Does the 100gr TTSX provide any advantages over the 80gr TTSX in a 257R for WT deer?. The reason for the question is that I have a finicky rifle and the 80 TTSX and 75gr Vmax seem to be the only bullets it will tolerate.
It would seem to me that the only difference in terminal performance between the 2 bullets would be increased penetration potential for the heavier bullet. But if the 80gr TTSX (3400ish MV) will pass through a WT from almost any angle, would the heavier bullet actually provide any real advantage? Thanks
PS I have no need or interest in shooting beyond 250-300 yards so the BC of the heavier bullet is of no consequence to me.
For deer, you are good to go with that 80 grainer..no problem .
I think you answered your own question. I’d not worry a bit on deer.
Good luck. Show us what they do!
The only reason I load the 100 gr is for elk. Otherwise, the 80 gets the nod for deer.
Alan
The 85 grainers in 6mm are deadly on whitetail and I know a few people who have run them into elk. I think you're good to go.
The more Eileen and I shoot monolithic bullets (of whatever brand) into big game the less I'm sure about what the minimum weight for certain game is.
So far the lightest bullets we've used on various kinds of big game are the 40-grain Cutting Edge Raptor at around 4300 fps from Eileen's .22-250 on a pronghorn doe at around 150 yards. It stood quartering toward her, and crumpled at the shot. We found the shank of the bullet under the hide at the rear of the far shoulder blade. (Raptors are designed to lose all their "petals," and this one did. Have never seen any difference in how Barnes X's that lost all their petals killed either.)
Eileen also instantly dropped an average cow elk at 120 yards, as it stood angling away, with a 100-grain TSX from her NULA .257 Roberts. But she has killed plenty of much heavier game with the 130 TSX and 150 Nosler E-Tip from her custom .308 Winchester, animals that many hunters still claim require at least a .300 magnum.
The longer I hunt the more I'm convinced that many hunters are convinced the harder a rifle kicks them, the "better" it kills.
The longer I hunt the more I'm convinced that many hunters are convinced the harder a rifle kicks them, the "better" it kills.
You are so right about that. I'm convinced that if more hunters actually learned the anatomy of the species they were hunting and practiced to be more proficient with their hunting rigs, they'd find there's minimal need for those gigantic cases that burn a pound of powder and inevitably cause many to develop accuracy-robbing flinches. Understanding what different bullets do at various impact speeds -- and then matching the cartridge/bullet combo to the game being hunted -- would be helpful as well.
Bullet development could have stopped at the NP so far as I am concerned.
Bullet development could have stopped at the NP so far as I am concerned.
And for most hunting circumstances bullet development hasn’t progressed any further……
I always thought you needed at least a 7 mag until I saw grandkids kill deer and pigs with a 80 grain TTSX. They were just as dead as mine. The 243’s are fun to shoot!!!
I'm hunting in the SE, so no really big critters down here. I generally like burning 40-55gr of powder with a decent 120-180gr bullet. Seems rather effective for the recoil penalty. Still have a few that burn more than that, but they don't see as much use as they once did.
I like my TTSX and ETip bullets toward the lighter end of the spectrum.
Thank you, Gentlemen, for the responses....very helpful!
Bullet development could have stopped at the NP so far as I am concerned.
You mean when the Germans developed the H-Mantel bullet, years before the “partition” was produced?memtb
https://thebiggamehuntingblog.com/rws-h-mantel/
Some folks refuse to embrace technological improvements......the primary reason the roadways are congested with Model T Fords! 🤔
The improved technology has allowed us to “do more with less”! However, it doesn’t mean that larger calibers now perform less impressively! 😉memtb
In a 270 Win, the 110g TTSX is wicked ugly on deer and hogs, R#17, H4350, IMR 4350, and the coolest burning powder AA2700, all with velocity around 3300, half inch groups or less. Very flat trajectory on these combos with the 110 TTSX. We have killed quite a few deer with the 110g Sierra Sp Pro Hunter, but always double lung them on broadside shots.
I think that the reason, some people - my self included, prejudices can be explained:
We remember too well the days of our youth and the bullets commonly available to those who could not afford the partitions. (We shot 22 shorts because we couldn't afford 22 long rifles.) Some thought that cast bullets were as good as many bullets available and we started shooting deer with heavy cast bullets in the 30-06. There was a writer back then that liked heavy bullets and large enough cartridges to get the bullets to penetrate - what he wrote, he wrote with authority and it made sense. Then there was a famous writer that wrote "Bring enough gun". We saw failures of bullets that were too lightly constructed or poorly mated with game. I shot a pronghorn six times through the lungs before he dropped all the bullets went through the lung area (one example of a bullet that would not open up). The horns are hanging in my gun room now. I had a bullet get stopped by a doe's shoulder 165 grain in a 30-06 - it didn't pass the shoulder. I would not use that brand for decades since. My brother-in-law had a similar experience on a bull elk - same brand of bullet out of a 300 Win Mag.
So, with bad experiences brought deeply set prejudices, using a larger caliber and heavier bullet was often the answer. No one wants to relive bad experiences with bullets to fragile!
I mainly shoot partitions now (thanks to SPS) with interlocks second and mono bullets third. It's a 308 with Interlocks on deer this year. For elk, one of my most accurate rifle is my 300 Weatherby with 200 grain partitions, the recoil is negligible, so why not? But, I'll probably use a 270 with 160 grain partitions this year though, because it's a pound lighter and just as accurate.
The H Mantel is not a true partition bullet like the NP I don't think. Haven't they now basically dropped it for the DK bullet design which is more like a NP? Maybe I am wrong but in my experience, the NP begins and ends the conversation.
in my experience, the NP begins and ends the conversation.
and many folks will agree with this....
from my viewpoint however the designs put out by such firms as North Fork (are they still in business?) are equivalent to slightly better......but the Swift A-Frame with the bonded front partition is clearly something to look at.
Having said that, the all-copper bullets such as the TTSX will win out because of environmental causes and the fact they have already established a solid track record for terminal performance. In the end the NP will lose out to the TTSX not because of performance issues, but because the TTSX does not contain lead.
I always thought you needed at least a 7 mag until I saw grandkids kill deer and pigs with a 80 grain TTSX. They were just as dead as mine. The 243’s are fun to shoot!!!
They are definitely fun to shoot. With 100g NPt's they kill elk with aplomb, too.
Having said that, the all-copper bullets such as the TTSX will win out because of environmental causes and the fact they have already established a solid track record for terminal performance. In the end the NP will lose out to the TTSX not because of performance issues, but because the TTSX does not contain lead.
I've been saying the same thing for a while now.
Just hope I use up my vast supply of NPt seconds before it happens...........
For many years our 30-06 and .338 rifles fired the 200 and 250 grain Nosler Partitions. In the later 80's I started using the 180 and 250 grain Barnes X bullets in the same rifles. They killed as well as the Partitions, gave less recoil in the 30-06 and flatter trajectory in the 30-06.
A few years ago I switched to the 168 grain TTSX for the 30-06 and 225 grain TTSX for the .338. Both are going around 2,835 fps mv. They are penetrating better then the Nosler Partition with less recoil and I trust both rounds as being of capable of handling any of Alaska's critters.
I am also loading the 127 grain Barnes LRX for my Tikka T3X Superlite 6.5 Creed and I know from autopsying many moose and caribou that were shot with Barnes TTSX bullets, it will kill any Alaskan critter. Would it be my first choice for dealing with a brown/griz in the alders, no it isn't. But, if I had a broad side shot at a brown/griz at under 200 yards I would poke a hole through his lungs and have a dead bear in a few minutes.
If I hunted state side I don't think I would have much use for my custom Mod. 70 in .338 Winny. My 30-06 or the 6 .5 Creed would see more use and the TTSX bullet would be for elk. Might even give me and excuse to make up a custom Tikka T3X Superlite in 7mm WSM or SAUM.
The Barnes X bullet in my opinion and the opinion of many of my hunting friends has been a game changer, but it would not be my first choice for deer unless using a .223.
If mono wins, I hope it’s lead. Been shooting cast from wheel weights in my revolvers and old cartridges and shoot plumbers lead in muzzle loaders all my life. I have not seen any effect of damaging the environment!
Of course the people from the republic of California are convinced it damages the environment - good grief!
in my experience, the NP begins and ends the conversation.
and many folks will agree with this....
from my viewpoint however the designs put out by such firms as North Fork (are they still in business?) are equivalent to slightly better......but the Swift A-Frame with the bonded front partition is clearly something to look at.
Having said that, the all-copper bullets such as the TTSX will win out because of environmental causes and the fact they have already established a solid track record for terminal performance. In the end the NP will lose out to the TTSX not because of performance issues, but because the TTSX does not contain lead.
I haven't used the A-Frame alot but in my limited expiereance the A-frame not only doesn't penetrate as well as a partition it also doesn't do as much damage.
probably due to the rounded mushroom shape. it pushes rather than cuts comparatively speaking perhaps?
I used partitions, as I thought they were the best jacketed bullets available......until the Barnes X’s came out! My only complaints with the partitions, both relatively minor were.... they a little difficult to get the accuracy I was searching for. Also, on a close range, high velocity impact ....often the nose jacket would completely fold back at the partition around the bullet lower (below partition) making the remaining bullet marginally larger than the original bullet prior impact, reducing not only the remaining bullet diameter but only retaining approximately 60% to 70% of the original bullet weight!
The original Barnes X’s had some issues and had to go through some growing pains.....but, the new TTX’s, TTSX’s, and LRX’s are pretty darn difficult to beat. memtb
Maybe I am wrong but in my experience, the NP begins and ends the conversation.
I could never get NP’s to shoot accurately in any of my rifles, ever. Try hard I did.
Reloder 28,
I have gotten excellent accuracy from Partitions--but generally if they're seated very straightly. I suspect the reason the rear core section tends to "bend" a little more than many other bullets--but also tend to follow the general rules that long-time Nosler bullet designed Gail Root suggested years ago. He advised switching to a slightly faster-burning powder if Partitions didn't shoot like you hoped, because the faster powder would "bump up" the exposed rear core to fit the particular rifle's barrel better.
I have also found that maximum loads do basically the same thing. Have gotten excellent accuracy from Partitions in calibers from 6mm to .375 by pushing them harder. In fact the first big game rifle I ever got consistent 5-shot groups under an inch with any bullet was my grandmother's old Remington 722 .257 Roberts, way back in the 1980s, with an IMR4350 load that got 3250 fps with 100-grain Partitions. But there have been many other instances as well.
Currently, I load 58.5 grains of RL 15 with a 286 NP in 9.3x62 using a 24" barrel and have not run it over a chrony but I have no problem with accuracy. I'm guessing velocity window between 2450-2500 fps. Out to any sane distance I am not sure what a mono would offer so I have never determined a need to use one.
in my experience, the NP begins and ends the conversation.
and many folks will agree with this....
from my viewpoint however the designs put out by such firms as North Fork (are they still in business?) are equivalent to slightly better......but the Swift A-Frame with the bonded front partition is clearly something to look at.
Having said that, the all-copper bullets such as the TTSX will win out because of environmental causes and the fact they have already established a solid track record for terminal performance. In the end the NP will lose out to the TTSX not because of performance issues, but because the TTSX does not contain lead.
I haven't used the A-Frame alot but in my limited expiereance the A-frame not only doesn't penetrate as well as a partition it also doesn't do as much damage.
A-frames expand to a much larger diameter, so how is it that they do less damage?
Maybe I am wrong but in my experience, the NP begins and ends the conversation.
I could never get NP’s to shoot accurately in any of my rifles, ever. Try hard I did.
My experiences are close, but they are overall the most inaccurate of all the hunting bullets I've loaded, but when they shoot, I do use and like them. As to the Swifts, they are definitively more accurate and in the 416 Rigby and 375 H&H, I had no issues with penetration, but it does make sense the NP penetrates more, if for no other reason the front end pretty much disintegrates (by design), leaving the rear core to push through
Use the 80gr TTSX with no worries.
I am a pretty big fan of mono metals. Have Used the X, XLC, TSX, TTSX, and GMX on hunts with no problems. Like most, the game really changed with the T/TSX as far easier load development and copper fouling. I have had really good performance with GMX's also.
Have used lighter weight Barnes in my 270's with no issues. Have tried to go lighter in my 338-06's, but the 185's just do not shoot as good as the 210's. I also tried 250's in my 375, but the 270's and 300's shot better. When I had a 9.3x64, I really wanted to use 250's, but again the heavies shot better.
In fact, am heading out this am to water trees and try to fill an antelope tag with a 222 and 55gr GMX.
Reloder 28,
I have gotten excellent accuracy from Partitions--but generally if they're seated very straightly. I suspect the reason the rear core section tends to "bend" a little more than many other bullets--but also tend to follow the general rules that long-time Nosler bullet designed Gail Root suggested years ago. He advised switching to a slightly faster-burning powder if Partitions didn't shoot like you hoped, because the faster powder would "bump up" the exposed rear core to fit the particular rifle's barrel better.
I have also found that maximum loads do basically the same thing. Have gotten excellent accuracy from Partitions in calibers from 6mm to .375 by pushing them harder. In fact the first big game rifle I ever got consistent 5-shot groups under an inch with any bullet was my grandmother's old Remington 722 .257 Roberts, way back in the 1980s, with an IMR4350 load that got 3250 fps with 100-grain Partitions. But there have been many other instances as well.
Thank you for this input. It makes sense given the bottom of the jacket is exposed. I will focus on the obturation aspect & certainly try some faster powders. My main focus is a favorite 280 Remington I have been tinkering with sporadically since 2008. I always felt a 150 Partition would be the ultimate combination in a 280.
I was ONCE able to get a 3/8" group with 150 PT's out of it using 7828, but it would never repeat.
I used partitions, as I thought they were the best jacketed bullets available......until the Barnes X’s came out! My only complaints with the partitions, both relatively minor were.... they a little difficult to get the accuracy I was searching for. Also, on a close range, high velocity impact ....often the nose jacket would completely fold back at the partition around the bullet lower (below partition) making the remaining bullet marginally larger than the original bullet prior impact, reducing not only the remaining bullet diameter but only retaining approximately 60% to 70% of the original bullet weight!
In case you didbn't know, that's exactly the way partitions are designed to work, and work well they do. IMO the finest big game hunting bullet ever created to this day. The accubond performs like a tipped partition, so that statement goes for the accubond as well. Yeah, I'm biased but IME the results speak for themselves.
My only complaints with the partitions, both relatively minor were.... they a little difficult to get the accuracy I was searching for. Also, on a close range, high velocity impact ....often the nose jacket would completely fold back at the partition around the bullet lower (below partition) making the remaining bullet marginally larger than the original bullet prior impact, reducing not only the remaining bullet diameter but only retaining approximately 60% to 70% of the original bullet weight!
I might also point out that heavier, larger-caliber Partitions and AccuBonds are designed to retain more weight. This apparently started in the 1990s, and in general they'll retain around 85-90% of their weight--though occasionally a little more or little less. One the 400-grain .416 Partitions in my collection, recovered from a Cape buffalo, retained 95% of its weight. It entered the left rear rib-cage and was found in the right shoulder. Among the lighter ones is a 9.3mm Accubond from a 7-1/2 foot grizzly, also recovered from an angling-away shot, which entered the right ribs and was found under hide on the left side of the neck, retaining 82% of its weight.
All of this talk about retained weight (or petals) I have generally found to be less relevant than many hunters think. Have recovered several Barnes Xs of various models, along with with "petal" type bullets, that lost from one to all their petals, yet still penetrated more than sufficiently and killed well. The last one was a 130-grain TTSX from my wife's .308 that dropped a big cow elk at around 250 yards. It stood quartering to us, and the bullet broke the near shoulder just above the big joint. The cow staggered 20-25 yards before falling, obviously done for from the moment the bullet hit. We recovered the bullet under the hide on the far side of the ribs, having lost all its petals and retaining 62% of its weight.
I used partitions, as I thought they were the best jacketed bullets available......until the Barnes X’s came out! My only complaints with the partitions, both relatively minor were.... they a little difficult to get the accuracy I was searching for. Also, on a close range, high velocity impact ....often the nose jacket would completely fold back at the partition around the bullet lower (below partition) making the remaining bullet marginally larger than the original bullet prior impact, reducing not only the remaining bullet diameter but only retaining approximately 60% to 70% of the original bullet weight!
The original Barnes X’s had some issues and had to go through some growing pains.....but, the new TTX’s, TTSX’s, and LRX’s are pretty darn difficult to beat. memtb
They are designed to do that and it's why they kill abruptly, yet still penetrate well. The same can't be said for most other bullets including the monos.
in my experience, the NP begins and ends the conversation.
and many folks will agree with this....
from my viewpoint however the designs put out by such firms as North Fork (are they still in business?) are equivalent to slightly better......but the Swift A-Frame with the bonded front partition is clearly something to look at.
Having said that, the all-copper bullets such as the TTSX will win out because of environmental causes and the fact they have already established a solid track record for terminal performance. In the end the NP will lose out to the TTSX not because of performance issues, but because the TTSX does not contain lead.
I haven't used the A-Frame alot but in my limited expiereance the A-frame not only doesn't penetrate as well as a partition it also doesn't do as much damage.
A-frames expand to a much larger diameter, so how is it that they do less damage?
Yes, they do. I recovered a 30 cal 200gr version and the front half was expanded to a huge front diameter. The rear half collapsed into the front half. With that said I believe the fact they retain most of their weigh and there is no shrapnel effect like a partition. I think it's pretty well established that bullets that fragment some do indeed kill quicker.
Everyone knows that .243-class cartridges can only kill Elk when given to our wives, girlfriends and daughters. Others who try to shoot them are never successful.
If mono wins, I hope it’s lead. Been shooting cast from wheel weights in my revolvers and old cartridges and shoot plumbers lead in muzzle loaders all my life. I have not seen any effect of damaging the environment!
Of course the people from the republic of California are convinced it damages the environment - good grief!
Lead comes from the earth, you’re just returning it from whence it came.
Had a reporter from the local rag, the Portland Press Herald, write an article for the Sunday paper last year claiming if hunters in Maine don't go to monos our eagle population will die from lead poisoning as a result of earing deer gut piles. I actually contacted him and believe me he was not interested in facts. Were it the case you'd have dead crows, coyotes, fox, weasels, etc. all over Maine. No reports of that happening. Another leftie schill putting some emotional hooks in the water for the rest of their libtard readers who gobble it up like ice cream.
I don’t know why partitions are almost always either the most accurate or close.
Had good luck with TTSX’s too, when the fools in California said “You have to use monos!” I’m not as interested!
I have not had good luck with Accubonds, I keep reading about fellows that do, I don’t know what’s the reason?
It is hard to leave Partitions for anything else, I just don’t know why I should — why?
I have seen quite a few critters die from the 80gr .257 TTSX including huge bodied bull moose, caribou, brown bear, black bear, several deer flavors, mountain goat, and more. Seldom fails to exit and kills quickly.
I have never seen an Accubond exit... the difference is stark IME.
Bugger, I’ve not had the luck with Accubonds many report so quit them years ago. May try them again as they’re typically very accurate in my rifles. As for partitions, they’re never the most accurate or close in all but 2 of mine. Acceptable but nowhere close to what several others will produce. OTOH, a TTSX is almost always the most accurate and easy to get shooting. They work every time on the game and since they hit the market I’ve hunted almost exclusively with them.
when the fools in California said “You have to use monos!” I’m not as interested!
I have not had good luck with Accubonds, I keep reading about fellows that do, I don’t know what’s the reason?
It is hard to leave Partitions for anything else, I just don’t know why I should — why?
One might be watchful of not only governments requiring monos but increasingly private ranches are also requiring them to hunt on their propery.
Sitka,
We have gone through this before, but I have seen a LOT more animals taken with both Barnes Xs and AccuBonds than you have, due in part to many cull-hunts, and over 80% of both have exited. I also pointed out that the AccuBonds tended to be somewhat (but not a vast amount) heavier than the Barnes bullets, but that is beside the main point, which is that both work well.
Have also seen a bunch of other big game taken with various petal-type bullets from the old Fail Safe to the Cutting Edge Raptor, Hornady GMX, Nosler E-Tip, etc. They have all killed very well--as have other bullets including the "antiquated" Partition, original Trophy Bonded Bear claw and it's modern "tipped" version, Swift A-Frame and Scirocco II, Norma Oryx, etc. They all work in somewhat different ways, but have yet to find an expanding bullet that is quite as perfect as many people apparently believe, one reason I still tend to use a wide variety.
Can anyone measure the length of an 80gr. TTSX for me? This conversation has me considering a trial but my old Savage 1899 takedown has a slow twist barrel that simply won't shoot anything heavier/longer than the 87 Speer Hot-Cor which is .835" long. A skinch longer may (or may not) work. Thanks.
Until VERY recently the Barnes website listed the overall length of all their bullets. Now it's turned into one of those stupid sites where such data isn't listed. Or at least I can't find it. Did find a listing of a little over 1" on another sire.
However, one thing you need to know about plastic-tipped bullets is the overall length does NOT affect stability like it does with lead spitzers. If you can find the OAL, the subtract about .1 inch and use the JBM bullet stability program--which allows for plastic tips. However, it indicates the bullet won't stabilize in a 1-14 twist at "standard atmospheric conditions."
Have owned one old 99 .250 take-down that supposedly had a 1-14 twist but actually had a 1-15, no doubt due to the sine-bar rifling machines used back then. It would also not stabilize any lead-core spitzer longer than the 87 Speer, even on summer days at 4000 feet above sea level.
Thanks John. That leaves me out.
Had a reporter from the local rag, the Portland Press Herald, write an article for the Sunday paper last year claiming if hunters in Maine don't go to monos our eagle population will die from lead poisoning as a result of earing deer gut piles. I actually contacted him and believe me he was not interested in facts. Were it the case you'd have dead crows, coyotes, fox, weasels, etc. all over Maine. No reports of that happening. Another leftie schill putting some emotional hooks in the water for the rest of their libtard readers who gobble it up like ice cream.
USF&W keeps track of migratory birds—especially raptors—that have lead toxicity poisoning. I have seen golden eagles dying of lead poisoning at wildlife rehabilitation centers.
In 2018 USF&W proposed a rule that would prohibit lead core bullets on federal Wildlife Refuges. The proposed rule wasn’t put into place, but I expect to see it proposed again.
The same arguments and proclamations by folks over lead shot will be made over lead core bullets, and ultimately the end result will probably be the same.
Lead toxicity in wildlife is real, just how big of a problem it is I’m not sure.
Can anyone measure the length of an 80gr. TTSX for me? This conversation has me considering a trial but my old Savage 1899 takedown has a slow twist barrel that simply won't shoot anything heavier/longer than the 87 Speer Hot-Cor which is .835" long. A skinch longer may (or may not) work. Thanks.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/gcVyQBxV/Screenshot-20211007-100208-Duck-Duck-Go.jpg)
Heck of a buff right there
Everyone knows that .243-class cartridges can only kill Elk when given to our wives, girlfriends and daughters. Others who try to shoot them are never successful.
I only have an example of one, but was not impressed when I saw a cow elk killed with a 243. Actually kind of unnerving experience.
Can anyone measure the length of an 80gr. TTSX for me? This conversation has me considering a trial but my old Savage 1899 takedown has a slow twist barrel that simply won't shoot anything heavier/longer than the 87 Speer Hot-Cor which is .835" long. A skinch longer may (or may not) work. Thanks.
Found this just a bit ago. Nice reference for comparing bullet length.
https://www.jbmballistics.com/ballistics/lengths/lengths.shtml
Everyone knows that .243-class cartridges can only kill Elk when given to our wives, girlfriends and daughters. Others who try to shoot them are never successful.
I only have an example of one, but was not impressed when I saw a cow elk killed with a 243. Actually kind of unnerving experience.
If only it was a 6 Creed . . . .
I only have an example of one, but was not impressed when I saw a cow elk killed with a 243. Actually kind of unnerving experience.
mmmm.........I have a pair of 243's that so far have accounted for 14 elk. Mostly in the hands of youngsters--out to ~375 yds. One elk lived just long enough to be shot a second time, the rest were one shot and done.
100g Partiition--it's all in the bullet, cartridge doesn't matter much these days.
I have gotten excellent accuracy from Partitions--but generally if they're seated very straightly. I suspect the reason the rear core section tends to "bend" a little more than many other bullets--but also tend to follow the general rules that long-time Nosler bullet designed Gail Root suggested years ago. He advised switching to a slightly faster-burning powder if Partitions didn't shoot like you hoped, because the faster powder would "bump up" the exposed rear core to fit the particular rifle's barrel better.
Interesting tip, thanks John.
I only have an example of one, but was not impressed when I saw a cow elk killed with a 243. Actually kind of unnerving experience.
mmmm.........I have a pair of 243's that so far have accounted for 14 elk. Mostly in the hands of youngsters--out to ~375 yds. One elk lived just long enough to be shot a second time, the rest were one shot and done.
100g Partiition--it's all in the bullet, cartridge doesn't matter much these days.
It was with factory 100gr winchester ammunition. Just did not act like it was hit at all, took about 5 minutes for final. But I certainly defer to your experience's, like I said, an example of one.
Interesting thread. I'm leaving Tues for CO first season elk. Developed a load for my 308 - 150 TTSX @ 2850 and MOA. Im also taking my trusty 280 AI with 160 Fed Trophy.
I've been watching and asking those using monos in various SA cartridges. Run the ballistics on a 308 using a 150 TTSX at 2900 which is doable in a 308. It shoots way flatter than it would seem. If you really want to defy logic, compare a 300 Win Mag shooting a 200 gr Partition and the aforementioned 308/150 TTSX. The 308 shoots about as flat, bucks wind about as well and loses 6-700 ft/lbs to the 300 WM - if that means anything. For reference, a 22 hornet churns up 700 ft/lbs. A 150 gr bullet that retains 100% of its weight is the same as a 230 gr bullet that loses 35% or a 200 that loses 25%. The only compromise I see is that the TTSX needs 2000 ft/sec. The 308 is still moving at 2000 ft/sec, at elk altitudes, out to 500. At lower altitudes, it drops below 2000 at about 450. The 7-08/140 is about identical.
I have an either sex tag and intend to report on how well the 308/150 TTSX worked. It wont be for lack of trying
![[Linked Image from strayfawnstudio.com]](https://strayfawnstudio.com/community/uploads/monthly_2019_03/Huge-Cape-Buffalo-Boss.thumb.jpg.cc69ca59de5d96da4fdd0ce2ebf4b254.jpg)
![[Linked Image from americanhunter.org]](https://www.americanhunter.org/media/1997930/450ne_inset1.jpg)
![[Linked Image from image.sportsmansguide.com]](https://image.sportsmansguide.com/adimgs/l/1/106958i_ts.jpg)