In preparation for a late season Arizona elk hunt this November, I have been testing different loads in my .338 Win Mag. I would guess the shot distance would be typical of most elk hunts, 0-400 yds or so. The top two contenders are the 210 gr TTSX at 2835 fps and the 225 gr TSX at 2780 fps. Accuracy being equal, which would you utilize?

I'm not interested in other bullets, the topic of discussion is the Barnes TSX, thanks!

210 TTSX.

Gunner

Any .338 TSX/TTSX will work wonderfully, but the TTSX gives me the warm fuzzies a bit more than does the TSX, from a design perspective. The TSX has worked flawlessly for me in the field, but I do believe the TTSX is an improvement.

yep. Never hunted elk but have hunted animals of similar size.

Thanks for the replies, the TTSX seems to have a following! I was leaning that way but wanted to get some opinions. I have used the original Barnes X bullet on elk and mule deer and the TSX on whitetail, but have never harvested game with the TTSX, I think it may the winner.

Yessir, the 210 may have a slightly higher B.C., a bit flatter trajectory and wind bucking ability, plus less recoil, and in my limited experience, that bullet is more than enough for any Elk that ever walked.

I shoot the 225 TTSX's in my 338 WM to around 2800 with H-4350 powder, it's been so accurate I haven't tried another bullet.

Good Luck on your hunt.

Gunner

From what I've put through it the 210 TSX is my .340's favorite bullet. I've yet to want for more than it delivers.

I have no problem recommending a 210 TTSX, pretty much like everyone else. I load it normally with RL19 at about 2950 fps.

I have switched to the 210 TTSX in both of my .338 Win Mags, although I have yet to shoot an elk with it. Maybe this year...

Can't knock the 210, but even in my former 338/06, I felt the heavier bullet was more efficient in it's case size, the 225 should pass up the 210 downrange w/little difference in drop.

Again, the 210 is proven, but I like middle/heavy weight bullets in larger capacity rounds as their trajectory is often fine at the speeds they run.

Flip a coin, sight in and bring a sharp knife

Thanks guys. I think the weight of the 225 vs. the B.C. of the 210 may be a wash at further distances in regards to drop, drift, etc.

The 225s the only way to go, unless you can get a 250. I used the 225gr Ttsx in my 338/06 on Oryx (4 of them) in Namibia and a deer here. Work fine. Just punching a hole in something not the point. The 225s and 250s have a lot more energy, and hold their speed and trajectory better. I would never use a bullet that's almost as wide as it is long. The 338 originally designed to be used with 250 and 275s. The 225 Ttsxs are longer for their weight than a lead bullet, so have a BC equal to a 250gr lead based bullet, so work well..I loaded 225s in my 340 last year and was hunting Moose and Caribou with it, and got a caribou. Weather went south and we didn't get a chance on a Moose.

Realize it was not one of the options, but for the sake of discussion, why not the 185 TTSX? I tend to hear faster is better for TTSXs. There is even discussion in the bullet energy thread that given two similar bullets the one traveling through flesh faster will do more damage. In the case of TTSXs, you're not going to cause bullet failure with speed, and while the heavier bullets will have more energy, I don't think there is much question about creating two holes regardless of 185/210/225, so why not the faster alternative? I'm actually curious to hear thoughts on this for a different rifle, but similar situation.

Given the OP's alternatives, I'd go 210. More than enough energy and a wee bit less recoil. There's no wrong choice here.

Edit: I did run these, and the 185 at 3000 FPS in JBM, and all of them will be over 2000 FPS at 500 yds if shot at any meaningful elevation. The 185 will stay faster, but only by 30-50 FPS by 500 yds.

I'm rolling with the 185TTSX out of my .338-06 for my plains game huntin Africa come Sept.

I'm not much on using a bullet with a BC that's eqivalent to a patched round ball,in a modern rifle. Plains game animals mostly small, unless a Kudu, Zebra or Eland, so probably won't matter. But, when I was in Namibia, the shots STARTED at 200+ yards. Last year in RSA, had 3 shots over 250 yds, and 3 closer. Used a 308 and Ttsx 150s last year.

DVD, what load you using in your 338/06? and where you hunting in Africa?

Even the .338 185 TTSX has a better BC than a 30 cal 150 TTSX. Not exactly equivalent to around ball...

RSA North Eastern Kalahari area so 200 to 300 yd shots are very possible
185 gr TTSX 57 gr R-15 @ 2920fps

prm, regarding the 185's, my thoughts are if I were to drop that low in weight, I might as well be using a .300. The 210 TTSX has a higher BC than the 225 TSX due to the BT and boat-tail design, I think it may be a good compromise between "light" and "heavy", though I'm quite sure the 185's would be more than adequate too.

prm: was about to say, BS, but checked Barnes site, and it seems you're right. But, still, a 338 anything, was designed to be used with long heavy bullets. I just cannot imagine using a light weight bullet in a 338 anything. 225s should be minimum IMO.

Ghost, how did the 150 perform?

Modern technology was also not even a figment of the creator's imagination when the .338 was designed...

.338 185 TTSX BC .432 @ 2920 from .338-06

.308 180 TSX BC.453 @ 2650 from .30-06

I'll roll with the 185 TTSX from my .338-06
Dropping down weight with a TSX don't scare me as a matter of fact I prefer to do so BT/DT

Excellent. Killed a Kudu at 275 yds, 2 shots, as the Ttsx bullets, imo, don't seem to have the shock, if you will, of a lead based bullet. Hit it in the right shoulder, as it was coming down a hill, below us, and quarter L-R..bullet came out through the paunch on the left side. He kept walking, but went into some brush,then came back out going R-L and I hit him, again, right behind the left shoulder and out behind the right (classic double lunger) he kept walking and went into some more brush, and dropped dead about 50 feet in. I hit an Impala at 50 yds, almost face on. Bullet went in between the left shoulder and neck (actually hit the neck a few inches back from shoulder area) and came out about half way back on the right, and he was doa. One a waterbuck, would have been fine, but pH shouted, don't shoot, we want to use the sticks, as I was about to take a texas heart shot on a Waterbuck at 25 yds...before I could recover he went over the hill, and we trailed him up and again, I'm on the sticks and putting the last bit of pressure on the trigger, when I'm told "hurry", which caused a jerk, and hit him in the rear of the ribs, though had the sight right on the back edge of the shoulder. He took off (about a 100 yds shot) and we followed him up and got another shot in at 25 yds or so, when he was standing in some brush. He turned and went into the brush, and we couldn't track him, and it was getting dark, but we found him maybe a 100 feet away in the morning. The bad shot placement was the cause of it not working here. I think had I taken the Texas heart shot on the Waterbuck, the bullet would have gone end to end. Indeed, the PH said he didn't like the Ttsxs, as they penetrated "too much". We shot a small warthog too, but with the 150gr BT bullet, at about 50 yds. Hit right behind the left shoulder, and out the other side, and he literally flipped onto his back. I had my 308 sighted in 2 1/2 inches high at a 100 yds, and was able to hold right on, on the long shot on the Kudu. I did miss a Blesbok at 400, because I underestimated the range (400 yds, vs my guestimate of 350) and the bullet went right under it, but in line with a behind the shoulder shot.

I shot 18 animals in Namibia in 2009, and used the 140gr Ttsx in my 280, and everything I hit (not all of it with the 280), was slammed and down now.

When I was talking about the light weight 338 bullets was thinking more along the line of the lead based ones. Talked to Ty at Barnes, and he said the 308 150 has one more "groove" in it than the 338 bullet, which causes the BC to be lower.

DVD, saw your note on the 180 in the 06. I never go that heavy as unless hunting something like Elk, is too heavy (IMO) to open right on deer. I used 165s on Kudu and Eland in my 06 and they worked fine (used Nosler partitions). My buddy Elmer Keith designed the 338/06 (333OKH same thing with 33 caliber bullets) and wanted LONG heavy bullets for penetration. His criteria was a bullet going in behind the ribs on the left side, had to be able to reach the right front leg. The Ttsx and TSX both seem to have enough penetration, at least in the 225s. Elmers favorite bullet for the 338/06 (lead based of course) was the 275gr Speer.

An intersting project would be to take a pillow case, and fill it tight full of wet grass and twigs, and back off 50-100 yds and see it the bullets will penetrate it.

I did better than a pillow case... Hog at 170 yards DRT

Good information men. Thank you.

Tally Ho

DVD, the mono's work well on hogs, scroll down here

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...ger_1_International_Who_has_#Post3091822

Not to hi-jack 65BR, but please tell me that's an 85 gn TSX?

Gunner

Yes, it is - deadly as sin on deer/hogs proven by many.

Details on that thread. Ribbing DVD that he prob used too much bullet Figured he threw alot more 'Copper' than I used on my hog - Lol.

FWIW, the Barnes 80/85 and Nosler 95 BT are all I want in a big game bullet for 6mm's - just my preference. Others work too.

SWWEEETTTT, Thanks Man, and again not to hi-jack, but I loaded 200 of these at 3350 fps in a 243W and wondered how they would do on ARK/OK deer this fall, looks like I have my answer.

Thanks,
Gunner

I don't hunt elk but the 210 Partition seems to hold plenty of favor with those who do. Given that one can go down in weight with a mono I don't see why one would need more than the 210 in a Barnes. In fact, even on our typically larger, bigger boned moose, I'd take the 210 in this case simply because it is a TTSX. TSXs have worked, but they have not been terminally as impressive as have older versions.

On small big game the 185 would do just fine, most of the time on large big game (elk) it's gonna do just fine. I like to have 2 holes on my game (preferably from one shot) so for me I'd prefer to go with the 210 on elk.

Interesting thing about threads like this is I'm for betting that there's people chiming in and giving opine who've not shot an elk with either let alone even hunted elk.

And yet, here they are just a gacking away...

IME the light for cal thingy that people have going on with the Barnes brand works pretty darn well with small big game like deer/lopes and black bruins.

Dober

Guilty as charged. Shot plenty of copper and even bigger "elks" though. (Yes, you'd catch that 210 in old alces alces now and then.)

Personally, I feel that your idea of a 210 Partition is the idea mentioned yet.

Dober

I have only shot two bulls and one cow assist with Barnes bullets, two 250 grainers from a 375 H&H, and one 250 grainer from a 338-378, no recoveries.

Gunner

Assist.....this the NBA now...grin

What state did you hunt them in Gunner?

Was it the 250 X in the 375? My 375 Wby really likes the old 250 X.

Thx
Dober

Yessir, assist on a cow roundin a point in Colorado headin' for a damn draw that looked a mile deep , caught her in the last rib on her right side, bullet exited left shoulder and put her on her nose.

It was the older style Barnes X, the old Belgium Medallion in 375 H&H loved those dang things, IIRC, RL-15 pushed 'em a bit over 2900 fps.

The other was a 5x6 bull, and a smaller 6x6, both bulls taken in the timber at less than 50 yds, one was less than 20.

The .375 X and the older stlye .338 X were both really good shooters in those rifles, and the 338-378 WM with it's 28" barrel would put those 250's out at over 3250 with a big charge of AA-8700 powder.

Gunner

edit to add, I still have a few of those old .375 X's out in the shop, but sadly the rifle is gone.

Whoo hoo! A 250 NP at 3250?
Sweet!!

It would do that with the NP's too 340, but these were the old Barnes X 250's, I swear those two bull's hit the ground so hard it sounded hollow underneath, dont know if I was hunting on a dang fault line or what.

Gunner

Whoops! My reading skills leave something to be desired sometimes. Think it was my old 340 and 38-378's recoil-finally did my pee brain in.


Seriously though,back when I had my 338-378Roy, I never did see much above 3050? with a 250gr bullet, but that was '99-'04-not sure that some of these real slower burning powders were available? Seems like the best powder I had to play with was RL25. I remember looking and looking for H870, but it had been discontinued around that time, if memory serves.

10-Roger, AA-8700, and the old H-5010 were hellacious firebreathers in that 28" barrel.

I have often wondered, and I kope I dont sound crazy, but have you heard, and if so, what causes Western mountain land to have that hollow sound?

Gunner

Gunner, you will do fine w/that 243. OK has some open spaces so if you plan to shoot really far, you might check expansion at long ranges to know where the limits are for expansion.

You should be very good to go to +/- 350 to 400 yds. Any further I might lean to the 95 BT as its softer nose w/tapered jacket may open at lower speeds better. Just a thought, but sure you will flatten anything you properly aim at w/those loads.

Thanks 65BR, all shots will be way under 150 and closer to 75 where I will use the little 243W this fall.

Gunner

This is from the epic thread over on Accurate Reloading forums - I take absolutely zero credit for Michael's work by posting this. It is just an interesting perspective:







FWIW I just tested the 185gr TTSX and 250gr Partition into a large spruce round (lengthwise) at 200 yards. The 185 TTSX hardly expanded at all. It penetrated ~50% further than the Partition, but the damage channel was very small compared to the Partition. I can post pictures if anyone cares to see.

DVD: a little hog is not an Elk or Moose. Believe me when I say that a 165gr lead based bullet might in fact stop in a big pillow full of wet grass and twigs, etc. That's the main reason the Nosler partition and such were developed. Bullets of the day (30's-40's) would not always penetrate throught that kind of stuff. This was also the reason Elmer used 220gr bullets in the 06, and recommended that nothing smaller than a 33 caliber with a 250 gr, and a lot of times a 300gr bullet be used on elk and such. He would agree that on a picture perfect side shot, many bullets would work, but when you hit an Elk/Moose, behind the ribs on the left side, and want the bullet to hit the shoulder on the right side, you better have plenty of penetration.

You need to get a copy of Big Game Hunting, by Elmer Keith and read it to understand the bullets, and hunting of that time. Elmer developed the prototype for the 280 Rem, the 338WM and 340Wby. They didn't have the powders then, that we have now, and sure not the bullets.

Today, there are so many really good bullets, there are a lot of folks don't know there was a time there wasn't. And that time was not that long ago. When my dad hunted Elk in the early 60's he shot an 06, using a load with a 220gr RN hollow pointed Rem. bullet, to make sure the penetration was there. I am kind of skeptical that a 185gr 338 bullet has the mass to keep on trucking if it hits an Elk in a full paunch, to go into the heart and lung area. Especially if a lead based one. While we are talking about Ttsxs here, there are a lot of people who still use the lead based , cup and core, bullets that don't have the penetration ability of the Ttsx.

Dang I sure like how those 225 SAF's look and good penetration as well.

Dober

Either one would be an excellent choice you can't make a wrong choice between those 2

I was reading Jack O'Connor's The Rifle Book a few nights ago, and at page 232 (2nd Ed.) he states:



And on page 233, a very interesting endorsement:


The Remington Core-Lokts are considered the opposite of "premium" today, yet game of the day seemed to die when shot with them. The biggest moose I`ve ever shot was felled by a 7x57 using plain old cup and core 162gr KS (RWS) bullets.

To be fair, the CL was a better bullet back then, than it is today...

Also, those bullets JOC mentioned were shot at velocities that are perfect for cup and core style bullets.

I always thought the idea behind the Barnes X bullets was to lighten up and drive them hard. If you are keeping your ranges on elk reasonable, maybe less than 500 yds or so, I would try the 185. I have had good penetration on small deer at 338 Fed velocities, and I doubt it will lose much weight when it hits an animal.

Hey Dober, yer a smart feller, did I break the law by shooting that old chaps cow?

He was a retired Judge with IIRC some kind of ambulatory license, he was allowed bull or cow Elk, and buck or doe MD, his license didnt look anything like ours, [out of state over the counter] he was also allowed to travel on his ATV and could ride hot, and shoot from the ATV also.

This was in '96/'97, have always wondered iffin I was wrong, but when I heard him holler, and seen that damn hole she was headed for, I raised and fired, didnt want the old timer to lose his cow, and didnt want her suffering needlessly either.

Thanks,
Gunner

Have they changed?

Actually I don't think they've changed, but the bars been raised. On a side note, I'd be willing to bet that more elk are taken in Montana every year with CL's and PP's than the Premiums. IMO they work just fine as long they're pointed in the right direction.

Dober

.

Hey Gunner, no worries man. I just got a kick out of the term assist...

U did the right thing no doubt.

Dober

Thanks neighbor.

Gunner

That they do! But none-the-less, I was under the impression that the "core lockt" ring had been seriously reduced in size in the PSPCL bullets. I don't think the RNCL's have changed at all. Maybe I'm wrong, here.

The RN Core-lokts are still fine controlled expansion bullets; it's the well formed heavy, tapered jacket that seem to do the work on these.

Prima fascia evidence that when it comes to bullets and bra sizes BIGGER IS BETTER... And yep, never shot an elk,,,

I respect everyones opinion but I have complete faith in the 185 TTSX getting the job done
Plenty of shock and awe and as far as penetration I never fret that with Barnes bullets

In



Out



Some may say a 125 lb hog 'aint a great barometer but I still contend a specimine of flesh, hide and blood is a better gauge of how a projectile will react. I see penetration, soft tissue damage and a nicely ventilated good size exit hole with much blood flow
Have been killing with Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets from.22 cal thru .308 cal and see no reason the 185 TTSX will act or preform any different

100% agreed Dan, I will be surprised if you are able to recover any of the 185's on your PG hunt, cant wait to find out though.

Gunner

It really isn't all too difficult to stop copper slugs if you start using them on bigger game. Heck, even a rather puny sub-200 pound caribou is capable:



This 120 7mm TSX didn't expand a whole lot in the process either. (I've killed quite a few caribou with the older 140 XFB with no bullet recoveries and much quicker killing effect than what this faster slug managed.) Bigger game are great receptacles for bullet recovery IME, even the copper slugs. No sense is using less than the 210 since it shoots well and has the cavity advantage of the TTSX.

Nice, what'd it come out of?

My Dad and G-dad used the 180 RNCL out of their 06's quite a bit.

Dober

This is just me, but one of the biggest things I've learned over 3+ decades of hunting and killing elk is that I like to have 2 holes in the critter. If all goes right, many loads, guns etc will do just fine. When I'm going for serious I like to ensure that I've a load that will give me 2 holes.

The 185 TSX will do just fine most all the time, but I've seen it stopped in an elk and would prefer a bit more bullet. Until people have hunted elk and seen a lot of dead elk they just don't get what I'm talking about.

Pigs and African plains game for the most part is a very different proposition than hunting elk. Especially if the elk are on public ground.

Just a thunk

Dober

The hardest part seems to be that people don't understand that there truly is something to 'get'.

Mark,

As Klik noted, the round-nose Core-Lokts haven't changed, as they still have the same very thick jacket along the shank, and still work very well.

But the Pointed Soft-Point Core-Lokts has their jackets thinned considerably maybe 20 years ago, and are now just basic cup-and-cores, unlike the older PSP's.

Klik: Right. No way a little 200 lb pig is going to stop any bullet. Maybe a 22 LR , but even a 30 carbine with soft points will shoot right through one. I tried to make the point that the paunch on a Moose or Elk, IF FULL of wet grass and twigs, will stop almost any slug. If a 30/06 with any bullet, is shot into a swimming pool, real one not a plastic one, the water will stop the bullet within a foot. You need the extra weight in even the Ttsx to keep on trucking.

Someone mentioned Jack O'Conner and his observations, but he didn't start hunting Elk, etc till the 50s, and his observations on the 180gr 30 cal bullet was on a perfect side shot. A lot different than a raking shot. By the 50s some decent bullets were coming along, but in the 40s, they were just getting into business. Actually, in the 40s and even into the 50s, it was hard to get bullets to reload with. Today, one company, say Hornady, makes more diffrent bullets by itself, than all the companies in existance made in the 50s.

Someone mentioned a picture above and the Ttsx bullet hadn't expanded much. But that's all they're made to expand. I'd like to see them go back further, say half way, but they don't. They are impressive when they are made to. Have seen a 458 one that did, and very impressive. But the Tsx/Ttsx bullets can only expand back to the end of the hole drilled in them. Then become a solid.

I've shot elk with a 405gr projectile and had no exit and was underwelmed so big and heavy don't always win the race

I trust this members experience and judgement fully

DVD: I'm not a big and slow person either. Used the 45/70 and old 405 Silver tips on game in Africa and didn't do well. Another guy a few years back used it with CoreBon ammo, which was hotter and better bullets, and it worked well. I personally want a bullet to be moving in excess of 2800 fps if possible. Read a good article on impact velocity and it's effect on game (5000 animals shot), and the general concensus was that a bullet going that velocity, did a lot more damage. In fact the finding was a bullet at 2700-2800 fps, created a blood back flow through arteries and veins, that cause the animals brain to look like it had a stroke.

But, we're also talking ability to penetrate on a raking shot (left hip to right shoulder on a big elk, fi:) that's a lot of penetration. I shot a Warthog the size of your pig, in RSA last year, and used the Nosler ballistic tip, in 150gr from a 308, and did a side to side shoot through, so not hard on a hog.

The older XFBs I have recovered tended to open better. Petal loss while crushing big bone never seemed to be much of an issue, but back in those days, people whined about every detail since they often had trouble getting MOA groups from them - as if that is needed for most big game hunting!



Using that anecdote to suggest that a 185 would somehow be better than a 210 or other heavier slugs is a rather groundless argument even if that 405 was not a Remington bullet fired from a 45-70 or similar. Whether is was or not, however, imagine what that 405 would have done to the little piggy - and it didn't exit the elk? That should tell you something right there, though, not so much about bullets, but about the difference between smaller game and bigger stuff. Monos like speed, but a 210 out of a 338, especially with that tip, is going to have plenty at any reasonable distance.

Dober? Mister .220 Swift and 6-06 on all things that crawl, walk, or slither- is that you???

Aha! That's what I was thinking of. Thanks for the clarification, John.

Has anybody asked how far the OP would consider shooting at an elk?

Jordo you're slipping my man, you forgot fly...........

Dober

late to the game here but I'm partial to 225 Barnes... I've killed with them from up close IE under 50 yards, out to just over 800. And same round has been shot THROUGH trees, then THROUGH a B/C black bear and through another tree.

Started with 225X and am at both 225 tsx and ttsx and have never had any issues.

Shot 210s for a couple of boxes and could tell no difference at all and went back to the 225 for a bit more buffer.

I see a 185x as perfect for a 338 Federal, a 210 PT covers the 210 IMHO (but I think a 185-200 is ideal for the Federal, whereas I like 225-230 in larger rounds), so I'd jump right over the 210 in a Barnes and use the 225 in any round w/06 capacity.

As I said before, a 210 IS proven, I just like the 185-200 for trajectory and perhaps they expand better at Federal speeds at typical ranges...whereas the '06 and larger - the 225s are only 1-2" down in drop over the 210s (200 zero/400 POI), yet more BC/SD to work with...I just see no downside and little diff in recoil. 250s and up are another matter. For that weight, I like a 286/9.3 which is what I would run if wanting more bullet. Granted, I don't hunt alot of Long range...

Ghost- that 243/TSX combo will serve you well. Report back after some kills

Enjoy seeing bullet tests and debates. I sometimes wonder if this point is figured into performance:

A deeper penetrating bullet w/less frontal area indeed has a narrower wound channel, but is the TOTAL Volume of destruction throughout the bullet's path considered?

Likewise, a shallower penetrating bullet, due to greater expansion produces a wider channel.

Point being, are the two wound channels That different in total damage inside an animal?

I do believe application matters. What works great on a broadside whitetail i.e. an 85 BTHP Sierra from a 243 broadside, creating a wide channel, great shock for caliber, and not requiring alot of penetration qualities if placed BEHIND the shoulder.....is not likely what's needed on say elk. The TSX would do a much better job day in/out in the same round.

Just saying, it's not all apples to apples b/c doing penetration tests on inanimate object although very informative and having relevance, is not IMHO the end all in bullet tests.

So, although some bullets give shallow penetration but wider channels and others the opposite, application matters.

Klik - can you say what was the MV on that 120 Barnes on the 'bou and how far was the shot and the placement? It looks to be in the low 2K range at impact, my guessing.

Keep in mind I am big on the idea of two holes on an elk so for me I just don't see the 185 TSX as the bullet to you on elk out of a 338 Federale and or any of the other 338 rounds.

Short story, bud hit a nice 330 bull with 3 rounds at about 330 yds. Took a while but the bull went down. That's a lot of 3's isn't it...grin

Non of the 3 bullets exited. 338 Federale with 185's.

Now obviously he had a dead bull though. Personally, I feel that a large part of the drive to lighter bullets has to do with people trying to get more speed out of short action rounds.

Dober

That was a 200-ish shot angled from the rear. It punched lungs and lodged in shoulder area without much bone damage. Animal was obviously hit but didn't fall or die immediately. Load was fueled by upper charge of RL 15. TSXs I have recovered remind me, expansion-wise, of XBTs, a design inferior, IMO, to the somewhat shorter radiuses XFBs of yore. Expansion in a bullet which has tentacles instead of a flat/round face is a good thing IMO. I haven't used the TTSX enough to have an informed opinion yet, but I hope it answers that.

What Gunner said. You won't need to look any further if they shoot accurately from your rifle.

donsm70

Mark,

I have read your posts with great interest for a long time. Never have you made me more proud of you than with this post. You are "Da Man!"

Klik - thanks for the info.

Dober, I agree 2 holes are preferred, and can understand your concern based on this hunt. Glad the bull died and was recovered.

In the end, all bullets that we discuss are designed to kill, most do, some better than others. True, many are drawn to speed, though I think a balance has to be struck. I.E. a 160 Barnes IMHO is not the way to go, the 185 has been proven effective, esp. in the Fed, but no doubt, they have their limits.

I'd have little concern that a 225 PT or Barnes would fail to exit on about any reasonable angled shot on elk to 350 - 400 yds w/a 338-06, WM or larger. Those rounds are better suited when the chips are down.

Any info btw on how those bullets looked hitting at that range? I assume the 3 slugs were recovered. Any info on distance traveled and shot placement?

Prolly should have used a Mashburn and 175 PTs

That bullet over 70 gns H-4350 is pure sweetness in my 338 WM.

Gunner

Dober, out of curiosity, did you get to look at any of the bullets from that elk? I would be interesested to know what the expansion on those bullets looked like. I would think that 330 yards from the Fed is about max, as far as expansion is concerned, especially with the tougher Barnes bullets. Would love to have an idea of what those bullets looked like. Also, do you recall the details of the shots, ie angle, shoulder, ribs??? Thanks.

It's not out of game, but gave me an idea of what to expect.

The bullet on the left is a 185 TTSX fired out of a .338 Win Mag (not chrony'd but approx. 3000 fps at the muzzle). On the right is a 250gr Partition, again not chrony'd but approximately 2700fps. They were fired into a round of spruce, lengthwise, at 200 yards.

The TTSX penetrated about 50% further than the Partition and caused significantly less damage. As you can see it didn't open up very much.



At 330 yards, on soft lungs...I don't know how much the TTSX would open. My guess is not much, if at all, given what I saw. But I'll never know because I'm using only Partitions from now on.

Interesting test. Is animal tissue and a spruce log similar in consistency?

One would suspect that since spruce is denser than soft tissue, it would cause a bullet to open up more/faster. The really interesting thing for me were the pictures posted by Klikitarik. The bullets came out of animals and they looked very similar to my picture - except his bullets opened up even less. Seems to make sense to me.

Wood isn't high on my list of realistic bullet test media, but I also did a similar test a few years ago when we were camping on a fairly remote island (with no fresh walrus carcasses on which to test bullets ). So I shot some bullets through a fresh driftwood aspen log at 90 yards. (It was still full of sap and very heavy.)



l to r: 200 XFB, same, 225 NAB, 225 NPT, 250 SP IL, same, 250 HC, 250 GS, same.

These are all 35s and were fired from a Norma chambered rifle.

Why not test them on rocks? Rocks are denser than tissue.

What I'm saying is that unless you are testing with a similar medium, all you've really proven is that you can shoot through a bigger tree with a Barnes than you can with a Partition.

Angus, Black baldy, and Limousine cross cattle make excellent test medium, I hate to have cattle get sick and need to be put down, or others dying of old age, or simply finding one that died, but it does happen, and it's expensive, but hell, might as well not waste a perfect opportunity to test bullets.

From 100 to over 2200 lbs and any caliber/bullet, range you wanna shoot 'em at, or angle, I have done a LOT of bullet testing this way, I believe it to be very accurate.

With a tractor and loader, log chain, axe, knife, and chain saw, there is little left to the imagination.

Gunner

Well I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you asked your first question. But I see what you did there with your question and the logical fallacy. Maybe I will test them on rocks; perhaps the Barnes will open up then....
What you claim is not what I have proven. In fact, I have proven very little. Notice how Klikitarik's bullets all opened up nicely? Why did his XFB open up nicely? I've seen the exact same thing in the past too. However, just as in his game recovered TSX bullets, this 185TTSX didn't open up very much at all. On the other hand, his Partition opened up just as nicely as mine. Perhaps it is just a coincedence.

I posted it for people to see - nobody from the forum was there, I may have an axe to grind, you need water content in the medium for proper expansion, you need to hit bone...etc, etc. You can make up your own mind.

Arac,

I don't have an issue with your test. When you mention that you had proven very little, that's basically what I got out of it as well. Your test works for bullet comparison's sake, but taking the jump to a conclusion that the TTSX would not work so well on game because it didn't stand up well on the log test( as you mentioned in an earlier post), seems like a bit of a stretch.

The other 'trend' you might be able to see in this - though the 185 is a 33 while the 200 in my pic is a 35 and I was shooting wet aspen vs spruce, and at a different distance, is that the (petal retaining) TSX may not open as well or as broadly as the older XFB designs. And that seems to hold with what I have seen in the field as well as in tests.

I have also had good luck on game and test media with the old .257" 75gr XFB, .277" 130gr BTX, .284" 160gr XLC and .416" 350gr XFB.

Re; that 300 yds max comment on 338 Fed/185, I'd say that's reasonable. Layne Simpson reported in an ST article his bull died from one at 314 yds IIRC.

I'd trust a cup/core 200 or 210PT to expand better if we near 350-400 yds, but truly trajectory starts looking loopy at those ranges w/those loads.

That said, MOST all game I have shot has been under 300, so I do see the 338 Fed as a viable round. Best all around 33? Perhaps not.

Bullet test are interesting when it comes to what happens on wood vs. game.

Case in point - 243 Ruger #1, 20" RSI, 70 TNT 3400 (clocked from my rifle) - doe neck shot at 42 yds (yes my bud lasered it for the heck of it) - deer's neck just about torn in half.

Another time I fired a 6TCU - same bullet - runs about 3100-3200 mv, into a hardwood sapling - likely oak - it blew completely thru splintering up the backside - I was amazed it made it thru.

SO, the above posters point as to wood vs. game and how it relates is relative. Wood IIRC can close up a tip i.e. the HP on that TNT I was using....results might be inconsistent.

I'd rather test on say milk jugs w/water as a consistent media...not that it simulates meat/hide/bone...but it is a constant media..in liquid form

I think Barnes in the past had had 'flukes' and one DOES want to know what exact bullet and date/manufacture, as the Barnes have been a 'work in progress' and older first gen bullets I believe had many more of those 'flukes' - whether design and/or copper hardness.

One would want to test several bullets of recent mfg. in a consistent media like perhaps ballistic gel to get a better sampling and draw results that were day in and out, more consistent.

That said, I wonder how many animals have died over time, by bullets that some might consider 'failing a bullet test?'

Indeed, you might add, died and recovered to that question.

All very interesting and why I thought it would be helpful to know what a cartridge like the 338 Fed would do to game at longer distances. I would still love to know from those that have real world experience. If the TSX or TTSX won't expand on an elk at 300 and something yards, but a cup and core will handle the close ups fine, then it wouldn't make much sense to load the TSX in that cartridge, unless I am missing something.

Problem with the 210 Partition is has a relatively poor BC and it starts to matter at those ranges. A 210 would be ~1850 FPS while a 185 would be over 2000 FPS. I can't speak from experience, but I'd trust the 185 more. And the trajectory is indeed better as you mentioned. The 185 has a good BC for its weight and the hole in the tip is pretty large. Barnes told me it would open easily down to 1800 FPS.

That is good info to have, PRM. I agree with you on the 210 with the Fed. The starting velocity with that bullet doesn't leave you much to work with if the published velocities hold true in individual weapons.

I understand the Fed isn't a long range round, but a working knowledge of this round is largely un-tested. Veteran experience with the round at it's limits would be so helpful for those who wish to know it's limits while working up a load. Some may only get the occasional shot at a wapiti and may want to come with the odds in their favor when they get the chance.

Of course there is the age old adage, put a bullet where it belongs....

A couple of thoughts:



This .338 XFB (a bullet which opens very well at 200-300 yards), didn't fare very well when fired from a 340 Weatherby into a moose at 535 yards. (Actually, you might suggest that it fared very well as it could be loaded and fired again. )



And this 225 XFB fired from a 358 Winchester at between 200-300 yards might have been improved upon with the use of a 200 grain of similar construction.

Personally, I don't trust the calculated speeds of any of the bullets, and especially the monos when it comes to longer distances. In my opinion, about the only way I want to be shooting them at live targets is if I know whether the bullet has a reasonable chance of opening way out yonder. Simply put, copper is harder and tougher than lead and thin gilding metal jackets. John Nosler had a remarkably good, if simple idea when he came up with it many moons ago. It still is a standard worth pursuing IMO.

PRM - I'd agree if it were apples to apples....I did alot of comparison of bullets from 185 thru 210s and MY research indicated the 200 grain bullets i.e. Federal are the all around best blend of speed/energy and drop at long range, the 185 in a mono is not what I'd want at 1800 impact.

I think the word 'open up' or 'expand' is relative....when looking at my 243/85 TSX kill, mv 3100, range 240 yds, look at the expansion (https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth...ger_1_International_Who_has_#Post3091822),

I feel that 2200 is a good 'threshold' for TSX/TTSX bullets. I just do not believe a Barnes rifle bullet on average will expand enough to MY liking at 1,800.

Klik - what I do know is the older Barnes bullets are perhaps inferior in consistency and/or proper hardness/softness, etc. as IIRC those were older gen bullets. Agreed, copper is harder so it's a whole other ball of wax.

The 338 Fed is on the border w/capacity to drive 210s at a good clip for longer shots. Some get 2500 or below, others 2600...my 338/06 drove 215s at 2790 fwiw.

Factory vs. handload (powder choice), bbl length, etc. etc. matter. In the 338 Fed, compare on the http://www.federalpremium.com/products/compare/rifle_compare.aspx

P338FB 338 Federal 210 Nosler� Partition� Vital-Shok� Remove
P338FC 338 Federal 185 Barnes� Triple-Shock� X Bullet� Vital-Shok� Remove
P338FTT2 338 Federal 200 Trophy Bonded� Tip Vital-Shok� Remove
338FJ 338 Federal 200 Soft Point Power-Shok� Remove


Ballistics Comparisons:
Velocity in Feet per Second
Load No Caliber Muzzle 100 Y 200 Y 300 Y 400 Y 500 Y
P338FB 338 Federal 2630 2412 2204 2007 1820 1648
P338FC 338 Federal 2750 2497 2257 2030 1818 1623
P338FTT2 338 Federal 2630 2431 2241 2060 1887 1725
338FJ 338 Federal 2700 2484 2278 2082 1895 1721

Energy in Foot Pounds

P338FB 338 Federal 3225 2712 2266 1878 1545 1266
P338FC 338 Federal 3106 2560 2092 1693 1357 1082
P338FTT2 338 Federal 3071 2625 2231 1884 1581 1321
338FJ 338 Federal 3237 2740 2304 1924 1594 1315

Drop 200 zero - 50/100/300/400/500
P338FB 338 Federal 1.1 2.3 -9.4 -27.3 -56.3
P338FC 338 Federal 0.9 2.0 -8.9 -26.2 -54.4
P338FTT2 338 Federal 1.0 2.2 -9.2 -26.3 -53.6
338FJ 338 Federal 0.9 2.1 -8.8 -25.5 -52.2

As you can see, they are pretty close in speed and drop at 400 yds, assuming accurate speeds on the street.

Again, to ME a cup/core 200 is likely a good all arounder in the Federal, at these speeds they will not vaporize like a magnum might (esp. on bone at close range) spitting fly weight bullets in Cup Core design.

Again, I'd trust the 210 PT to expand over the Barnes assuming same impact speed. The Federal round nor Barnes bullets are ideal as a combo for long range. I think a Partition and Barnes is better served in the 06 and larger rounds given the speeds the Fed is running w/simple cup/core bullets. 200 grains expanded from a .338 start is a sizable slug IMO. If one throws in Dangerous bears and ranges are close - as in 200 yds or under, the premium bullet can make sense as you might want alot of penetration obviously.

Food for thought...

About 338Fed, without being expert, i used it three seasons now on different games (no elk but good red deers)from 25m (driven hunt) to 200m (mouflons). All kills were one shot with four types of bullets: 185grs TSX, 185 Accubond, 200grs Fusion and my own handload 250grs Sako Powerhead (large free supply of them). Recovered only one bullet: fusion 200grs but after he broke three shoulders, angled a bit and 3 more ribs to rest under skin of the second red deer doe that was hit after passing through the first one. Distance was more than 110m close to 125 yards.

Never will be my 338Lapua Mag but enough for euro/north america game too 300m for a guy who know how to use it. As recoil is on the light side i think more people shoot him well than all 338 magnum.

Big boars, tough mouflons and red deer (stags) were no match for the bullets even at full speed and under adrenaline. Rifle is light T3 hunter. Sights were Aimpoint or 1,5-6x42 S&B.

Just a frog grain of salt.

Have good end of week

Dom

I agree with your idea of minimum needed speed to reliably expand.

As far as the old versus the new, I am not convinced that the new have improved on the old in anything except accuracy. If they have improved in consistency it is only that the new ones seem to open less widely than the old which perhaps helps them hold onto their petals nearly 100% of the time. The very first Barnes bullet I fired at an animal lost a petal or two on impact. It is one of only three, less than 10% of the moose I have been involved with the killing of which tipped right over on impact, a fact that was unavoidable given the fact that the bullet broke the top ends of both humerus bones. Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with these bullets losing petals. I much prefer a caliber-wide flat face to a four-spoked claw which never opens much. Obviously the caliber-wide, petal-less slug was open to a wide flat face at some point in the expansion before the petals came off. Copper is a difficult medium to work with when it comes to bullets, there is no doubt, at least relative to lead and cup and draw brass alloy. The success of the Barnes monos was achieved largely through the improvement in accuracy and fouling minimization. Expansion characteristics overall have not improved as near as I can tell. If they had Barnes would capitalize on it just as they have with the accuracy and fouling. It's not that they haven't constantly tried to improve expansion, but they try to avoid making it an issue since they still haven't achieved their goal. Perhaps the TTSX will be the tool by which they achieve it. My thoughts and opinions on the matter, and it may not be worth two cents.

Thanks for the post, Frog.

Good points Klik.

JB has some thoughts on Barnes and various types, maybe he will share his knowledge.