially on anything smaller than an elk. Even then, i have seen more elk killed with plain Jane factory corelokts than anything else.
How many elk have you killed? (in real life, not on the internet)
Ask him about moose or bears. I can answer the Elk question for ya if you like. A couple of truckloads anyway...... several states involved.
No one is arguing that cup and core don't still work like they used to, just like flathead straight six carbourated motors still work just like they used to.....
Not to speak in a demeaning way of the TSX, as it's my favorite in my .458WM in it's 350-grain format. It transforms the .458WM into a long-range BIG GAME getter with reasonable recoil.
However, if we're speaking of closer range hunting in the thick stuff, I've found NOTHING beats my .45-70 with relatively cheap flat-nosed, heavy-weight lead-core or hardcast, wide-meplat bullets for bear.
Even without a CNS hit, they drop where hit and stay there. Just my experience.
So, What about this stile bullet in an expandable big bore.
I know you are talking about the trend to "smaller is better" but some of us will never get it.
Not exactly "smaller is better." More like "smaller is now more capable than ever before." And "smaller," no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves differently, does allow at least for the possibility of better shot placement.
This fall I hit a bear with a CNS mid brain shot, and he went down immediately. He did the chicken with his head cut off routine laying on his side but legs running full bore. His body went through a ten foot circle stopping almost exactly where he first fell. That was a first for me. He was shot with a 165 tsx 3006 at 75 yds. What bullet that hit him would have made no difference to the efffecy of the shot, but I knew the accuracy was there to make the shot.
Randy shooting Barnes since the X bullet first came out.
Seattlesetters: Excellent post and I agree with the premise.
Thanks to a pal(who posts on here) who sends various 130 gr 270 bullets to his African PH for use by he and his friends on various plains game, I get copied on the emails as these pro's comment on the bullets performance.
The two odds on favorites are the Barness TTSX and the Swift Aframe.They say the Barnes exits more frequently,which makes sense because the Swift opens to a wider frontal area,frequently gets stuck against rubbery off side hide.I expect this is a function of impact velocity.
In any event they have good things to say about both bullets,because they do not fragment,or break up, and both penetrate dependably.
They have less stellar comments about certain other bullets, popular on here,which do fragment,and say "Send no more!"
I would, however, gently contest those who think this revolution is a recent phenomenom....it has existed as far back as the introduction of the Nosler Partition(far as I know),which gave the same results back in an era before many on here were born.And these bullets were, and have been, used in smaller calibers to succesfully take a great many animals normally considered "out of their class". I'll be the first to admit that the curent Barnes are a harder, tougher bullet than the NPT, but that did not prevent the NPT from being very effective in this role.
Prominent folks like Warren Page,Les Bowman,JOC,John Jobson,and a host of international BG hunters,and Everyday Joes, were successfully using NPT's to kill everything from elk to large African plains game in 270's, 280's and 7mags...Bob Chatfield Taylor used a 7mag on a very large Alaskan brown bear with the 175 NPT;Elgin Gates used 180's and 200's on Cape Buffalo and elephant,and many Alaskan Browns have been killed with 300 mags so loaded.Little old 125, 130,and 140 gr bullets from 6.5's 270's and 7mm's were rolling everything from pronghorn to Alaskan Yukon moose,eland, and everything between.....all this since the 40's,50's and 60's and continuing through today.I recall jack O'Connor and his wife shooting 7x57's with 140 Partitions to kill a bunch of African stuff in the 70's.
I have old pals, stil alive, who rolled a goodly number of Alaskan Yukon moose and grizzlies and whatnot with 130 gr Partitions from 270's back in the late 60's and 70's.
The trend continued with the intoduction of the Bitterroot Bonded Core bullet in the mid 60's,bringing heavy jackets and bonding to the game;and the ability to withstand very high impact velocities without breaking up...from what I can see it is less likely to shed its petals than a Barnes under heavy impact and is every bit as tough,and fully as effective,although penetration may be a bit less at close range due to wider expansion...as velocity falls off,they expand reliably and tend to exit,behaving much like an X in that regard, from what I can tell....
The BBC flushed out such worthy items as the Swift Aframe and Jack Carters TBBC, both excellent bullets gaining traction as a result of the small production availability of the BBC's,and both have had a great reputation which continues through today(federal sorta snafued the TBBC by abandoning the traditional material from which it was made,and substituted guilding metal and animony cores, for the pure copper and lead of the original.....not all bullet material is equal.
The Barnes is very significant simply because it is the first to be "lead free",opens to a narrower frontal area and seems to blow the petals under high impact velocity,so penetrates a bit deeper on average;none of this keeps it from being very effective.
It's apparent that the Barnes is another step in the evolution of the lighter bullet/high velocity/deeper penetration equation that allows the use of smaller cartridges against larger game,but it is hardly the first chapter.....the concept has been going on for a long time now.Those old enough to remember watched a lot of this happen.
Now, enter the world of Premium bullets. Old-school efforts like the Nosler Partition were designed to expand but also to hold together for adequate penetration. As a result, somewhat lighter bullets launched faster (to satisfy the American School) could be reliably depended upon to penetrate like their heavier brethren, all the while retaining some 60% of their weight. For example, a 180gr, .308-cal bullet was now as dependable as an older, 200gr version, giving a bit more speed, a little less kick, the same penetration and reliable expansion. Both schools were happy.
Good points, Bob. I agree with you on all counts and believe, as you do, it was the Nosler Partition that started the revolution.
I did give a cursory mention to the NP (see above) as the one that started it all, but perhaps I didn't give it its complete due. The darn post was getting so long I had to cut somewhere!
So, What about this stile bullet in an expandable big bore.
I know you are talking about the trend to "smaller is better" but some of us will never get it.
Not exactly "smaller is better." More like "smaller is now more capable than ever before." And "smaller," no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves differently, does allow at least for the possibility of better shot placement.
I think you nailed it there with the smaller is more capable thought, especially at reasonable ranges, say less than 400 yds. One thing to keep in mind as you think about a longer shot is minimum velocity for your bullet to work. As well as being tough, a TTSX has the slowest recommended minimum velocity of 1800 fps for mono bullets. You should know when your bullet crosses that line and consider that a max range. As you look at longer ranges the light bullets loose steam pretty fast and the mid weight TTSX bullets with their higher BC can add some serious range to your current gun.
For instance, my .30-06 is a serious 700 yd deer gun. Its loaded with a 165gr TTSX to 2900 fps. At that long its still doing 1800 fps and carrying 1200 foot pounds. I am pretty sure 20 years ago you couldn't load a hunting bullet in a .300 Win that carried those kind of numbers at 700 yds. So yes the game has changed. And its not the gun, or the powder, its the bullet that changed.
As another example, my 7 WBY is now nearly obsolete sitting next to my re-energized .30-06. 25 years ago, that wasn't the case. Say pre- rangefinder days most of us were pretty much restricted to "point blank" range (PBR). So once you got to 8 or so inches of drop that was pretty much your effective range. I always felt once you were shooting at ranges where you were guessing the range and then holding off the animal that was too far, at least for me. So 25 years ago when I bought my 7 WBY the PBR was around 400 yds, and for a .30-06 it was around 300 yds (using round numbers here). That was a 25% gain, and made owning a WBY worth it. Today loading my 7 WBY to 3200 fps with a 150gr TTSX, I get to right around 750 yds, and I get to 700 yds with my .30-06. Arguably such a minor difference at such a long distance, it just doesn't matter. In fact to gain just 100 yds over my .30-06, I need to launch a 210 gr TTSX out of my .338 win at 2900 fps. Now that's only a 14% increase in effective range going from a .30-06 to a .338 win.
Some say well my RUM or similar.....does 3400 fps......And to me the difference it makes is beyond yardages I can shoot. If my rangefinder, calibrated turret or ballistic reticle, and my guns with new sleek and tough bullets get me to 700 or even 800 yds that's as far as I EVER will feel comfortable shooting game and only under extraordinary conditions. I know there are better shots out there than me, but that's as far as I can go. And now with these bullets even a .30-06 has a greater range than the guy pulling the trigger. So yes the game has changed.
When I'm working up load(s) for a rifle I try to be rational about all aspect of the thing. What are a given bullets strengths, weaknesses, and what's my intended use for the thing.
To my way of looking at it, for most purposes the decision tree starts with accuracy. That's gotta be there. The old X bullets gave me fits (wish I could have THAT money back!) but everything I've tried TSX's in has liked them...
Next is penetration. It MUST be at least "adequate" for the quarry. For this reason the truly fragile bullets have not interested me. On deer I have found every bullet I've tried (around 10 of them) to be adequate. They've all exited or penetrated lengthwise.
If penetration is adequate I look at other factors, ballistic coefficient and price and availabilty without special-ordering being among them.
This process has rarely led me towards settling on the TSX, with one exception, and that's my .325 BLR, which is my dark timber elk rifle. I can't think of a better bullet for that rifle and that mission.
The other possibility I see in my safe are the 165-TTSX for my 30-06; it has a BC that matches the 165-NBT and would be a real option for elk. And, if I could get my daughter into the elk woods, she'd be carrying my 7-08 and a 120 or 140-gn TSX makes a ton of sense for her shorter-range, recoil-sensitive, large-animal needs.
That's about it though. In general the TSX seems a bit gimmicky to me; useful for Dino-sizing small cartridges but in general, in America, a solution in search of a problem.
So, What about this stile bullet in an expandable big bore.
I know you are talking about the trend to "smaller is better" but some of us will never get it.
Not exactly "smaller is better." More like "smaller is now more capable than ever before." And "smaller," no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves differently, does allow at least for the possibility of better shot placement.
I think you nailed it there with the smaller is more capable thought, especially at reasonable ranges, say less than 400 yds. One thing to keep in mind as you think about a longer shot is minimum velocity for your bullet to work. As well as being tough, a TTSX has the slowest recommended minimum velocity of 1800 fps for mono bullets. You should know when your bullet crosses that line and consider that a max range. As you look at longer ranges the light bullets loose steam pretty fast and the mid weight TTSX bullets with their higher BC can add some serious range to your current gun.
Agreed. In my chosen 7mm-08, the difference in velocity between the lighter 120gr TTSX and the better BC 140gr version doesn't become apparent until 500 yards. The heavier bullet catches up right at 400 yards, and both peter out and start to finally drop below our threshold of 1800 fps at 500 yards. However, out to 500 yards, I can expect great performance out of either to that maximum range.
This is fine by me, as 400 yards is about my limit, and that'd have to be a perfect set-up for me to even think of taking that shot.
Lots of reports and anecdotal evidence has me to thinking that big game hunting, as it relates to rifle, cartridge and bullet choice especially, has changed dramatically over the past few years.
As I said on here 4-5 years ago--"This ain't your father's 30-06 anymore" Premium bullets hae changed the game.
But there are some lead core bullets that do as well as the monolithics. But then again, regulation may render that moot........
IMHO, the TSX makes today's .223 = yesterday's .243, today's .243 = yesterday's .25-06, today's .25-06 = yesterday's .270 Win, today's .270 Win = yesterday's 7mm Rem Mag, today's 7mm RM = yesterday's .300 Win Mag and so on and so forth.
But......the Partition and a few other lead core bullets have done the same. I realize the NPT has been around for a long time, but it has continually improved over the decades, and the whole "premium" bullet thing was catching on even before Randy Brooks introduced the X-Bullet.
More game were Killed with those poor cup and core bullets than will ever be taking with what ever designer bullet they come up with these days. Sure the Barnes All Copper Bullet made 22 Centerfire cartridges like the 223 and 22-250 reliable deer getters if you can shoot. And yea and makes the old standards better for some things. Its Feb and there is nothing to do,so we make up things to do like this thread. Oh well, The real game changer didn't come with the latest and greatest from Barnes, the game changer was Smokeless powder, the self contained cartridge case and the copper jacketed bullet. And it was not all that long ago either.
Game changer? Nope... the Partition did that. It's a more consistent opener from close up to far away. I've personally seen enough problems with the X, TSX, TTSX and Failsafe opening to avoid them in the future.
At the end of the day it's a design that requires a tiny air cavity to initiate expansion... because of that it's more prone to not opening than a bullet like the Partition.
I think the X-esque bullets are fine when they work (which is probably 95% of the time), but they fail to expand far more than other bullets that are jacketed with a lead core.
And they're damned expensive.
Put me in the non-koolaid drinking camp... killing stuff just isn't that hard, but guys do love to pull bullets out of dead animals that look like they were from a Madision Avenue Ad Agency's photo shoot...
Interesting post for the fact about every ten years there's a new nirvana and monkey see monkey do bullet that hits the scene, namely the X, TSX, TTSX. (I've was on the band wagon beginning in the early 90's.)
Barnes has had to change their composition every so often to make the orignal X work. Blue goop and cutting bands in the side of the bullet to name a couple. Not to mention that Randy Brooks buys copper on the open market that can not and has not been reliable in it's composition. This is why there have been so complaints of pencil throughs and shattered bullets on big game. Now, this is not an opinion, this was admitted by Randy Brooks in a Handloader article written by Dave Scovil just a few years ago. Not to mention Randy is no expert in metallurgy to make consistent copper buys.
Quote
Old-school efforts like the Nosler Partition were designed to expand but also to hold together for adequate penetration.
First of all, The term "old school" could or should be applied to Barnes bullets they are actually older than the Nosler Partition.
According to Jack Oconnor,
Back in the war years of the 1940s lead was at a premium and Fred Barnes the founder of Barnes bullets had a rough go of procuring lead for his bullets due to the war. He turned to an alternative, copper. During WW2 Fred made all copper bullets. Oconnor was not all that impressed with them and stated so. After the war Fred went back to making bullets with lead.
Later, the Nosler Partition came out in the 50's and was designed not so much to expand but to lose it's nose in fragmentation, to cause massive tissue damage while the base of the bullet penetrated, MORE than adequate I might add. 60 years later it's still the highly successful bench mark that all other bullets measure up to.
Decades later,
Fred sells his bullet making business to Randy Brooks. Randy now claims that it was his idea of making all copper bullets and produces the X bullet.
Sure Randy whatever you say.
I'll add that many hunters are satisfied with Barnes bullets. I'm happy for them if that is what works for them. We all enjoy hunting differently!
Quote
I'd like to divide this discussion into two schools of thought: The American School, where velocity is King, and the African School, where penetration rules the day.
In regards to Barnes bullets this is a real oxymoron as it takes speed to make them work.
Hunting here in NA my ranges are generally longer than what would be in Africa. I need, and I really do, a higher BC bullet. Barnes bullets fail miserably in this area.
Bottom line, I can take a 708 shooting a high BC bonded bullet and match the guy shooting a 7 mag loaded with Barnes bullets at extended ranges.
My impact velocity to open the bullet up properly will allow me to use a smaller, less powder capacity case than if I used a Barnes in a magnum case.
So, point is, Barnes is NOT the game changer and end all. Though they have contributed nicely to the sport.
Put me in the non-koolaid drinking camp... killing stuff just isn't that hard, but guys do love to pull bullets out of dead animals that look like they were from a Madision Avenue Ad Agency's photo shoot...
I couldn't have said it better.
I'll add that it doesn't take a $1.00 bullet to simply kill a deer.
... I'll add that it doesn't take a $1.00 bullet to simply kill a deer.
In fact, I'd rather use a cup and core.
You are right that it doesn�t take a $1 bullet to kill a deer. That said, the only hunting load I�ve worked up that wasn�t done primarily with elk in mind was the .30-06/150g AccuBond load my nephews used on antelope last fall and I later used to take my elk in November. Using the same loads has its advantages, especially when you hunt both species in the same season.
On the other hand, while not needed, I�ve found North Fork, MRX/TTSX, Trophy Bonded, AccuBond and Grand Slam bullets kill deer and antelope very, very well. Given the advantages of using a common load, I can�t come up with a persuasive reason not to use them.
I've never paid a $1 a bullet for Barnes, course all that talk is funny from a bunch of guys that ain't hunting with a pawn shop Savage.
Jesus H. Christ, even if you all killed 50 big game animals a year with your $1 a bullet, it would take 30 years for it to equal the cost of one Kimber with a scope on board.
I've never paid a $1 a bullet for Barnes, course all that talk is funny from a bunch of guys that ain't hunting with a pawn shop Savage.
Jesus H. Christ, even if you all killed 50 big game animals a year with your $1 a bullet, it would take 30 years for it to equal the cost of one Kimber with a scope on board.
Damn funny stuff.
The Kimber is still in my hands after the shot, and retains it's value. The bullet not so much.
Not understanding the difference is damn funny stuff.
For me, Barnes have killed well. I've seen that with my own eyes and it does give me some confidence knowing what is going happen before I pull the trigger. I also really like how my less than perfect shots don't result in a huge mess, like they do with tipped bombs.
But, they are getting left behind the BC race. When looking at bullet choices, I'm moving towards bullets with better hang time.
That being said, when I'm hunting bears of all colors, I'll have Barnes. Not because I think I'll need them, but because they make stuff hit the ground rather quickly.
I've never paid a $1 a bullet for Barnes, course all that talk is funny from a bunch of guys that ain't hunting with a pawn shop Savage.
Jesus H. Christ, even if you all killed 50 big game animals a year with your $1 a bullet, it would take 30 years for it to equal the cost of one Kimber with a scope on board.
Damn funny stuff.
The Kimber is still in my hands after the shot, and retains it's value. The bullet not so much.
Not understanding the difference is damn funny stuff.
Do people really not buy Barnes because of the cost? I spent $34 for a box of Barnes TTSX's for 30-06. Took 7 to have a load. Killed two bucks after that, in 2 shots. Still have 41 loaded rounds left. Those will probably last me another 10 years, given I don't plink with that rifle and I'll probably grab it once or twice a year.
I just spent the evening loading up s2's. I'm just hoping I can get them to shoot. Lord knows I have enough powder on hand to try them all.
I'm thinking of an 150gr S2 for monster bull moose out of my 280. I'll also have 3 black bear tags, 10 wolf tags, and 1 griz tag in my pocket. Area has very good black bear population, we'll probably see a griz, and I'm hoping for a pack of wolves to run by..
I've never paid a $1 a bullet for Barnes, course all that talk is funny from a bunch of guys that ain't hunting with a pawn shop Savage.
Jesus H. Christ, even if you all killed 50 big game animals a year with your $1 a bullet, it would take 30 years for it to equal the cost of one Kimber with a scope on board.
Damn funny stuff.
In 2010 I killed antelope with a .257� 100g TTSX ($0.57) and a 6.5mm 130g Scirocco II ($0.52), plus an elk with a .308� 150g Nosler AccuBond ($0.47). Although the elk was dead when I got to it, it was twitching as I cut the straps out so I put a second round through its head from 10 feet. (Didn�t help any.) By contrast I could have used Remington Core-Lokt PSP bullets at $0.25 for a .257� 100g, $0.25 for a 6.5mm 140g and $0.21 for a .308� 150g.
That totals out to $2.03 for the four bullets I used, versus $0.92 had I used Core-Lokts. Yup, I could have saved a whole $1.11 over three hunts spanning 11 days in the field.
Tonight I took my wife out for dinner and had a glass of house Merlot. With annual savings of $1.11 in bullet costs I would soon have enough to pay for the glass of wine � �soon� as in about 6 years from now...
One thing that always intrigues me is the number of people who claim premium bullets are too expensive but smoke a pack or two of cigarettes every day. In some states the $1.11 I could have saved would not even cover the taxes on a single pack.
Let�s see...
4x4 Truck Trailer Insurance for both License plates for both Maintenance for both Barn to house them Food Fuel Firearms Hunting licenses Miscellaneous ============= $$BIG$$
An extra $1.11 for bullet costs over three hunting trips? Not so much...
[Note: All prices are from Midway�s site a few minutes ago.]
I've likely killed [bleep] with about every bullet out there. If there is a better bullet than the Barnes for killing stuff with small caliber/speedy cartridges, I'd be using it.
I could give two flips what someone likes/don't etc, when the 'need' comes up and especially the $1 a bullet argument, I only laugh.
On the narrow issue of "Does it take a premium Deep Penetrator to kill a deer?"....of course not.
Do things like the NPT and Barnes TTSX,etc. "help" small calibers?......Of course they do!
On the controversial issue of Premium bullet cost......."what" cost?
There is none worth mentioning. If you know what you're doing as a handloader, have a reliable rifle,and actually shoot at distance to confirm POI instead of reading bullistic tables, the pre season expenditure of Premiums is minimum(work up load with a cheap accurate bullet,shoot to establish zeroes, work back up with the premie,and check zero against the cheaper bullet.Do this at 200-400 yards. This ain't nuclear physics).
...and on a one or two species hunt in North America, if you use more than 1-5 of them.....then one of the above is lacking,or you had some really bad luck.That's $1-5 bucks...
You leave more than that for the cocktail waitress at the bar on the way in.....or in gas on the detour to pick up your pal.......
One 50 round box should get you through the whole process and the hunt....that's $50 bucks.....you're walking around with a scope costing $250 to $1000 or more;a rifle for $500 to as deep as your wallet will take you.....$500-$2000 in bins, rangefinder,boots, etc.....let's get real.
I would only add that for those for whom whatever X version seems perfected for what you hunt, you might as well lay in a good supply of those bullets. Two things seem to be a constant with them especially. They will be changed significantly in a fairly short while (and you will be forced to deal with a new product), and the price of copper seems to be heading into semi-precious metal territory.
what was inferior about my 220 grain core lokt on my moose in 30 06? killed him deader than hell along with jellied lungs and a ruined scapula? just wondering?
what was inferior about my 220 grain core lokt on my moose in 30 06? killed him deader than hell along with jellied lungs and a ruined scapula? just wondering?
Can't really come up with an answer as I see, and have, no issue with that. I will say you might want to be careful about favored bullet supplies as the X may have killed more good bullets than any other single bullet type has. That said; this coming from a repentant Barnes user- give me any hunting bullet and, assuming I get to choose a proper weight for the application at hand, will go and kill critters. Sometimes I think we'd like this to be more difficult that it is.
4x4 Truck Trailer Insurance for both License plates for both Maintenance for both Barn to house them Food Fuel Firearms Hunting licenses Miscellaneous
[/quote]
Cabin fever at its finest. Look at this incomplete list (we could add more)�all the ancillary costs, planning, practice, work outs, gifts for the wife, time away from kids �.. On a hunt everything comes down to the projectile doing its job�Killing.
I could care less about fashion statements, recovered pictures or making the �fan boys� happy with my decision at the gun shop. I have witnessed both bullets kill game but not in great enough numbers to personally feel I have the answer. I go with proven track records. The Nosler Partition has the pedigree�.The Barnes seems superb, BUT there is that buzzing little bit of doubt that comes into question about whether it will expand.
So, the question for me is which bullet is the most consistently lethal?
Like John Barsness I believe it's best to use inexpensive bullets on deer size game, and premium bullets on big game. By having them the same weight no scope adjustment is needed. Cup & core bullets are good for 95% of the game the average hunter will ever get to hunt. Of course if you're going to deer hunt with the .224s or .257s then you'll need expensive bullets.
So you're saying that all bullits the same weight shoot to the same POI and a new zero isn't necessary?? Well then most manufactures just as well throw out BC in their design concepts
I only get to kill a couple of deer a year. I put together rifles that will kill those deer as best I can within reasonable range. The thought of cheap assing it with the rifle, the scope or the ammo just does not compute for me. I started loading in '56 and have used some of the less than perfect offerings from virtually all bullet manufacturers, including Fred Barnes' crap in the copper tubing. I have never been allowed to, and never chosen to settle for anything less than the best I could do. I may not have been able to afford the rifles I would have liked to have at different points, or the glass I would like to have had to put on the rifles. But... I have always been bright enough to be able to realistically figure out what was worth paying for. I don't think I would waste a microsecond's worth of thought on the difference between a 30 cent bullet and a 60 cent bullet. When I get to put two of them into deer per year that amounts to just over half a dollar at the outside. Even if I use a whole box of bullets per year getting to the point of putting those two bullets into deer, it's still less than $20 difference.
In the half century I have been doing this, we right now today have the best bullets we have ever had. All of them are across the board better for what you use them for than any we have had the opportunity to use. The monometal bullets are superb big game killers. They penetrate exceptionally well, and exceptionally straight. Better than any other design. They fail less often than any other design, at least in my experience. They produce a good wound channel more consistently than any other design in my experience. They work just as well at ten yards or five hundred yards.
When the only down side of using monometals amounts to maybe $20 worst case over a year, and I get to poke holes in maybe two deer over that year, why in hell would I worry about that?
When I get to the point I would be willing to bet money on what caliber rifle poked a hole in a deer with a monometal bullet judging by the wound appearance I might be willing to listen to contrary opinions. For now, me myself I would much, much rather put a 53 grain TSX through Bambi than any 30 caliber cup and core. Deer size irrespective.
I believe it's best to use inexpensive bullets on deer size game, and premium bullets on big game. By having them the same weight no scope adjustment is needed.
What? Have you ever shot a gun? Or are you just kidding?
The assumption about the TSX/et al is that they're a vastly superior bullet... that assumption just ain't true. The DO fail to open, something far more rare with a lead core bullet. They also don't open very well below around 2,000 fps.
I think they're fantastic on truly large game coupled with a lot of velocity. I'm just not in the habit of hunting Brown Bears or Cape Buffalo. I honestly can't see the need for them on elk either.
Aside, shooting deer with them is pretty funny... a guy can do what he wants, but I find it damned funny that anyone thinks the average whitetail, black tail, et al requires more killing than most average C&C bullets provide for less than half the cost. It is a smart thing to shoot a lot with the bullet you hunt with.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy shooting Sierra's or Speer's into deer. Have never lost a deer shot with all manner of C&C bullets...
In fact my .30-06 will shoot several different weight bullets into the same hole at 100 yards. That's why I'll be deer hunting with it until I can't hunt anymore. I don't expect you to understand this. A good rifle isn't picky.
The assumption about the TSX/et al is that they're a vastly superior bullet... that assumption just ain't true. The DO fail to open, something far more rare with a lead core bullet. They also don't open very well below around 2,000 fps.
I think they're fantastic on truly large game coupled with a lot of velocity. I'm just not in the habit of hunting Brown Bears or Cape Buffalo. I honestly can't see the need for them on elk either.
Aside, shooting deer with them is pretty funny... a guy can do what he wants, but I find it damned funny that anyone thinks the average whitetail, black tail, et al requires more killing than most average C&C bullets provide for less than half the cost. It is a smart thing to shoot a lot with the bullet you hunt with.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy shooting Sierra's or Speer's into deer. Have never lost a deer shot with all manner of C&C bullets...
They DON'T fail to open, not in my experience and that of my pards and that's all I need.
They are GREAT in small calibers.
One don't need to shoot LOTS with the bullet they hunt, but whatever. Folks just need to shoot LOTS. Easy to match bullets with like BC etc, well for some anyways.
Again, do what makes you happy, I know damn sure I will and I appreciate you worrying about my financial future...
Ok Swampman,this may or may not be true with your 30-06 but you say "By having them the same weight no scope adjustment is needed" I just can't see this being true! A 150gr .308 bullet can have many ballistic coefficients. A Sierra Pro-Hunter Bullets 30 Caliber (308 Diameter) 150 Grain has a B.C. of 0.185 and the Swift Scirocco 2 Bullets 30 Caliber (308 Diameter) 150 Grain has a B.C. of 0.226
Makes a guy wonder how many pencil through un-opened and un-recovered... I know I've seen plenty of evidence over the years in various wound channels from X-esque bullets to assure me it happens enough that I've pretty much quit the genre...
In fact my .30-06 will shoot several different weight bullets into the same hole at 100 yards. That's why I'll be deer hunting with it until I can't hunt anymore. I don't expect you to understand this. A good rifle isn't picky.
Read "Pairing Big Game Loads" by John Barsness...Handloader Magazine August-Sept 2006. C&C bullets are superior on deer sized game.
That was written four years ago..look at the different design changes of the major manufactures since that was published!! I dare say for what it's worth thousands of Barnes users have come on line since with mostly very good results or they wouldn't be as popular.
The smaller calibers have benefited the most to spread the word as those of us that shoot Barnes know already.Saw first hand devastating kills this year with the 85 gr Tsx in 6mm and 243..very impressive.And the 22's as always being thought of as very marginal for deer size game are rewriting the thinking about what is and what is not...Flem
... The Nosler Partition has the pedigree�.The Barnes seems superb, BUT there is that buzzing little bit of doubt that comes into question about whether it will expand.
So, the question for me is which bullet is the most consistently lethal?
djb �
A bad experience with a 7mm 160g XLC on antelope left me unwilling to try TSX on game, even though the TSX were superbly accurate in every rifle I tried them in. Some of the pictures above validate my concerns.
When the tipped MRX and later the Tipped TSX came out my concerns about reliable expansion vanished. We�ve been using them on antelope and mule deer and so far the experience has been we see rapid expansion, deep penetration (front to back on a mulie) and most animals have gone straight down. The lone exception was an antelope that made it 25 yards after being hit with a 100g TTSX from my Roberts.
Can�t tell you which is the most consistently lethal, but the TTSX and MRX shoot better in my rifles than do the Partitions and so far they have provided the desired results.
They DON'T fail to open, not in my experience and that of my pards and that's all I need.
Here's a sample of un-opened X's, all from the 2009 hunting season, from me and my friends:
30 cal 150 TTSX - elk:
22 cal 53 TSX - antelope:
7mm 140 TSX - mule deer:
Each of those picture of unopened Barnes bullets clearly show bends. That bending is caused by the bullet going through sideways. Show me a cup and core that functions properly going sideways. Show me the first one that function properly, or even one that has some evidence of functioning any better than what you have.
The fact that the bullets were recovered and went sideways is some pretty compelling evidence of operator error. If you put them in straight they expand in my experience. I have yet to see one not expand that went in straight. I have yet to see less than a quarter sized hole into the chest. If it goes in straight and does not expand, the chances of recovering it are slim and none. Unless of course the operator error occurred at the loading bench.
They DON'T fail to open, not in my experience and that of my pards and that's all I need.
Here's a sample of un-opened X's, all from the 2009 hunting season, from me and my friends:
30 cal 150 TTSX - elk:
22 cal 53 TSX - antelope:
7mm 140 TSX - mule deer:
Each of those picture of unopened Barnes bullets clearly show bends. That bending is caused by the bullet going through sideways. Show me a cup and core that functions properly going sideways. Show me the first one that function properly, or even one that has some evidence of functioning any better than what you have.
Any pointed bullet that doesn't expand will destabilize and yaw/tumble as it penetrates through flesh.
Deer are so �easy� to kill that I�m not really concerned about the penciling thru. * Not advocating this* but a solid would do the job in about any centerfire with good placement. I have a nice 110 TTSX load for my 270 win and 53 TSX load for my 223 Rem that I have zero concerns about. It�s more on the big stuff that I worry. I only get one chance a year to hunt out west, and when an elk hunt is on the line I still feel more comfortable with a 150 Partition (270 Win) or a 286 Partition (9.3X62) simple due to the track record.
[/quote] Any pointed bullet that doesn't expand will destabilize and yaw/tumble as it penetrates through flesh.
While a bullet may destabilize and tumble, Stating that it will is either wishful thinking or just plain bullshit. Or maybe a fairy tale. Once a bullet expands it's stability is compromised a whole lot more than if it does not expand, and that holds true for marginally stabilised bullets or very well stabilized bullets. Expansion does nothing to improve stability and a lot to damage it.
Oops there you go.. your ignorance is showing again!! Might also add FYI Lots of us older dudes have been killin deer and speed goats with itsy bitsy 22's for many moons and concluded a 30/06 isn't the only deadly medicine out there!!
Any bullet can "fail" and I've seen a wide variety do so over a number of years. But it's one thing to see a common cup and core like an Interlock come apart. When they do, it's really not hard to say, "Well, I guess I should watch where I point them" or, "Perhaps I need to use a bit more weight". There's a certain amount of logic to what we can expect if you look at the results carefully. OTOH, when a bullet such as a Partition, A-Frame, or TSX does something other than work as advertised and therefore expected, it can be troubling and leave us wondering what happened. But when it happens more than once, especially in the relatively small samples most of us experience, then it can become an issue for one's confidence. I am a repentent Barnes user. I have drunk deeply from the well, and been seriously infatuated by what I've seen when they work as their manufacturer has intended. OTOH, my confidence has been shaken by what they have done on more than a couple of occasions. I suppose I fall into the "show me" category as many people seem to when it comes to bullet failures - and I don't mean on the internet. So, while seeing every detail of a failure of a hard metal bullet to expand might not be difficult to logically accept, what one expects based on marketing and previous experience can create a situation that plays on one's confidence in ways that aren't positive. If they give you confidence, use them. If at some point you lose that confidence, I won't need to say "I told you so."
Even with the naysayers - and they are few - in comparison to the converted - I noticed no "failure" pictures showing the newer TTSX design.
I suspect we won't be seeing any either.
The advantage of this new bullet design is,in my opinion, even bigger than most fans of the new bullets have stated.
I wouldn't even recommend hunting deer with a .22 caliber shooting cup and core bullets.
But now.shooting the all-copper designs - dozens of deer shot at all kinds of ranges with .22 caliber 53 grain monolithic bullets has taught me that the old rules have changed - and they have just changed a little - they've changed - in a big way.
Even with the naysayers - and they are few - in comparison to the converted - I noticed no "failure" pictures showing the newer TTSX design.
I suspect we won't be seeing any either.
I hope not. The tip is the answer to a problem that supposedly isn't a problem. Some people haven't experienced it, consequently they don't recognize it as such. I would hope that, for the many changes, the mono-copper bullets are finally arriving. They do seem to be improved. Not all of the changes, however, have always been "improvements" which have been desired by all customers. I hope the tipped bullets help to solve the fine line problem between a shape that expands well and reliably (at some expense to BC) and a shape which retains high speeds at longer distances (at the expense of good expansion).
The only TSX that gave me second thoughts was the 130 .277 TSX. It had a higher BC than the .284 120's and 140's, mainly do to the very narrow front half of the bullet. They corrected that with the 130TTSX. I had a few .277 holes going through shoulder blades, but I never had a buck move after the shot. I have a lot of confidence that a bullet that pencils through will still kill, if put in the right spot.
.277 130tsx and 140tsx. See now narrow the front half of the 130 is?
I have nothing against whatever bullet anyone wants to use, but I'll stick with the proven 180 GR Nosler Partition in my old 30-06.
The soft lead frontal area will expand at lower velocities or in light game or varmints, while the partition and rear section will plow through heavy muscle and bone, providing excellent penetration on the largest game.
Lower impact velocity and resulting expansion doesn't seem to be as much a concern with the Partition bullets as with the TSX and other such bullets.
But then again, I've also had excellent results with Federal Hot-Cor, Remington Core-Lokt, and other 'heavy for caliber' cup & core bullets.
Medium and large game aren't that difficult to kill with proper shot placement, but no bullet, no matter how 'premium' it might be will make up for poor shot placement.
As they say, each to their own, and that is why there are so many different bullet types for everyone to fuss over...
What is your opinion on the internal damage caused by the TTSX compared to lets say the Accubond with the same caliber and bullet weight?
I only ask because last year I shot a Colorado mule deer at 390 yds with my 280 AI using the 140 TTSX. Muzzle velocity is just under 3250 fps. First bullet hit mid ribs quartered foward that came to rest under the hide forward of the off shoulder.
Second bullet hit him as he was quatered away hard, broke 4 or 5 ribs and stayed on the same side coming to rest under the hide up by the neck. I am sure the angle more than the bullet was the issue here.
I found the deer in some heavy brush about about 50 yds from where he was hit. He got up and took off requiring a finisher. The last shoot was in the neck and that one exited.
I found the first two bullets and they were mushroomed perfectly. I was a little surprised the first one didn't exit but more surprised that the internals weren't more scrambled than they were. Lungs were centered but it didn't look like jello soup...
That's a fact and I'm not too worried about it.... I have found the TTSX to be really accurate in my rifles. Going to give that new .35 200 TTSX a run this year for fun. And probably the 120 in the Swede.
On the controversial issue of Premium bullet cost......."what" cost?
There is none worth mentioning. If you know what you're doing as a handloader, have a reliable rifle,and actually shoot at distance to confirm POI instead of reading bullistic tables, the pre season expenditure of Premiums is minimum(work up load with a cheap accurate bullet,shoot to establish zeroes, work back up with the premie,and check zero against the cheaper bullet.Do this at 200-400 yards. This ain't nuclear physics). . . .
This makes incredible sense. This rifle looney business is a mental disease. I say that, not in a negative way, rather, each of us has a mental concept of what is important to us and what makes us "feel good" about our hobby.
You guys have drunk the Kool-aid. Nobody should be hunting deer with a .22 caliber but hey not everyone is ethical.
You say that with a straight face, too, as if deer were hard to kill. Most times they are not. Nor are all deer the same size. I've seen dogs bigger than some deer.
A .22 is illegal for big game here in Colorado but I'm confident almost every animal Ive taken, including elk, would have fallen to a carefully placed .22-250 round.
OO: This is not hard to do....and Bitterroot users during the 70's, 80's learned to do this because the bullets were handmade,scarce and (for the times) expensive.You only got a max of 200 when a particular caliber was made,this due to limited production.
You did not stroll down to the gun store and get them....you ordered,and waited...just the way it was.
So you did not squander them....a ton of group shooting was indeed very rare,(although they were very accurate and grouped well).
But mostly,you worked up with a cheaper Sierra FB, or Partition,dropped down a couple grains with the BBC and came back "up".Mostly, you wound up the same place.
Properly assembled/bedded rifles with good barrels(mostly M70's with factory barrels or Kriegers)would put all three types in the same group...out to 400 yards.
Even today, I simply check zero with my Partition at 300,and hunt the BBC.....no need for more shooting than that to confirm.
You can do the same with Sierra's and Partitions;and even the Barnes 130 TSX,Swift Aframe have grouped with Sierra's from a couple of my rifles.
.277 130tsx and 140tsx. See now narrow the front half of the 130 is?
They made a real nice 150 .308 XFB similar in shape to the one on the right (but shorter, of course). So I ordered several more boxes, again from Midway. And the ones I got looked more like those on the left. And they didn't shoot worth a darn. Worse, they opened weakly. I do hope they get things worked out with their TTSX so that they can simply make minor refinements instead of the constant changes. I don't mind the cost of bullets even if they cost $1 each, when they do, as long as they work well consistently, and they can be counted on not to change from a practical hunting standpoint from one lot to the next.
The only TSX that gave me second thoughts was the 130 .277 TSX. It had a higher BC than the .284 120's and 140's, mainly do to the very narrow front half of the bullet. They corrected that with the 130TTSX. I had a few .277 holes going through shoulder blades, but I never had a buck move after the shot. I have a lot of confidence that a bullet that pencils through will still kill, if put in the right spot.
.277 130tsx and 140tsx. See now narrow the front half of the 130 is?
Dude...270? What do you expect? There is something inherently wrong with the caliber! Kidding aside, I love threads like this. It really shows who knows and who don't.
You guys have drunk the Kool-aid. Nobody should be hunting deer with a .22 caliber but hey not everyone is ethical.
Anyone who says that hunting deer with a 22 caliber TSX's is unethical - knows nothing about the subject, or has read to many old articles, doesn't understand the word "ethics" or has no experience with the matter in question.
Even with the naysayers - and they are few - in comparison to the converted - I noticed no "failure" pictures showing the newer TTSX design.
I suspect we won't be seeing any either.
The advantage of this new bullet design is,in my opinion, even bigger than most fans of the new bullets have stated.
I wouldn't even recommend hunting deer with a .22 caliber shooting cup and core bullets.
But now.shooting the all-copper designs - dozens of deer shot at all kinds of ranges with .22 caliber 53 grain monolithic bullets has taught me that the old rules have changed - and they have just changed a little - they've changed - in a big way.
BC,
Howdy!
I believe Brad's bent .30-cal bullet was a 165 TTSX, if memory serves.
CLEARLY, they (TSX's) fail to expand and default to FMJ performance fairly routinely; I mean right here on this thread the reports abound, even from the koolaid drinkers like Calvin, who reports .277 holes in shoulder blades.
There's things I like about the mono bullets and I appreciate all the R&D guys are doing and their field reports. I have loaded them for specific situations and will again, when the upside of the bullets trumps the downsides.
Generally speaking, 9 times out of 10, for this knucklehead at least, the upsides of the TSX/TTSX don't trump the obvious, proven downsides.
But I'm not kicking anyone's dog here. The bullet I default to (Accubond) certainly has it's downsides too. Since they've penetrated very well for me, though, and are a bit cheaper, often have a cheap drop-in practice bullet in the NBT, are easy to get, have often FAR superior BC's, and (the important part) provide adequate penetration with a devastating wound channel.... can't see one good reason to be sticking copper bullets 2 feet deep into the hill behind the animal.
Wow, so you haven't killed anything with a Barnes? Have you ever imagined killing something with a Barnes? What were the particulars of that imaginary hunt?
My .243 is going to be spitting out 85 grain TSXs for this deer season, and I am just as confident that they will do what needs to get done as I am in my .30-06 with 180 grain partitions. Big whoop. The .243 just happens to be lighter, and is plastic stocked (Micky on the way!), so it will get hauled more frequently, if I had to make a guess.
I think I hold a grudge against 'em going back 7-8 years ago when I was working up loads for my .358 with the X bullet. I spent significant money on the damn things, getting generally good groups BUT with the occasional head-scratcher of a flyer. Big time flyer I mean. But still, it was workable as a timber elk load, which was the whole idea.... so what happens? They discontinue it.
The fact they are always making big, significant, unannounced changes to their bulletsjust leaves me cold, too, like the ones Klik mentioned.
I'll be loading them again this year (8mm 180's or 200's) for one of my elk rifles but considering the above, the high documented failure rate, low BC, and way overpenetration <GRIN> I just keep passing on the koolaid intoxication that others can't resist.
Serious question from someone that knows nothing about Barnes bullets- Are the guys that bust shoulders getting a different opinion of TSXs and other mono bullets as compared to the lung shooters? Thanks
Steelhead, yea, I know you bust shoulders and was hoping you'd respond. In my own small experience, I have always tried to match bullet placement to the type of bullet being used. For example, before I learned that Ballistic Tips were bad bullets, iused them on deer and elk with no problem, I am a lung shooter most of the time.
I only ever had one BT 'fail' it it didn't open. That said, I found them too destructive for my liking when punching the running gear.
I still like a bullet that works when everything is wrong and can get to the goodies from any angle and bust bone. Things can go bad in a hurry, but you know that.
Another shoulder driller. Most everything my boys and I have shot through the shoulders with a TSX has dropped in it's tracks, or only gone a few steps.
Exception is a Red Stag my oldest son shot this past November with a .284 120gr. TSX
Stag ran for 30 yards.... although, probably half that distance was covered with his front half on the ground, and his rear legs plowing him along till he gave out.
I've only shot a handful of deer behind the shoulder with a TSX (.257 100gr.) They always made a mad dash, covering up to 50 -60 yards at most. Insides were always a mess. Chunky soup....
I only ever had one BT 'fail' it it didn't open. That said, I found them too destructive for my liking when punching the running gear.
I still like a bullet that works when everything is wrong and can get to the goodies from any angle and bust bone. Things can go bad in a hurry, but you know that.
If your prone to shooting in the arse, I am sure a Barnes is your huckleberry.
No bullet is infallible but there is a reason as to why it is becoming the bullet of choice for big game hunters everywhere. Last month at the Safari Club convention I spole with a gentleman who among his many hunts has taken all 23 species (?) of sheep world-wide. His bullet of choise? the TSX ot the TTSX. In Africa it is rapidly becoming the choice of Preofessional Hunters as well as clients. On a personal note the T/TTSXs are the most consistenly accurate bullet I've ever shot in more than ten calibers. My 257 Weatherby with 100gr TTSXs is incredibly accurate and kills them dead right there. I could go on. I don's dispute they have issues from time to time, but absolutely they've been a game changer and the marketplace reflects what their performance in the hunting fields produce.
I'm a "take the shot that I have" shooter. If I see something I like, that I've passed up a bunch of animals for, I don't wait for it to turn broadside. I shot my bear last year quartering towards me. He landed quartering towards me..(grin) X's have a funny way of making that happen.
I'm shooting 570g TSX's in my 500 Jeffery, just seems to be the best expanding bullet out there for my particular rifle. The diameter of the hollow point is huge and since it was developed for the 500 NE, it's designed to expand at a relatively low velocity.
For my 270, I'm a fan of the 150g Nosler Partition, because it penetrates and ALWAYS expands. My ideal bullet would be the original Partition bullet with the Woodleigh Weldcore bonding in a sleek boattail configuration. Open up and hold together like a Woodleigh, penetrate like a partition or A-Frame, tipped boattail with a ballistic coefficient of .500 would be nice too. Maybe if Swift took their A-Frame construction and married it with their Scirocco shape and front portion ...
If you always take a shoulder shot because you have to make sure your bullet will expand, it's not the bullet for me. Or if you have to wait for a broadside or quartering shot the same goes. A premium high velocity bullet should be able to do both at 15 yards and at 500 yards.
Shots at animals are presented in various ways,which is why I'm a bone shooter today,and a lung shooter tomorrow...
Bullets that handle both very nicely are not uncommon.....I can't imagine the Barnes is any sort of handicap on either shot,except maybe to the true LR hunters who require very high BC,of which I am not one...
I have seen nothing but very good accuracy from any I have tried....seems the expansion issues have abated since the TTSX came around.
The only thing I dislike about Barnes are their rapid ignorant followers that try to convince you that any other bullet is not as good for the game you are after. This thread is a good example. I love the argument "how many animals have you killed with barnes?". None, because hot cors, interlocks, cor-lokts, power points, ballistic tips and sierra's kill deer and hogs DRT.
I don't need a barnes tsx to hunt deer in East Texas. If I was going on an expensive hunt for larger game, I would invest in a "premium" bullet. It might be a TSX but an Accubond, Partition or A-Frame would do JUST as well.
The TSX is not a game changer. It's just another premium bullet that does it's job. Certainly not the only one out there.
I'm sure I'll get called a [bleep] by the Barnes worshippers.
The only thing I dislike about Barnes are their rapid ignorant followers that try to convince you that any other bullet is not as good for the game you are after. This thread is a good example. I love the argument "how many animals have you killed with barnes?". None, because hot cors, interlocks, cor-lokts, power points, ballistic tips and sierra's kill deer and hogs DRT.
I don't need a barnes tsx to hunt deer in East Texas. If I was going on an expensive hunt for larger game, I would invest in a "premium" bullet. It might be a TSX but an Accubond, Partition or A-Frame would do JUST as well.
The TSX is not a game changer. It's just another premium bullet that does it's job. Certainly not the only one out there.
I'm sure I'll get called a [bleep] by the Barnes worshippers.
Not me,I'm relatively new to Barnes,third season actually but I still like my Partitions in all calibers I shoot.Never liked to shoot cheap bullits especially on hunts!! With all the other high ticket investments in hunting these days a few extra bucks for premium bullits is a no brainer IMO...
Barnes, like many components that come along I give them a try for advantages over what I am presently using. Started with the X's and quickly stopped using them. TSX - killed a few head of game with them and they even improved accuracy, although slightly, in a couple of cartridges. Only recovered one TSX and that one barely expanded. Shot a Mule Deer buck, lung to lung, standing in a wash at 225 yards. While we were gutting the deer, the hunter with me said I may have found your bullet. I turned around and saw disturbed soil in the bank behind me. Sure enough.
When I shoot up my supply of TSX's I most likely will give the TTSX's a try, but in the accuracy department they too must compete with cup and core and Partitions going done the barrel of my rifles. In the reliable kill department, I have not seen any performance that would dramatically seperate the TSX's from the aforementioned bullets.
Are the Barnes bullets "Changing the Game for Good? Maybe in part of the game...and that would be in the ability to use lighter weight bullets to achieve the same results as a heavier bullet. Reducing recoil with a lighter bullet is always a good thing.
My fear is Barnes has the potential to change "the game" negatively. Shot placement. Due to the extraordinary hype surrounding the Barnes bullets, are hunters taking shots that they may not normally take in the past? I can recall in past years hunters were taking shots at big game with magnum cartridges that were at best risky. They become overconfident with the big firepower in their hands. The result was a lot of maimed and suffering big game animals.
Is this thought process going to become prevelant with Barnes users?
I knew a guy once that was with at least 10 high class hookers a week, I'd still not call him playboy though.
Provincialism is what causes the greatest number of disagreements on the Fire methinks. If you don't know, you don't know. Some folks just can't get past the idea that the rest of the world ain't East Texas, or Northern Michigan.
i personally don't think theres any way hunting bullets will have lead in them in 25 years. Therefore I do applaud the fact that Barnes did development of this style bullet. When other bullet manufactorers get the impetuous to jump into the monometal market in a large way, will these same concerns about "penciling through"still be there? I believe so. As Calvin stated, if it's the animal I want I take the shot - thus the use of premium bullets.(don't get your panties in a bunch second guessing where I've shot em) As with all bullets,some shots just can't be explained. Some animals die fast some slow with the same shot placement. I haven't used the TSX's yet, but I bought my first box. I'll load them and use them, unless there is a great discrepency with there on game performance, actually something more than a fractional percentage of failure, I'll not bad moutth them any more than the penciled thru, NPT, or the blown up NBT's i've seen. I do have a tendency to like a bullet who's supposed failure is complete penetration, not a surface explosion.
Interesting to note that as more African PH's have become exposed to Barnes bullets over the past several years, they are by and large enthusiastically beating that drum...
Remember, we're talking about men (our very own JJHack for one) that are exposed and intimately involved with the killing of literally hundreds of game animals (big and small) every year in various field conditions, angles, and distances.
Interesting to note that as more African PH's have become exposed to Barnes bullets over the past several years, they are by and large enthusiastically beating that drum...
Remember, we're talking about men (our very own JJHack for one) that are exposed and intimately involved with the killing of literally hundreds of game animals (big and small) every year in various field conditions, angles, and distances.
Speaks volumes....
Speaks volumes as to the mechanics of guiding people hunting in Africa, certainly.
Read what JJHack says and you'll find many references to the fact that most of the critters his people shoot are in large herds, in dusty conditions. He puts a HUGE premium on a reliable exit wound, less of one on killing quickly. In fact, he has stated that the bonded bullets kill noticeably quicker.
He's also been involved on the 7-08 for plains game thread, where he talks about how 7mm bullets don't provide near the blood trail as .30 cal bullets...
I've said it a dozen times but I'll say it again. If penetration is a problem, then the mono's appear to be a great solution. Since I've not seen the problem- even on big animals like elk- I'm not real inclined to run an expensive, slower-killing, low-BC bullet that has expansion "issues" to fix a problem that I haven't seen exist!
This isn't TSX bashing, it's just a rational look at the bullet's strengths and weaknesses as related by those who love and use them, as well as those who've used them and come away cold (Brad, Bwalker, etc etc etc).
The hunter proves the bullet, not other way around. That said, the hunter needs to know what the bullet will or may not do. And one cannot equate, Africa, or New Zealand or Alaska, with other places where conditions may differ, often significantly, and then make blanket statements. That Barnes bullets seem ideal in Africa does not prove that they are ideal elsewhere anymore than that blued steel and wood are every bit as practical as stainless and synthetics in all conditions.
Since you have absolutely no experience with them JO, you'll understand and appreciate that like others, I pretty much gloss over your musings as they hold absolutely no weight.
Can't help but notice you cherry pick to attempt to bolster your uneducated guesses. Not sure why you always feel compelled to wade in on topics that you have no relevant experience with.... I suppose you're just one of those individuals that just likes to hear yourself talk.
I'll continue to rely on my own first hand observations and the vast experience from professional hunters that have seen the effects of Barnes bullets on literally tens of thousands of critters....
Slow-killing, and "expansion issues" doesn't seem to be a real world issue/problem based on their extensive experience/observation as it's being portrayed in this and other threads.
I was responding to your mention of JJHack, and truth be told, you are the one cherry-picking his statements.
The pro-TSX guys don't hesitate to talk about their bullet on any ol' thread. Can't see why someone who is neutral on them (I'm not anti-TSX) can't participate on a thread that declares them to be a game-changer or whatever.
It's the innernet, man. This is a discussion forum. Lighten up, or just put me on ignore if my "musings" upset you.
I'll be loading 'em again here shortly for an app where I want max penetration. I already know they shoot well in that rifle since I've run several hundred of them through it. Also know I'm happy in the woods with that rifle so loaded since I carried it that way the bulk of one elk season.
But I won't sign off on them being the be-all end-all bullet because they aren't, for the reasons I've articulated.
I'm not real inclined to run an expensive, slower-killing, low-BC bullet that has expansion "issues" to fix a problem that I haven't seen exist!
LOL! Crap Jeff, you're making the TSX sound worse than flinging a dog turd at your elk!
Expensive - check, sure are.
Slower-killing - I've seen around 75 head of game (WT, MD, pronghorn, BH sheep, caribou, bear, etc) die after being hit with a TSX/TTSX. Most of those kills were mine, but some belonged to my hunter partners, which I witnessed first-hand. I would guess that 95% of those animals went STRAIGHT down, or at least within 15 yards. This is more a function of bullet placement than anything, but the fact remains.
Low BC - 0.450 with the 150gr TTSX in 7mm is good enough to get me to 500 yards with no issues
"Expansion problems" - I have only seen 1 report of a TTSX fail to expand (Brad's .308" bullet). That doesn't seem like a higher rate of expansion problems than any other hunting bullet in existence. They all have expansion failures every now and again. Most of the expansion problems with recent Barnes bullets have been with the TSX (which is likely caused by a glancing blow, or some other lateral force, closing the tip opening), but the BLUE tip () seems to have corrected that problem 99.9% of the time.
I wouldn't say that they "over-penetrate", either. I've got a handful of TSX/TTSX bullets sitting in the basement that I've recovered from animals, which indicates to me that there are situations in the hunting fields in which I want all the penetration that the TSX-style bullets can offer me. These recovered bullets have all come from deer, too (usually a hard-quartering shot that hit both femur and humerus), which means that elk and moose leave me wanting all that "TSX-penetration" even more so.
There are better bullets for long-range applications (I use the 162 AMAX in my .280), but the TTSX reigns supreme for close-range situations in my books
Geezz.....I am no long range expert,having taken only a few head of BG past 400 yards and never beyond 500.....but there is a lot of curious stuff on here when it comes to wind, drop,killing effectivness etc...out to that distance.
......and to read some of this stuff, you would think that a Barnes bullet at 500 yards is akin to flinging powder puffs in a wind tunnel....
"like leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,when they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky...."
....and with that "low" BC they are plodding along like the proverbial snail...barely able to dent a Robin's egg,giving one the impression they could not kill woodchuck at distance....funny stuff.
Not fancying myself a big game globe trotter nor international man of mystery, I prefer a bullet that exhibits both good penetration and good expansion characteristics.
Don't want a grenade, don't want a missile. If I run into bone on a whitetail or a hog, it will handle it, If I don't, it will handle it.
People love to "specialize" in all things and on some large, dangerous game it's the smart choice. But the vast majority of the stuff killed in North America doesn't require premium bullets of any type, a deer of any make/model certainly doesn't.
A well rounded performer would serve them just as well, maybe better.
As I've said before, you could fill volumes with what JO don't know. The fact that he wears his stupidity as a badge of honor is amazing at the very least, or most.
Remember, we're talking about men (our very own JJHack for one) that are exposed and intimately involved with the killing of literally hundreds of game animals (big and small) every year in various field conditions, angles, and distances.
I don't see where I cherry picked anything from Jim.... In fact, I don't see where I quoted him at all.
Obviously my statement was that PH's (Jim being one of them that is known by fellow Forum members) have considerable first hand experience with the bullet in question.... and the inference was that their opinion holds more weight and validity.
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
The pro-TSX guys don't hesitate to talk about their bullet on any ol' thread. Can't see why someone who is neutral on them (I'm not anti-TSX) can't participate on a thread that declares them to be a game-changer or whatever
Participate to your hearts content Jeff. Just pointing out that since you lack first hand experience with the bullet in question, what exactly are you bringing to the discussion?
Seems rather odd to me that a self proclaimed "neutral" individual with admittedly no practical experience with Barnes bullets wades in on virtually every thread and debate regarding same.... and your slant is far from neutral.
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
It's the innernet, man. This is a discussion forum. Lighten up, or just put me on ignore if my "musings" upset you.
Unlike others that engage you on the Forum, I'm quite calm and far from frothing and seething.
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
But I won't sign off on them being the be-all end-all bullet because they aren't, for the reasons I've articulated.
And what would you be signing off on exactly? You've admitted you have no relevant experience....
And that's the point.... go out and kill some game with a Barnes for your own edification.
If not, stop feigning surprise when you get called out.
He definitely gets an A for effort, but it is starting to get old seeing him post in every damn thread I read when I am trying to learn. You don't see me posting in threads about scopes for Western hunting, best bullets for brown bear, spotting scopes, etc, because I don't have experience with it. From reading his many posts, Jeff O doesn't have the diversity of hunting experience as, say BobinNH or John B, but posts at least as much, and it is all suppositions. You can only pull so much from reading what people say on the internet, and the more I read Jeff O, the less I take from him.
I'm not real inclined to run an expensive, slower-killing, low-BC bullet that has expansion "issues" to fix a problem that I haven't seen exist!
LOL! Crap Jeff, you're making the TSX sound worse than flinging a dog turd at your elk!
Expensive - check, sure are.
Slower-killing - I've seen around 75 head of game (WT, MD, pronghorn, BH sheep, caribou, bear, etc) die after being hit with a TSX/TTSX. Most of those kills were mine, but some belonged to my hunter partners, which I witnessed first-hand. I would guess that 95% of those animals went STRAIGHT down, or at least within 15 yards. This is more a function of bullet placement than anything, but the fact remains.
Low BC - 0.450 with the 150gr TTSX in 7mm is good enough to get me to 500 yards with no issues
"Expansion problems" - I have only seen 1 report of a TTSX fail to expand (Brad's .308" bullet). That doesn't seem like a higher rate of expansion problems than any other hunting bullet in existence. They all have expansion failures every now and again. Most of the expansion problems with recent Barnes bullets have been with the TSX (which is likely caused by a glancing blow, or some other lateral force, closing the tip opening), but the BLUE tip () seems to have corrected that problem 99.9% of the time.
I wouldn't say that they "over-penetrate", either. I've got a handful of TSX/TTSX bullets sitting in the basement that I've recovered from animals, which indicates to me that there are situations in the hunting fields in which I want all the penetration that the TSX-style bullets can offer me. These recovered bullets have all come from deer, too (usually a hard-quartering shot that hit both femur and humerus), which means that elk and moose leave me wanting all that "TSX-penetration" even more so.
There are better bullets for long-range applications (I use the 162 AMAX in my .280), but the TTSX reigns supreme for close-range situations in my books
It may indeed reign supreme for close range stuff, and if the worshippers would add such qualifiers I'd be less inclined to comment on them.
Keep in mind, my skepticism about how w�nderbuns these things are is in part because I've been hear for 10+ years how perfect they were... except (oops!) that gets retroactively amended once a "new" version comes out. The X bullet is the best thing ever! Then the TSX comes out and the story changes to, well, the X had it's issues but hey- the TSX is the perfect bullet! Then the TTSX comes out, and now it's, well, the TSX has it's problems but the TTSX now, it's perfect!
No doubt when the TTSX II comes out, the TTSX's problems will be acknowledged but hey- the TTSX II will be the perfect bullet!
Anyway I like them for what they are, but in general it's not hard to find something empiracally better pretty much across the board, unless WAY overpenetration is the goal <grin> and/or shooting light bullets at warp speed and/or making a varmint gun bigger.
[bleep] computers. Sitting out in the studio fighting a problem with my previously-bombproof recording software (as in, 5 years bombproof). What changed?! Aargh.
Well, IMHO your statement about what JJ has said was incomplete at best, disingenious at worst. You did cherrypick. Perhaps I did too.
I am neutral on the phookin' things. They've behaved well for me, and after a pretty damn broad perusal of opinions on them I am pretty certain they'll do some things very well. But what they do best doesn't horn me up much, since everything else I've used did just fine in that regard. What can I say?? Most bullets penetrate deer just fine, and even the dreaded Accubomb has penetrated like a big dog for me... why EXACTLY am I supposed to drink the koolaid here on TSX's on light game? It makes no sense.
Studio computer just crashed again. Excuse me while I [bleep] kill it. Doing a free favor for the wife's co-worker and 3 hours into this debacle I'm most certainly living the "no good deed goes unpunished" dream.
Originally Posted by FOsteology
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
FO,
I was responding to your mention of JJHack, and truth be told, you are the one cherry-picking his statements.
Remember, we're talking about men (our very own JJHack for one) that are exposed and intimately involved with the killing of literally hundreds of game animals (big and small) every year in various field conditions, angles, and distances.
I don't see where I cherry picked anything from Jim.... In fact, I don't see where I quoted him at all.
Obviously my statement was that PH's (Jim being one of them that is known by fellow Forum members) have considerable first hand experience with the bullet in question.... and the inference was that their opinion holds more weight and validity.
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
The pro-TSX guys don't hesitate to talk about their bullet on any ol' thread. Can't see why someone who is neutral on them (I'm not anti-TSX) can't participate on a thread that declares them to be a game-changer or whatever
Participate to your hearts content Jeff. Just pointing out that since you lack first hand experience with the bullet in question, what exactly are you bringing to the discussion?
Seems rather odd to me that a self proclaimed "neutral" individual with admittedly no practical experience with Barnes bullets wades in on virtually every thread and debate regarding same.... and your slant is far from neutral.
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
It's the innernet, man. This is a discussion forum. Lighten up, or just put me on ignore if my "musings" upset you.
Unlike others that engage you on the Forum, I'm quite calm and far from frothing and seething.
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
But I won't sign off on them being the be-all end-all bullet because they aren't, for the reasons I've articulated.
And what would you be signing off on exactly? You've admitted you have no relevant experience....
And that's the point.... go out and kill some game with a Barnes for your own edification.
If not, stop feigning surprise when you get called out.
Sweet Louise, Jeff can't even count, nor tell the truth. Can't stomach a liar and an idiot.
Here is more of his MAGIC math in motion
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
Other that THAT <grin>, I didn't learn much this year. Got my buck opening day, didn't hunt my doe tag due to all the elk in the freezer, so I really didn't deer hunt much.
The above is ONE in 2008 season
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
The only deer I have hunted is blacktails. Killed about... 22 of them I think now. But who's counting.
I may be hunting a primo mule deer tag this year. I have the points, it's just whether I want to do it this year or not. To be honest- I'm a little skeered <grin>! I know how to kill a blacktail every year... not so sure I know how to kill a mule deer in the sage & juniper.
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
Originally Posted by Steelhead
Wow, JO's count had increased by 6 in a year, lots of Oregon tags.
Just for the record, Steelhead is lying here. Surprise.
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
Should say, I've drawn 17 DEER tags and filled 16. Damn elk have my number. I don't want to talk about elk tags. :-)
So from June 2008 till April 2010 you've killed 6 more blacktails? Tough keeping up with the lies ain't is asswipe
So he killed another 6, in 2 hunting seasons. Of course the very top quote says he only killed 1 in the 2008 Season
Originally Posted by Jeff_O
Steelhead's quote of my comment made me go count horns on my Wall of Dinks <g>. Indeed, I'd killed 16-17 in June '08 when I posted that. Killed 4 since then (2 bucks, 2 does). So I've actually killed 20-21 blacktails. Hunting, that is; killed a couple more also with a gun. I'd say that's "about... 22" of them, as I said, or close enough for me.
In the early 2000's Oregon was still issuing "additional" doe tags, so IF you had access to the mostly private land units (Central Melrose was the one I had access to), where they issued those extra tags, you could get 3 tags total for the year. Which I did several times, and only didn't fill all three one time.
But for Pete's sake... really? REALLY?! All horned up over this [bleep]? After all... it's not like Steelhead never messes up a number by a bit.
Now he says he's shot 2 each in the 2008 and 2009 season, and says 1 buck and 1 doe in the 2008 season. He also says he didn't hunt his doe tag in the 2008 season.
The lies never cease from JO, but who is really surprised.
I think we got the better choice of the two for president. Obama is smart, young, and has an agile mind. We are apparantly heading into a massive era of socialization of the economy ANYWAY, regardless of who is president, and partly BECAUSE OF 8 years of a Republican in office... so the classic "Dem's are going to socialize everything!" battle cry really holds no water for me. We are FUBAR that way no matter what at this point. I'm not a social conservative and I can't roll with Ms. Palin's rabid Pro-Life stance so... there it is.
Well, IMHO your statement about what JJ has said was incomplete at best, disingenious at worst. You did cherrypick. Perhaps I did too.
One more time....what statement did I make regarding what Jim said (that I supposedly cherry picked and was incomplete at best and disingenuous at worst)?
Once again, the full content of my post in question for the learning impaired.....
Originally Posted by FOsteology
Interesting to note that as more African PH's have become exposed to Barnes bullets over the past several years, they are by and large enthusiastically beating that drum...
Remember, we're talking about men (our very own JJHack for one) that are exposed and intimately involved with the killing of literally hundreds of game animals (big and small) every year in various field conditions, angles, and distances.
Speaks volumes....
I don't see where I cherry picked anything from Jim.... In fact, I don't see where I quoted him at all.
Obviously my statement was that PH's (Jim being one of them that is known by fellow Forum members) have considerable first hand experience with the bullet in question, and highly recommend them.... and the inference was that their opinion holds more weight and validity.
But I won't sign off on them being the be-all end-all bullet because they aren't, for the reasons I've articulated.
By your own admission, you don't know they aren't.
I have been loading my own ammo and killing deer with that ammo since 1956. I have used really [bleep] bullets and I have used outstanding bullets. For my money we have the best bullets in all of that time right now. The Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets are as far as I am concerned the best of the lot. Pull your head out of your ass and ask yourself if all the people who like them so much and use them in preference to all other bullets are doing that if they think there is or even might be something better for the job at hand. The only other option you have if that isn't what they are thinking is that like you, they're just ignorant and none of them know what the hell they're talking about.
Do I need them if I want to kill a deer? Most of the time not. Do they provide more margin for when things just aren't perfect. Even you have that figured out. Do they fail more often than any other bullet? Not that anyone has demonstrated so far. The worst experience with a Barnes that I have personally had in fifty odd years is some of the early ones in copper tubing were not accurate enough to hunt with. In the last few years the eleven rifles I load for aside from my own have killed some forty deer give or take a couple. Zero evidence of any bullet failure in any of those deer In the years prior, I don't know how many I killed with Barnes, but none of them failed either. I am not the least bashful about putting bullets through deer at pretty steep angles BECAUSE I use Barnes bullets.
It's not that I ask a lot of the bullets. It's that I expect a lot from them because they deliver it more consistently than any other bullet I have ever used. Last season I passed on 10-12 deer opening weekend to choose one fawn and one doe. Why those particular deer, I have no idea, but... Once I decided those deer were going in the freezer they were absolutely going to die. At that point, there's only one bullet I want in the gun and I will not settle for anything I think is one iota less than the best available to me to put that deer down.
If they weren't accurate I wouldn't use them. If they had a problem with performance on game I wouldn't use them. I am pretty damn sure the people who use them are of the same opinion. JJ Hack is not using them and putting them in guns for his clients knowing there's a better bullet for the job. I think you can bet money on that one.
Geezz.....I am no long range expert,having taken only a few head of BG past 400 yards and never beyond 500.....but there is a lot of curious stuff on here when it comes to wind, drop,killing effectivness etc...out to that distance.
......and to read some of this stuff, you would think that a Barnes bullet at 500 yards is akin to flinging powder puffs in a wind tunnel....
"like leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,when they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky...."
....and with that "low" BC they are plodding along like the proverbial snail...barely able to dent a Robin's egg,giving one the impression they could not kill woodchuck at distance....funny stuff.
Yep and it makes you wonder how I ever drooped game at nearly 800 yards with those "fluffy" TSX bullets, but somehow they managed to kill them on the spot without any "DRAMA" and that is why the "DRAMA QUEEN" doesn't like them not enough "DRAMA" foe him/her/it or whatever
I think we got the better choice of the two for president. Obama is smart, young, and has an agile mind. We are apparantly heading into a massive era of socialization of the economy ANYWAY, regardless of who is president, and partly BECAUSE OF 8 years of a Republican in office... so the classic "Dem's are going to socialize everything!" battle cry really holds no water for me. We are FUBAR that way no matter what at this point. I'm not a social conservative and I can't roll with Ms. Palin's rabid Pro-Life stance so... there it is.
Geezzuss....no wonder this country is in trouble......man...
You know I like good bullets and refuse to usestandard C&C�s in my bolt guns. For 20+ years I used Grand Slams in my 7mm RM and was pretty happy with their performance, the down side being they were never quite as accurate as I wanted. They tended to shoot .9� 3-shot groups pretty consistently. When Speer changed the manufacturing and went to a single core, I started looking around at other bullets. The Barnes XLCs were the first and shot great (0.5� at times) but a bad experience with an antelope buck sent me running back to the Grand Slams, with which I took two more elk that year. North Fork were next. Not only did they shoot great, (.262� best for 3 shots), they proved devastating on game � which was pretty much expected. As started adding bolt guns to my collection the North Fork were the bullet of choice and were very accurate in all. The supply was a little iffy, though, and I wanted a back-up bullet.
When the �improved� TSX bullets came out, I gave them a try. They were accurate in every rifle I tried them in. (My .257 Roberts, with 115g TSX, tended to shoot the centers out of clay pigeons at 200 yards.) Still, I had concerns about using them due to reports that they sometimes failed to open. In the end, I never used any on game.
Enter the MRX and later the TTSX. Across the board I find the TTSX to be the more accurate of the two. Just before the 2010 elk season I did a final check at 600 yards with the two rifles I was taking, a .300WM with 180g MRX and a .30-06 with 150g AccuBond. I fired a total of 5 shots at clay pigeons on the 600 yard berm and took one with each rifle. The TTSXs may be more accurate, but the MRXs are accurate enough. When I gave my son-in-law a .30-06 as a wedding present, I also worked up 168g TTSX loads for it.
So far we have only taken deer and antelope with the MRX and TTSX, but the results have been consistent. Even on the antelope the bullets have expanded, mushed the vitals and exited. One MRX went front to back on a mulie with straight down results. At this point I really don�t have any concerns about the ability of the TTSX or MRX to expand reliably when properly stabilized at impact. (Twist rates that are too slow or hitting brush enroute might cause a problem, as they can with any bullet.)
There are valid performance concerns for not using TSX and older X bullets (I burned the XLCs up on targets and am doing the same with the TSX I have), but the tipped TTSX and MRX really are a big improvement as far as I�m concerned.
Geezz.....I am no long range expert,having taken only a few head of BG past 400 yards and never beyond 500.....but there is a lot of curious stuff on here when it comes to wind, drop,killing effectivness etc...out to that distance.
......and to read some of this stuff, you would think that a Barnes bullet at 500 yards is akin to flinging powder puffs in a wind tunnel....
"like leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,when they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky...."
....and with that "low" BC they are plodding along like the proverbial snail...barely able to dent a Robin's egg,giving one the impression they could not kill woodchuck at distance....funny stuff.
Yep and it makes you wonder how I ever drooped game at nearly 800 yards with those "fluffy" TSX bullets, but somehow they managed to kill them on the spot without any "DRAMA" and that is why the "DRAME QUEEN" doesn't like them not enough "DRAMA" foe him/her/it or whatever
It's thinking like this and the ideas it alludes to which bother me when it comes to bullet adoration. Every problem I've had with Barnes bullets over the years has come when the bullet has slowed down. Mostly that's at long distances and generally it has involved both poor or no expansion and penetration which is lacking. (So much for overpenetration when they fail.) And I don't like the drama these kinds of situations can cause. In my experience even the old XFBs were fantastic bullets when they made contact with adequate speed, and I was never bashful about being one of their proponents, though that wasn't the popular position to take when they were known more as "copper crap which won't shoot." But to suggest that they are adequate bullets for long range hunting without qualifying that they have been launched by uber mags and at powder-puff targets borders on irresponsible. Copper is still copper, and always will be harder and tougher than lead. I hope and expect that the added tip will help with expansion problems, but they still won't be magic bullets.
I've had some 130gr TSX out of my 270Win pencil through on small deer broadside, but I've never failed to recover an animal. The 180TSX out of my 300Win has been a devastating round on every deer and hog I've taken with it. There may be something a little "off" with that batch of 130TSX .277s.
Oh he'll likely show up breathless about skiing all day. I looked for him on the mountain today. Figured he'd be the guy skiing up the hill and riding the chairlift down, saying "but it works for ME" (grin)
Klik: I am assuming that we are talking TTSX;and that lessons of driving them hard have been learned.JMHO but if I ever get around to using them, they will be going fast....
I'll just say that TSX bullets work very well out of the 6.8 SPC and it don't drive them very fast. At least the 16" barreled upper that I have doesn't
I have killed a few head of game a long ways out and never have a problem, I shoot they drop on the spot. What's not to like?
After reflecting on 40 something years of shooting animals, it struck me that game seems to have the same reaction when hit with a .25 caliber TSX as it does with a 12ga rifled slug.
After reflecting on 40 something years of shooting animals, it struck me that game seems to have the same reaction when hit with a .25 caliber TSX as it does with a 12ga rifled slug.
Was this study of yours done in a controlled environment with specific data parameters? Can we expect to see it published soon?
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brad300wsm/P1000755.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brad300wsm/P1000757.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brad300wsm/P1030171.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.hunt101.com/data/556/medium/IMG_06885.JPG)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.hunt101.com/data/556/6772DSCF85XBT6mm.JPG)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.hunt101.com/data/556/medium/677202_Moose_Bullets.JPG)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v725/joelst99/gun%20pics/130s.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac15/MickeyMcCake/img043.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v312/brad300wsm/P1000371.jpg)
