Have a feeling it's been asked but my Google-fu sucks.

Any real difference in the various mono bullet choices?

Barnes is always mentioned when wanting to go the mono route but how different are they from the E Tip or GMX bullets?

All basically the same when it comes to terminal performance?

While I have a bit more experience with Barnes, it seems there is little to no difference between the three brands.

Having said that, it must be noted that my overall experience with Monos is not so great that one should give it too much credibility.....three elk and seven mule deer isn't exactly a great amount of evidence.....but so far I can honestly say that I'll shoot the ones that deliver the greatest accuracy regardless of brand.

I’ve used only the Barnes, but they are accurate and kill deer and pigs dead.

I have used Barnes and GMX in the field with no difference in terminal performance that I could see.

Where I see the difference is at the range, Barnes as a whole always seem to shoot better.

One of my processes for developing loads is to load Barnes and GMX's. Shoot the series for each and not only look at individual loads but the average of all the groups for the series. I have yet to have a GMX come out with the lowest aggregrate group size.

Just did that with two 338-06 rifles and the 185gr TTSX and GMX's with both Varget and TAC powder. TTSX out shot the GMX. The 210gr TTSX grouped better than than both the 185's. So I loaded up some 210's last night to take to Texas next week, and will take that same load to AK in June for black bear.

Have had the same results with a 300 H&H and 180gr bullets, with the TTSX shooting tighter groups..

The majority of my 270's shoot the 130gr Barnes T or TTSX better than the same weight GMX. I have one rifle that prefers the 130gr GMX.

I've used all three major brands of monos on big game, and also shot them into test media. While there can be small difference seen in media tests, I have yet to be able to tell any difference on game. All three open into four "petals," and usually retain all four, though sometimes lose anywhere from one to four petals, particularly if they hit bone.

The exception would be the LRX (Long Range X-Bullet) which has the petals annealed to enable the bullets to open up at lower velocities. This sometimes results in losing petals at closer ranges.

But also have never been able to tell much (if any) difference how various monos kill game based on how many petals they lose or retain. In fact, some other monos (such as the Cutting Edge Raptor) are designed to consistently lose their petals, which supposedly results in more damage around the primary wound channel. But there are many variables in both animal reaction and bullet placement.

The other factor is that (as noted above) TSXs, E-Tips and GMXs all tend to lose petals when they hit heavy bone. This often results in more damage, despite the petal loss, from bone fragments. A good example would be a big cow elk my wife killed a couple years ago with a 130-grain TTSX from a .308 Winchester. The cow was quartering toward us at around 250 yards, and the bullet landed just above the big joint of the left shoulder. The elk staggered 20-25 yards and fell over, obviously done for from the moment the bullet landed. We found the bullet, minus all four petals, under the hide over the right ribs, only retaining around 60% of its weight, due to the loss of all its petals.

Saw the same sort of thing several times with the discontinued Fail Safe bullet, which also opened into four petals. Even if all the petals broke off, the animal died quickly--usually quicker than if the bullet didn't hit major bone.

Thanks all. Sitting on 100 TTSXs and had someone recommend the GMX to me. Realized I always only seem to hear about the Barnes offerings.


ETA - LRX - what's the min impact velocity for those? Everyone tells me 1800-2k for the TTSX.

In my desk drawer I have three recovered monos:
-300gr TSX (Cape buffalo)
-225gr E-Tip (bull elk)
-180gr GMX (zebra, I think)
Other than the TSX missing a petal, the bullets are virtually identical as was their terminal performance. I would say use what shoots best in your rifle.

Barnes has been in the mono game a lot longer than the others if that matters to you. They have had more time to work out the bugs in my opinion and really laid the ground work for the others.

Yes, Barnes started the present trend in the late 1980s, and I have used them since then, including coping with the difficulties of the early models. In my experience they started really getting the problems solved about a decade later, but the introduction of the TSX in 2004 really got Barnes over the hump.

But Barnes did not invent monolithic bullets. Others had experimented with them long before, as well as nearly monolithic bullets, such as the now defunct North Fork, which only had a tiny bit of lead in the tip. And other companies came at it from a different direction.

Nosler brought out the E-Tip in 2007, essentially as a coreless Ballistic Tip since they'd experimented considerably with various core/jacket ratios already. The E-Tips worked well from the beginning (I know this due to extensively testing E-Tips on big game before they were offered to customers) but a small percentage of rifles didn't shoot them well, perhaps because of "disagreements" between bore diameter and the solid shank.

But not as many people back then were willing to experiment with seating depth--which eventually proved to be a major potential factor with not just Barnes bullets but all monos. I got 130 E-Tips to shoot VERY well in a .270 Weatherby by seating them a LOT deeper than 130 Ballistic tips.

GMX's came out a little later, and from my experience worked well from the beginning--probably due to observing what had happened with other monos, and other solid-shank bullets.

Any insights on another mono-bullet: Lapua Naturalis?

Mule Deer, as a note on seating depths, in both my .223 with 50 gr TTSX and 7mm-08 with 120 TTSX I found that a surprisingly short oal provided the best accuracy.




P

That definitely can happen--but also often doesn't, even with lead-cored bullets.

Which is why it often helps to seat ANY bullet farther from the lands if a they don't shoot well close to the lands.

I’ve been happy enough with the performance of Barnes TTSX and TSX in various cartridges to not spend the effort and money experimenting with the other mono bullets. I think I’m going to work up 145 LRX loads for my 7x57 for potentially better expansion at lower velocities. Happy Trails

I read a Jack O'Connor article from an older Gun Digest. In his article he mentioned Fred Barnes and his bullets.

He stated that Fred Barnes started making copper bullets in the early 1940's when lead became unavailable because of
the war effort.

Barnes came up with the idea of copper bullets, maybe not original even then, but he did it. Well before Randy Brooks claim to have come up with the idea.

O'Connor did not have a favorable impression of them. They were crudely made to him.

Terminal performance seems similar in my limited experience of the non Barnes bullets and lots with the Barnes. One big difference is in pressure generated.
Driving band or relief groove bullets like the Barnes have lower pressure than even some cup and core bullets. Smooth copper = more pressure. smooth Cupro Nickle (Gilding Metal) = even more pressure but no hard and fast rule if it is higher than the smooth copper always. It depends on diameter and bearing surface.

Between the three, loads can vary as much as three grains with two grains being fairly typical when multiple bullets were pressure tested individually. Nosler doesn't make this distinction for the monos but in my limited experience they should.

Fred Barnes worked with PO Ackley on a controlled expansion bullet, it was mostly copper with a hollow point punched in the nose and then a small lead core was swagged in. Crude tools and varable materials hurt the accuracy. But those that were believers swore by them. One shooter thought so highly of them he was going to use these bullets in a 220 Swift on man eating tigers in India? These bullets were similar to the original Trophy Bonded Bear Claws.

I have tried Barnes, Nosler and Hornady monos. The Barnes from the TSX and newer have always been really easy to get to shoot with the exception of the MRX, which were a little bitchy. The Nosler E Tip have always been tough to get to shoot. The Hornady GMX are somewhere in between.
I should mention that the Etips I have tried were the older ones without the relief groove. I just picked up some 6.5 120 E Tips.with the relief groove and plan to give them a try this week.

BWalker,

The biggie I've found with E-Tips is seating depth, whether the original or grooved version--which is what I've also experience with the other monos. In general I have found E-Tips easy to get to shoot well by fiddling with depth. Early on one rifle (a .308 Winchester of all things) shot one batch well, but not a second batch. Since then have not had any difficulty that I can recall. My .257 Weatherby shoots the 100 E-Tips into an inch at 200 yards--usually less.

Tejano,

Nosler does acknowledge the difference in pressure with E-Tips. In their original data, they advised using the "middle" load as maximum, but in their latest manual emphasize always starting with the "starting" load, because so many handloaders don't.

Also, cupro-nickel is NOT gilding metal. Cupro-nickel is about 75% copper and 25% nickel, and was used for bullet jackets a century ago. It fouled like crazy, and was extremely difficult to remove. The British eventually found that filling a barrel with an ammonia solution, then letting it soak, would get it out--which Townsend Whelen started using, and reporting in America. But I don't know of any bullet company that has used cupro-nickel for bullet jackets for a long, long time.

Gilding metal is mild brass, generally either 95% copper and 5% tin, or 90-10.

Pressure, of course, also varies with seating depth. I have used E-Tips with Nosler's maximum loads for that bullet weight with no problem, when seating them farther from the lands.

Thanks, John. Useful, as always.

I have also used most of the major monolithic bullets and concur with John that they are more similar than not.

One difference from personal experience is the lack of consistent performance from TSX’s on deer compared to TTSX’s which have produced completely consistent results.

The worst performance was a TSX in a .30-06 to shoot a buck in Saskatchewan. The TSX went through both shoulder blades without opening. Shot through both shoulders the deer ran about 150 yards. The buck was just shy of 300# on the scales. So there was plenty of body mass for it to open in addition to hitting bone.

TTSX’s have always opened with most falling where they stand. One time, shot placement was to the lungs just to see how the TTSX would perform not aiming for the CNS or shoulders. The .260 120 grain produced holes about the size of a quarter. The buck ran about 30 yards and did a face plant burying his antlers.

So, there is one difference from actual observation. Used the TSX on about 5 - 10 deer and no pigs. TTSX’s have been used on many times that number of animals - lots and lots of pigs, too many to count.

Those interested in the monolithic bullets should check out Hammer Bullets. There are lots of reports that its easy to get Hammer bullets to shoot tight groups, and they perform well on game. I have no connection to Hammer Bullets, I am just a happy customer.

For example: https://www.longrangehunting.com/threads/hammer-bullets.234862/ The posters that have used the product pretty much universally praise it.

Anyone used the 270 85 or 95 grain on game? They should be very fast but I'm thinking they are made for the 6.8 and may not hold together on game at the 3600 fps that could be generated. What's your experience?

I have pushed them TSX and TTSX bullets pretty fast and tested them into water jugs. !130 grain TSXs and TTSXs out od a 300 WM run about 3580 when you get to accuracy near the top end. I have killed deer with them at that speed without any sign of losing a petal. But, I am shooting deer and not shooting heavy bone. I have tested 25-06 80 grain TTSXs into water jusg without losing petals. I have tested 85 grain TSXs out of a 270 into water jugs at somewhere above 3500 without losing petals. I have hit heavy bone with TSX and TTSXs in 243 and 270 without seeing any evidence of lost petals. The only Barnes bullet I have seen lose a petal was a 150 grain XLC at 3250 FPS that I put into the mouth of a deer. It went through all the molars on one side and then through the atlas and brain stem which I was shooting at. That one shed a petal which hit one of the spinal processes on above the pelvis and did an impressive job penetrating.

I may have lost petals on other Barnes or monos, but I have never recovered any bullets to know for sure. Also never lost a deer with any mono nor ever needed a second dose for any deer.

Cutting Edge Bullets do not lose there pedals, they are called "Blades" they do cutting-slicing as secondary projectiles. The base keeps penetrating and will tend to penetrate deeper than other monolithic bullets that keep there "pedals".
Having used Partitions for several decades, moving to Barnes for a couple years, was not impressed with the non-grooved version. Now after shoot close to 200 animals with Cutting Edge Bullets Raptors and Maximus several thousand in to "wet paper media". Only bullets I will ever use will be CEB's, unless something better comes along. I do thinks there will in my life time....

They themselves refer to them as petals. But you're right, they don't lose pedals, as they aren't bicycles...

coyotewacker,

Gee, thanks for the "correction." I wrote "petals" (not pedals) because that's what most hunters call them. And yes, I am personally quite aware of how they work, since my wife and I have used Raptors in calibers from .224 to .308.

I would disagree with your statement about monos that lose petals (or blades, or leaves, or whatever somebody might call them) penetrating deeper than bullets that keep theirs. In my experience, in both game and "media," it depends on various other factors, including how much remains the frontal area of the remaining shank. Quite a few bullets that have lost all their petals end up expanding slightly anyway. Plus, there's the fact that bullets retaining their petals weigh more, which has some effect on penetration, though it's not the only factor, as many hunters assume.

I found these a couple weeks ago and ordered up some for .277 and .308. I don't know a thing about them other than the folks who answered the phone when I called were very friendly. The customer service person put me in touch with their R&D person when I had questions regarding their starting load data and he was quite friendly as well.

https://badlandsprecision.com

Great posts. Thank you mule deer and others.
I love ttsx and have been using them for 10 + years. I am now working up load with LRX. I also have never found or recovered a bullet, always a pass through from 40 to 400 on deer and elk.
I have looked at other monos, but lack of Driving bands or relief grooves has kept me away.

If you live in Utah you have to at least "try" Barnes bullets and Browning firearms! ha Just kidding, but both are good. I have only played around with the GMX & ETip, in 30 caliber. Never had a rifle that liked them more than Barnes TSX or especially, TTSX. Maybe I just didn't "hold my mouth right" or seated them right, I wasn't impressed enough to stay at it...plus...maybe I'm prejudiced....I live in Utah!

I tried the handgun Raptors and was less than impressed. Penetration was severelying lacking and the petals or blades as you prefer did exactly nothing that I could detect.

MILES58
Thanks for your response. Water jugs and wet paper tests tell us a lot and I find then informative. You said. "I have hit heavy bone with TSX and TTSXs in 243 and 270 without seeing any evidence of lost petals." That's what I looking for. Were any of these 85 or 95 grainers.

Since Miles says he's never recovered a TSX of any variety, it might be iffy whether one lost any petals.

But have not only found petals from Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets around the entrance hole but the exit--some near where the shank of the bullet was recovered, but also around the rim of the exit hole itself. As an example, found a petal from a 300-grain .375 Fail Safe at the edge of a fist-sized exit hole from a BIG Cape buffalo. Have seen the same variations from other petal-type bullets, but then my wife and I been shooting "petal" bullets since the late 1980s.

We also skin and butcher ALL the big game animals we put in the freezer, and I have helped with the skinning and butchering of most of our other big game animals. The exception is Africa--where I've often been in the skinning shed, or offered a tip for any bullet or fragment recovered.

I've got a small box of recovered X/TSX/TTSX/LRX bullets. Most have retained their petals, but I'd say about 30-40% have lost at least one petal, and a few have lost all their petals. Makes no difference to me. I've not made any observations correlating killing effectiveness with petal retention.

Jordan,

As I have noted here and there for quite a while, neither have I.

I have put some 243 80 and 85 grain Barnes through heavy bone. I have put 110 and 130 grain .270 Barnes bullets through heavy bone. I have put 130 grain .308 Barnes bullets through heavy bone. I have put 250 grain Barnes bullets through heavy bone at much lower velocities. I have only seen the one instance in which I could say I say any evidence of a shed petal. That is out of between 50 and 100 deer killed with them and ZERO recovered bullets. Of those deer I gave away one or two but probably butchered them as well as butchering and eating all the rest. I recovered no bullets or petals and I even keep an eye out for them while gutting. Most of the deer I have killed that were shot through heavy bone were shot through the atlas inside of 10 yards. One was shot through the atlas at 165 yards. One deer shot with a .270 110 grain TTSX was very impressive to me. The bullet went through the onside shoulder blade and made a fist sized hole in it. It then went through four ribs near the spine which that close to the spine are about an inch wide. After that it took out about a fist size chunk of the bottom of the spine, two more ribs and then made a quarter sized hole in the off side shoulder blade. That bullet made a caliber size entrance hole and a caliber sized exit hole in the hide which would seem unlikely. The wound channel was arrow straight. The wound channel was fairly consistent and like almost ll the wound channels I have made with Barnes bullets, about 3 inches plus or minus. Usually I cannot even guess at wound channel inside the chest because it is often as not just red soup. That particular deer was killed at near 300 yards.

In my opinion testing bullets is not real positive correlation of what happens when it hits Bambi. I think that testing a bullet at maximum velocity into water to see if it comes apart is pretty likely to show me if that bullet will come undone at that velocity. I also believe that testing into water at minimum velocity (at which I expect to hit a deer) will show me if it will still expand decently. Beyond that, bullet performance in test media is useful only for comparing one bullet to another in that media. That is not what interests me because things like bullet deflection which is very important to me is pretty difficult to get a meaningful handle on outside of a deer's body.

I have been killing deer with Barnes bullets for a long, long time. The first Barnes monos I killed deer with were in the 90's. I have never seen any evidence of a mono not expanding or losing petals or failing in any way using Barnes Xs, XLCs, TSXs, TTSXs, Several types of Barnes ML bullets, GMXs or E-Tips. I have only shot a few deer with the E-Tips and GMXs though. I have examined a like number of deer killed by others with Barnes and other monos that I loaded. Many of them I also assisted in butchering. Out of all of those there have been two recovered bullets, one from a deer and one from the ground after it exited. Neither of those shed petals.

John, since you're staying engaged with this thread (much appreciated!) perhaps you could share any advice on seating depth for the E-Tips. I've followed your writing on these and you always mention it's critical but I don't recall any specifics other than "deeper than other bullets." I've been trying to get some 90 grain E-Tips to shoot in a .243 and they seem best at .100" off the lands, which is as far as I've gone so far.
With all your experience, what trends have you found with E-tip optimum seating depth? If you were to start working up an E-Tip load on a new rifle/caliber combination, what depth would you start with, and which direction would you move if you were not happy with the initial seating depth?

Thanks,
Rex

Rex,

Generally I start a little farther off the lands than with lead-cored bullets, around .050 inch instead of .030 or so. If that doesn't work like I want it to, then I start seating deeper, usually around .03 for each trial. Have often gotten better accuracy at around .1 inch off the lands, but in some rifles it's been much more.

One I remember specifically was a Mark V Weatherby in .270 Weatherby Magnum. I started handloading for it with 130-grain Ballistic Tips, because they have an ogive very similar to E-Tips. Got fine accuracy (as I recall around 1/2" for 3 shots) with the bullets seated as far out as possible to fit in the magazine, which in a Weatherby is already quite a ways from the rifling due to the long "freebore" chamber throat.

Then I switched to 130 E-Tips, with the same powder and seating depth, but they grouped into about 2". So I started seating them deeper, two turns on the seating-die screw each time. The first groups (2 turns) were around an inch, and the second groups (another 2 turns, 4 in total) were around what the Ballistic Tips had done, a little over 1/2".

Thanks very much John! In your first sentence do you mean ".050 inch instead of .030?"
Cheers,
Rex

Yep, good catch.... Just changed it.

Rug3,

Water jugs say something, but I'm not sure what, except maybe a rough idea of relative penetration. Wet paper tests do not, because just about any bullet will mushroom perfectly in wet paper--which is why so many old bullet advertisements showed bullets shot into wet paper.

Miles,

I have several recovered X's, from the ungrooved originals to TTSX's, that have lost petals--including one, shot into the shoulder joint of an axis buck, that lost all 4.

Might post a photo later, but for now I will repeat something that Randy Brooks told me a while back, while we were on a deer hunt together almost 20 years ago, after the TSXs appeared, but the TTSX's had not. He was astonished after introducing the original X when so many hunters thought it was so desirable for X's to retain all their petals. He always though losing petals might help them kill a little quicker, but being a good businessman, he gave customers what they wanted, tweaking the design until X's did tend to retain all (or at least most) of their petals.

Nowadays, the LRX's are designed to open up easily at lower velocities, so do lose more petals.

Mule Deer
Thanks for your response.
I erred in not asking the question I'm really searching for. Was the 85TSX and the 95 TTSX specifically designed for the 6.8 and thus
be made differently, less tough, to open at slower speeds? Apparently the LRX is made to open slower. What's the technological design that makes the LRX open earlier? Are they softer, deeper grooves, what? Is the alloy the same in the 85TSX and 95TTSX as the 110 or 130?

Not sure about the 6.8s, I thought the TAC line was softer but others say identical to TSX & TTSX. Might contact Barnes. The LRX has a deeper hollow point and I suspect they anneal the bullets too.

One Australian writer (and maybe others) anneals his factory bullets but I don't know how well you could control the results? One factor is if you over do it you melt the tip.

I would not necessarily expect that to be the case. Barnes also knows that just making a bigger hollow point in the end will provide adequate opening into ad copy perfect mushrooms. I have tested 30-30 TSX FN and their predecessor the X FN as well as a couple of XPB versions in .357 and .40. With the exception of the X FN 30-30 these are whopping big hollow points. The 30-30 X FN is just large compared to X bullets. The 30-30 TSX FN I tested into water down to 1100 FPS and I still got ad copy expansion. I do not remember how far down I tested the X FN. The .357 XPB I ran down to regular 38 (not 38 special) velocities. Those opened perfectly down closer to 800 FPS into water. The 30-30 TSX FN also opened perfectly and did not shed petals at slightly above 2400 FPS. The 357 XPB did not shed petals at >1700 FPS but I did not test above 1800 FPS. I think if I remember right the 125 grain .40 XPB tested OK at close to 1400, but I am not sure why that number sticks in my head, I usually wont push something that hard.

About 2/3 of the deer I kill are beyond 100 yards. About 1/3 are very close. The average is probably 125-150 yards. I try hard to avoid heavy bone, but the close deer get hit almost always such that the bullet goes through the atlas. Consequently it doesn't surprise me in the least I have not recovered a bullet from a deer shot with a mono. It has been of interest to me that I have only found evidence of a single mono losing a petal. I expected to in the beginning and I have looked hard. Statistically, with that many deer it should have shown up if it was likely to. Probably it is not likely to because I have only high shouldered a few, none in the hips, none through hard bone in the legs. I would not be a bit surprised nor consider it unlikely that out of a couple dozen that got it through the brain stem that some of those bullets lost petals, but at the typical 25-30 feet at which they were killed, recovery of bullet or petals is pretty unlikely.

John i might be one of the few that liked the Barnes before they put the groves on.

In the 35 Whelen,7x57 and that darn 270 Win,i never had a problem with hitting the critter.

Only found one in a deer it came from the 7x57.About 125 yards and it turned up in the right rear leg.
It traveled there under or in side the deer as no holes were in that hide where the bullet was found.

I still have a few boxes left as well as some 75 grain 257 bullets.

plainsman,

I liked the pre-groove X's too--though not until around the mid-1990s. Before then the accuracy was pretty iffy in several rifles I tried them in. Sometimes a decent group (which I define as around an inch, 3-shot at 100) would turn up, but the next group, with the same load, might be 2". This is still sufficient for most big game hunting at "normal" ranges, but then sometimes a flier would show up as well.

This started to get better in the late 90s, at least in my experience--and I was getting samples frequently. First got consistent inch groups with the blue-coated model (XLC?) in SOME batches, most notably the 100-grain in a .257 Ackley Improved I had back then, an Ultra Light Arms rifle. Then in the late 90s more and more X's started shooting not just well, but VERY well.

As I got to know Randy better, discovered this was because he was getting more consistent batches of copper, which meant diameters were becoming more consistent--and they'd also learned more about consistent production. The two I used most were the 120 in a very accurate Ruger Mark II 6.5x55, and the 250 9.3mm in two rifles, a CZ 550 9.x62 and a my Remington 700 9.3 Barsness-Sisk. ALL would regularly group three in around 1/2" at 100--but the fouling problem persisted, which the XLC's didn't totally solve in some barrels.

Then the TSX came along, and took care of both the inconsistent accuracy and fouling problem. We used them the first year they appeared--Eileen in her NULA .270 Winchester. In fact Eileen was the first hunter to give Coni an elk-kill field report for the TSX--which also killed a coyote quite well on the same hunt.

But we also had erratic expansion with some of the early TSX's, especially one batch of 100-grain .25s. But that was totally solved by the introduction of the Tipped TSX a couple years later--which has worked very well in several rifles since then.

I have used several, and have found just about what JB has stated. The early weren't bad, accuracy wise, but lots of copper fouling. Mid years were inconsistent. The later TTSX seems to have found the sweet spot. Still have some original Barnes bullets in 6.5, 165g.

Miles,

As I and Jordan stated earlier, neither of us has found ANY difference in either "killing power" or penetration when Barnes X-Bullets keep or lose petals. I also mentioned Randy's take on the whole thing. I also have found no difference in other "petal" type bullets, whether monolithic or the Fail Safe with its lead core in the rear end.

Retaining or losing petals only became an issue because so many hunters became obsessed with 100% weight retention as THE answer to "killing power"--which is definitely not true. Randy Brooks himself was never fixated on it, as I pointed out. Instead he wanted deeper penetration, which does indeed help in some hunting.

But EVERY time the question of Barnes--or other petal-expanding bullets--comes up on the Campfire, somebody has to mention (as you did) the relative loss of petals. Whereupon some of us who have used such bullets enough to see every variation, from no petal loss to ALL petals gone, feel obliged to mention that we have never seen any meaningful difference in killing power or penetration.

243, 260, 7-08, 270, 30-06, 7mag, 338 WM, 375 H&H....all seated with the front of the first driving band at the case mouth. Start and finish right there. Ymmv.