Ok so not really a long range question, but since some of you know your way around ballistic calculators...

If my max range is 425 yards or so, hunting deer and elk which Barnes TTSX would better serve me assuming my rifle shoots them the same with regards to accuracy?


150g BC of 420 @3000 fps

168g BC of 470 @ 2850 fps

Recoil should be about the same. I know they both will work, but if I'm going to invest the time and energy to work up loads this will help me get started.

thanks

About a inch less drop on the 150, and a touch less energy than the 168 at 425. They are really pretty close at that range, the 168 will do better at longer ranges.

I load 150’s in 30-06’s and 168’s I’m my 300 Win Mag. They slay deer, pigs and Aoudads just fine.

Barnes bullets ain’t about energy. They’re about penetration. Velocity rules.

Go 150. It will retain more weight and penetrate deeper than a 180 NPT at the same impact velocities, and really outperform it if it is impacting at higher velocity.

My understanding of those bullets is that even the 150's will give more than enough penetration. The important factor is impact velocity, not energy. It needs to be around 2000 fps and most guys say 2200 is better in order to get expansion. According to my calculations the 150s will drop below 2200 fps right at 400 yards. The 168's a little under 400 yards. Assuming those impact numbers are accurate around 425-450 yards is about the limit for either of those in 30-06. Started faster in a magnum would add a little more range.

I confess, I've not taken any game when either was in my rifle, but I have experimented with 150's in my 30-06 and 130's in my 308. I'd save the 168's for magnums. But I don't think either would be a bad choice.

I shoot the 168's in both an '06 and a .308, I don't think you'd be disappointed in that weight. At the distances you mentioned either will be fine, I think the accuracy potential is a bit higher with them than the 150's (in my experience). I've run mine out to 800yds in the .308 and it's right there with the 168 Amax for accuracy and drop.

150's for sure. The expansion will be quite a bit better at closer ranges. I've shot a few deer with the 168's going 2800, and past about 250 yards, they don't expand much. Barnes need 3k+ fps to work their best.

Funny you posted this question, because I have been researching the exact same thing as I pondered loading up some TTSX for a future elk hunt. Based on my assumed numbers (pretty much identical to yours), I came to the conclusion that it doesn't make a nickles worth of difference to any sane hunting distance. The 150 will be faster from 0-350 yards, but both are plenty fast enough to work. From 350 to 450, they are within 25 fps, so it's negligible. And beyond that where the 168 is faster, I've got no business shooting an elk and if I did shoot one that far, I'd rather have a different bullet.

I've had very good luck using the 168 TSX BT in a NULA .308 on a couple of Colorado bulls, one at 266 yards, the other at 319 yards. I would have preferred a 150 Barnes but the 168 shot so accurately, I stuck with it. Muzzle velocity was 2,700 fps, about the most one can expect with a 22" barrel and H4895. I could get slightly more speed with Varget, but not better accuracy. I'm pretty sure you could get at least another 100 fps from this bullet in an '06.

With the Barnes at the ranges you state, I would let impact velocity decide.

John

Randy,

You might also consider the 175 LRX. I ran the numbers with the 150 @ 3000, 168 @ 2900 and 175 @ 2800, and while there's only a slight difference in trajectory, the 175 drifts less in the wind and at 400 retains just about the same velocity at 400 as either of the two lighter bullets.

I like the 150 gr. At 7k ft elevation and 40degrees, I am 2” highly at 100 and right at the thick to thin on the crosshairs at 400. I still have 2300+ fps for expansion at that distance. I shouldn’t shoot farther than that.

I'm shooting the 130gr at 3228 very flat to 425yds.

Wisdom..

Thanks Mule Deer.

John,
Are you using "Hunter" to get that velocity?

Ed

Randy, I had a question about the same back in 2005, so I decided to see for myself what a 168 TSX looked like at 300 yards fired into wet, bundled phone books. I set up my chronograph at 300 yards and shot through the sky-screen clocking velocity. The bullet was fired at 2,880 fps from my 30-06. I've lost my notes, but I remember the clock measured right at 2,000 fps or just a bit less at the 300 yard mark.

On the left is the 168 TSX I caught in the phone book at 300 yards, on the right is a 168 TSX I caught at 50 yards in a bull elk later that fall:



There's nothing especially "wrong" with the TSX/TTSX, but as John pointed out, at 30-06 velocities I think there are better bullets for use out to 425 yards.

Both Hunter and H4350 will easily give 2,800 with a 175 gr in a 22" 30-06.

Thanks, Brad. I knew H4350 would 'cause that's what I've used.

I know that John has done a lot with Hunter in his '06.

Ed

Due to feral culling I've had the opportunity to hundreds animals per week, and much of that was done with 30-06s over a few years. There's no way I was going let a chance like that go by without comparing bullets. It would be hard not to, even if you hadn't started with that plan.

By the time I'd used up the stockpile there was no doubt that the Barnes (In my case the 168 TSX) was the slowest killing and best penetrating of the bunch. For your use of 425 yard tops deer and elk I'd use just about anything else first.

It's no secret I'm not a mono/TTSX fan. I have seen (as have many friends) more bullet failures (ie, un-opened bullets) with mono's than any other type of bullet.

I suppose I understand the "lead fear" that is driving a lot of guys to use the mono's, but the idea that they somehow kill faster than more traditional bullets is nonsense.

My .30/06 shoots those 175gn LRX bullets very well using H4350 at 2820fps.
It is a top contender for this years hunting.
John

LRX bullets also have a wider velocity window for expansion....

my dear friend Harold a world war 2 vet who died left me his pre-64 model 70 30-06, and I plan on using the 130 gr. barnes for whitetail this fall 2018 in Minnesota. have used it in my Browning BLR 300 win. mag shoots 1/2- 3/4 inch,son used the 130 gr. barnes in his BLR 308 win. he killed in fall of 2017 a monster 8pt. whitetail in Minnesota and a big 5x5 mule deer in Montana his 308 win BLR rifle off the bench shoots under a 1/2 inch at 100 yards off with the 130 gr. barnes. we do use a lee neck crimp die always too on this 130 gr. barnes bullet,i think it also helps with accuracy too. but where we hunt in Minnesota we are in the thick timber so we have very little wind , the day son shot the 5x5 mulie it was very calm too. so if its windy 175 gr. just may be better ? good luck,Pete53

Aside, Model70Guy likely has as much or more experiience knocking off animals as anyone on this site... here's a good thread of his with some TSX thoughts:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...s/12175865/257-weatherby-culling-results

I've shot dozens of animals with ttsx's and when pushed fast(3k+) at reasonable ranges, there is no other bullet that works as good at killing fast, on the spot. The problem lies with not following instructions, and shooting heavy for caliber bullets. Then they suck, and animals run for a while.

If this forum didn't suck for posting pics, I'd post some from my extensive testing.

130 grain out of a 308/30-06 is plenty for any elk you will encounter. I get that the heavies have a better BC, and less drop/drift at longer ranges, but you give up significant expansion.

TTSX 168 is great in the 30-378 and .300 RUM according to my hunting buds. They kill stuff with that bullet in those big guns

To me the 130 TTSX is about optimal at 3K+ in the ‘06 and.308 for WT’s and hogs. They’re generally accurate and deadly. I’d probably go 150 for bigger stuff. I don’t want to get heavy enough for too much velocity loss. Speed kills especially with monos.

DF

I have loaded some 130 TTSX loads with various powders, hopefully get to the range tomorrow. I figure the 130 is enough but curious what kind of accuracy you guys are getting?
Any particular powder? I have Big game, Re15, and some Varget.

My favorite powder with 130’s in the ‘06 is BG.

DF

I have two pounds, good to know. Thanks

Varget and the 130gn TTSX in the 30/06 will nudge 3300fps.
John

Not Barnes, Ralph Council 130 gr. Rifle is HVA that I rescued.

DF

Im shooting the 150gr TTSX @ 3040fps. It is a wicked sum biatch. I wouldn't even think twice about whats gonna happen to anything your gonna shoot. Accuracy is as good as it can possibly get. I'd use it on anything anywhere in the US.

If I was going to run a TSX/TTSX at 2,800, I'd probably use something else, maybe a Fed TBT, NPT, etc.

150 gr. at 3K would be my choice between those two loads. I'd be concerned about expansion, maybe sub the LRX, reportedly a bit softer.

I'd like to hear testimonies about the TTSX at 2,800 fps. I've never run one that slow.

DF


Edited to exclude the big bores. I like the 250 TTSX in my .375 H&H. That one at 2,800 or better works pretty well. I'm thinking .30 cal and under.

I took a moose at 547 yards with the 150 Ttsx out of a 300 wsm with a mv of 3350 IIRC. It went clear through on a diagonal shot, entered the front shoulder/neck area and exited behind the ribs on the other side. It was on its feet for a minute or two after the shot. I think if I were to go with a different Barnes I might try the 130. The 150's are very accurate in my rifle and I see no need for anything heavier.

Bb

For WT and similar sized animals, if a 130 will blow thru, then what's a heavier bullet gonna do better?

That's my thinking on 130's in the '06 and .308. And, 130's will be moving faster.

Heavier bullets have better B.C.'s but the range at which most game is taken, not a big difference. The 130 advantage is speed, especially with monos.

DF

Your absolutely correct. The 150gr Barnes will kill two elk standing side by side. Their about penetration & tissue damage which is why my group kill elk every season with a 6.5 & the 120gr TSX. Complete penetration.

I'm using varget at 3228 velocity with the TTSX .5 moa with my ruger No.1.

Model70guy,

I've done a lot of culling as well, and one thing I've learned from the experience is that judging all bullets of a certain brand by the results from one particular batch is often a mistake. Have also seen expansion problems with TSX's, but often with only one batch of bullets. One particular problem batch was some 100-grain TSX's that failed to expand on several occasions, even when shot from a .257 Weatherby at 3550 fps.

But have also seen well over 100 TSX's used on other big game animals that expanded and killed well, even at pretty long ranges, from 120 6.5mm to 250-grain 9.3's. I suspect (based on considerable evidence) that most of the problem with TSX's not opening occurs in bullets from 6mm to .30, because the hollow-point is so small it can be battered at least partially shut on the front of the magazine box during recoil. I've never seen or heard of it happening with TSX's over .30 caliber, all of which have larger hollow-points, or in .22 caliber TSX's, probably because of the light recoil.

That said, in my experience Tipped TSX's (and Nosler E-Tips) expand and kill reliably, both because the plastic tip prevents the hollow-point from being battered, and because the hole is much larger, to accommodate the base of the tip. I have only heard one one instance where a TTSX didn't expand, which as I recall occurred on an angling shot where the tip was bent sideways. But I have never personally seen it happen, either with Tipped TSX's or E-Tips, on over 100 animals take by me and my companions, from pronghorns and springbok to zebra and bull elk.

My hunting notes have quantified a difference in how far lung-shot animals travel after being shot with "petal" type bullets, whether TSX's, E-Tips or the old Fail Safe, but it averages out a little over 50 yards, compared to 18 yards for the fastest-killing bullet I've seen take a considerable number of animals, the Berger Hunting VLD. Other expanding bullets are somewhere in between those, with lung-shot animals traveling 30-40 yards after the shot.

That is very interesting data. So, even comparing a standard CnC type bullet to a mono, you're only looking at a difference of about 15 yards longer trail on average. I would have expected more.

Out of curiosity, do you have any data for ELD-M / AMAX bullets compared to Bergers?

Not enough to be meaningful.

Interesting that you have witnessed the 100 grain .257 fail to expand. I have had the same experience with the 100 grain ttsx failing to expand out of a 25-06 going 3200 fps. About 2 out of 10 fail to expand(sample size of about 500+), and when recovered, look like an un shot bullet with a slightly bent nose(plus rifling marks of course). I chalked it up to the smaller caliber not having a big enough opening at the hollow point, as I have never had a 7mm or bigger ttsx fail to expand. I have used the tsx very little, so I can't comment on those.

qwk,

Interesting. What were you shooting them into?

Coyotes, dirt bank, phone books, it didn't seem to matter. I have a metal detector and recovered most of them. Distance shot was from about 100 to 300 yards. As soon as I have time, I'll test some out of a .223, and .243.

How many were caught in coyotes?

Not exactly what you are asking bought we used my M70 358 Win with the 200 gr TTSX at 2650 fps on eight or nine animals in 2012 from springbuck and warthog through gemsbuck and wildebeest with stellar performance with all animals dropping either right now or within 10 yards or so. We recovered one bullet from a warthog that carried the bullet diagonal from near shoulder to off hip. Picture perfect and still weighing 200 grs. In June I am taking a 30-06 loaded with the 168 gr TSX to Namibia with zero worries regarding expansion. I have killed a fair bit of game with the X/TSX in the 416 Rem (Africa cape buffalo and plains game last year), the 9.3x62 (Africa 2002 plains game), 35 Whelen (BC moose/elk) and the 338-06 (a couple of elk) with stellar performance every time. They are all I use.

22, all went through of course, with 3 unopened. The odd part is Ive shot many more than that using a 120 grain 7mm ttsx going 3k, and a 168 30 cal grain ttsx going 2800 with no failures to expand.

I've shot a few deer lengthwise with the 168 30 cal going 2800, and they all expanded also. Ive tried to do the same with the .257 100 grainers, but haven't had the opportunity to do so yet.

Have you contacted Barnes about your batch of "hard" bullets?

Gents, thanks for all the great input and experiences. At some point I'll be rebarreling a Pre 64 M70 action to 30'06 and this has all been helpful!

Am going to South Africa in late May for a cull PG hunt and am bringing a Blaser R93 .30/06 with a Zeiss 2.5-10x42 rail mount scope. Ammunition is Barnes factory loaded 168 grain TTSX. These loads have grouped at .900" at two hundred (200) yards in that rifle for 3 shots. Also tested the new Federal Edge TLR 175 grain .30/06 load on the range, which also shot very well. But despite posting an enquiry here on the 'Fire, could not find anyone who had actually shot game with the Edge TLR, so I settled on the Barnes. South African PH I will be hunting with strongly recommended the 168 grain TTSX as well.

Will post results when I return.

Have shot lots of bait animals when cat hunting in years past with the PH's .30/06 and 180 grain Barnes TSX as loaded by Federal. As is the case with all hunting, shot placement is critical. While most dropped at the shot (if I did my part), I shot an impala too far back at 200 yards and chased the poor animal for several hours before finally putting it down with my .470 at close range.

No. The ones I handloaded were from a bulk buy(don't know how many lots), but I also bought some Vor-tx factory ammo, and there was really no difference as far as the duds went. That's why I said I chalked it up to the smaller caliber hollow point as being the culprit.

Barnes are made out of 99.9% pure copper, and the GMX/E-Tip are gilding metal(~95% copper), so I'm not sure how much a bit of impurity would affect
expansion. I still have the bullets, I guess I could have them tested for exact metal content.

qwk,

Now I'm a little confused. In your first post you called your bullets "ttsx," which normally stands for Tipped TSX, with the plastic tip. Now you mention the tiny hollow-points.

Are your .25 bullets Tipped TSX's or plain, hollow-point TSX's?

tipped tsx(blue tip). If you pull the tip out, there is a hollow point like the tsx. It must not be big enough to expand in smaller calibers as consistently. That's the only logical conclusion I can make from my experience so far.

Unless somebody spends the time and effort like I did, how are they going to know what their bullet did after it left the barrel? This is especially true with the mono bullets, as they have unbelievable penetration. I would be willing to bet this happens more than one thinks. Having said that, Barnes is still my go to bullet for all big game.

I’m thinking the TTSX has a larger cavity than the TSX.

In the big bores, the TSX opens pretty well. To me, the small bore TSX bullets are the ones more prone to not opening well.

DF

Going on my one and only Moose hunt in November. Was thinking of using my 30/06 or my 7mm mag. Should I use the 150hr TTSX or the 165gr TTSX, also have
168gr TTSX , and Federal Trophy Bonded Bear claw 165gr. For powder I,m using RL26 at 3008fps in the 165gr bullets and the 150gr TTSX at 3100fps with RL17,RL16
and Superformance. I,ve only shot 160gr Accubonds in the 7mm at 3050fps with Retumbo and Norma MRP. I have some 150gr TTSX for the 7mm but have not shot any.
I,m going to load some 150gr 7mm tomorrow. Never hunted with the Barnes bullets before.

You cannot make a bad choice. Neither are much different.

Hunting moose here is a yearly occurance, we've had over the counter tags my whole life. There's nothing wrong with your 7mm, and there's nothing wrong with your 160 Accubonds. The Barnes is a step backwards.

An accubond better than a mono on thick skinned game? Lol. Have you even used mono's?

I don't hunt with Barnes bullets, and have little experience. But my cousin shoots them in his 06, and he had a moose tag here in Montana. I called a nice bull in for him, and he shot it broad side at 75 yds. He shot it behind the shoulder,and gave him 1 more because his guide told him to. The bull only made it 20 yds. Two exit holes about the size of a quarter, internal damage, why sufficient, was not extensive. Any bullet through the lungs would have killed the moose at that range, but the Barnes worked as advertised. I think it was 165 gr. Just 1 observation, take it for what it is worth. Hope it helps.

Probably more than you can imagine. And moose as thick-skinned game? Get real.

They must have them thin-skinned whitetail moose in your neck of the woods.....

I’ve killed a variety of animals small and large with the Barnes TSX and TTSX in 25-33 caliber. The one thing that I can attest to is that the Barnes don’t create the internal damage that many other bullets do. What Barnes do is penetrate and if you are a shoulder shooter they truly can’t be beat. If you like lung shots behind the shoulder then don’t expect DRT type kills with them. Not to say it can’t happen but IMO a lung shot is not the ideal shot with monos, maybe if you lung shoot em aiming for the opposing shoulder would be a better option. Just my $.02

Thanks for the help. Shot both guns yesterday, actually found some 140gr Barnes TTSX along with the 150gr Barnes. The
140gr out shot the 150gr groups. That was with RL23 in the 7mm mag. Think I,ll load more 160gr Accubonds with Retumbo
and MRP. Also will try RL23 with 160gr bullets. The 7mm was more pleasant to shoot than the light weight 30/06, as
is about 2lb heavier. I,ll see if I can get the Trophy Bear Claw to group? So far they shot about 2" groups. In both guns.

Gun truck I’ve killed moose with 165 TSX in a 30, 175 Trophy Bonded in 7mm as well as several other bullets and all moose died just as easily. Never used Accubonds but can’t see why they wouldn’t work just fine. Don’t sweat the small stuff, moose are easy to kill.

I,m leaning to something in the 160gr range. I,ll just pick the most accurate one. I,ll save the 140,s abd 130,s and 110gr for deer. I,ve had
good luck with Accubonds and Partitions on Elk. Probably us RL23 or Retumbo because of the cold weather in Canada.

That 140 TTSX wrecks moose parts at 7Mag velocities. Use it with confidence!

That said, I agree with ‘Cub. Any of those bullet options will do a great job.

My family used the 180 grain TSX on moose and caribou for several years with good results. Last year I switched to the 168 grain TTSX and it hammered the caribou at around 60 yards. I have several box's of the 175 grain LRX bullets and will probably load them up for the Pre-64 Featherweight 30-06 with a 22" barrel and use the 168 TTSX bullets in my 20" barreled Husqvarna 30-06.

For now the powder is H4350 for the 168 TTSX, but I may look at Hunter for the 175 LRX bullet. I will see what the chrony says.

According to Barnes both bullets will open up at below 1,600 fps, so in the big scheme of things, either bullet should work fine on elk out to 500 yards if they are loaded to their velocity capabilities, but closer is better. I would let the rifle tell me what bullet to shoot.

The 150 grain does not interest me for Alaska and it would not interest me for long pokes at elk, moose or caribou.