I have a Sako in 338 Federal (338-08). It shoots both 160 grain Barnes TTSX (2980 fps) & 210 gr TSX (2625 fps) well.

When sighted in +2.5" @ 100 yards, the ballistic program says the 210's will drop 9" @ 300 yards, the 160's dont drop that much until 340 yards.

I am taking the rifle elk hunting next month, what bullet should I use in your opinion?

What shoots best?

Accuracy beats trajectory every time.

BMT

They will both shoot under 1"

The 210 bullet is a great match with the .338Fed, and a fantastic elk bullet.

The 160 was invariably meant as a deer bullet since its such a light-weight projectile for the .338 bore. Why not build some insurance into your ammo choice by using a bullet specifically good for elk, instead one that's too light?

Sometimes enough 'mass' is more important than too much velocity.

The 210er with 2450-2550 fps ought to be plenty to punch through an elk brisket.

160. TSXs like to go fast. Penetration is great in lighter X bullets due to the solid construction.

Oh, one more thing. . . the shooter matters a lot more than the bullet.

Placement, placement, placement.

Good Luck!

BMT

Man, a 160-gn .33 bullet for elk... wow.

Things are changing, are they not?

Isn't there a 180-gn? I'd probably choose that over either of the above.

160gr TTSX will do you just fine. The trajectory of that bullet is a large benefit in the .338 Fed.

I'd go 210....

If I wanted to shoot a 160'ish projectile I'd run a plain .308.

40 yards closer to "drop" the same is jack...

My worthless opinion of course...grin...

Having taken a fair number of elk with bullets ranging from 160 grain .280s up to 260 grain .375s, I would recommend that you go with the 210. I have started using these in my .338-06 and will be using them in one of the two rifles that I take to elk camp this year.

I have no doubt that the 160s would kill an elk--but so will a lot of other bullet/cartridge combinations that I would regard as less than ideal for circumstances in which the only shot you may get are also less than ideal. Just practice sufficiently to know where your bullet will land at various ranges...

I'd go 210.

Dober

210

If you think you're going to be shooting 400-500 yards take a different gun.

I'd feel better with the 210.

Be curious to know about the wind drift differences between the two.

I'd try the 185 TSX,I use it in my 338 Federal. Between the two you mention I'd prolly stick with the 210 grain.

Two 160TTSX fired into milk jugs/water at 25 yards. Both expanded to about .90" across the petals. Im going to use this bullet for a cow elk this fall, MV in my tikka 338 is about 3300fps with Varget.

Should work nicely!

Derek--

Those petals on the expanded TTSX look like they would do a lot of damage. The only thing I would like to see is some more shank behind them to keep them chugging on through. Hence my preference for a 210 on elk.

But the 160 ought to throw deer for a loop.

I agree, Im guessing due to velocity at impact a typical animal hit wouldnt cause them to expand quite as much. Ideally I would try for a 2-300 yard shot which should give adequate time for some of the velocity to bleed off. Im surprised the petals stayed in tact so well, Im not sure if that would have happened in a more solid test medium. Accuracy is near MOA with very little tweaking and recoil is very acceptable.

I'm sure if you were asking the same question of the 270Win we'd all agree that you should use the 150gr or 160 NosPart. Those are both proven elk loads we'd say. You'll do fine.

Sectional density of a 160 gr 270 compared to a 160 gr 338 is not the same.

No, but a 160gr TTSX will penetrate like a 210gr partition

If the point is "shooting flatter", take a gander at the BC's of the two bullets- not for the reason you are thinking, though!

(Now before I get drawn and quartered, let me say that IN MY OPINION, BC is almost meaningless in a hunting bullet- within reason.)

But if we are worrying about how flat it shoots, then we are planning on maybe shooting this sucker longer ranges, no? I don't know the BC of the Barnes nor the 210 Noz, but for illustrative purposes in my .358, the 200-gn Hornady (BC= low .2's) is unusable past about 250 yards, due to wind drift. It just blows all over. The 225 Partition (BC = mid .4's) is flat-out deadly out to 400 yards! And in addition to that, the 225-gn bullet, which starts out 150 fps slower, is actually going FASTER than the 200-gn bullet, at said 400 yards.

So if the BC of that 160-gn .33 is very low, anyone planning on shooting it at longer ranges should at least check the drift, especially from a relatively slow-mover like a .338 Fed. It might work fine, but then again, it might not. That's a short bullet right there.

My opinion is, if longer ranges matter to a person, use a heavier bullet, not lighter, and just know your drops.

Anyway... Just a thought... and I wouldn't have spoke it out loud like this, if I hadn't just seen this point so clearly illustrated in the last few months, with my own eyes.

Some serious inconsequential off-season ballistic gack found in this thread....

Is it deer season yet?


grin...

Sorry. I am guilty as charged <g>.

No offense intended Jeff I assure you but I have just annointed you as Chair of the inconsequential off-season ballistic gack (IOBG) committee...

I am a past member of this committee...



big grin...

Fair enough <g>.

Do I get a gavel? Free beer? A French maid to clean my quarters? SOMETHING?

(maybe just a headache <g>)

Dude, I've seen your quarters (with clothing on) and no french maid in her right mind would go near them.

BMT

Who says she needs to have clothing on?

Oh- if I get to be Chairman of the Committee, I must insist on going commando under the robes. Executive privelage, plus general ventilation.

Now, let's talk about what caliber gavel is best <BSEG>...

BillN, Once they hit hair, hide and that first inch or so of flesh the SD evens out. That SD thing only works on FMJ or solids.
What is the SD of a partially expanded 270/160? How about fully expanded? Got any ideas?

I always thought about SD as being how much caboose is back there pushing the train...

If two bullets expand equally, but one has a much higher SD... isn't there more "shank" pushing the mushroom of the higher-SD bullet through the animal?

Or, imagine two semi trucks in a head-on collision. Both have the same tractor, but one has a short trailer loaded with whatever, and the other has a long trailer loaded with the same whatever. The longer one would "penetrate" deeper... wouldn't it??

An honest question... just wondering if I'm visualizing things wrong.

Where I think you are correct, 338Fed, is that lead-core bullets tend to shed bullet weight... thus rendering SD sort of irrelevant compared to a bullet that doesn't shed weight.

But all else equal, a higher-SD bullet will penetrate deeper. I hope I'm not wrong about that because MAN that makes sense to me! :-)

Barnes lists BC of the 338/160 TTSX at .342. The 257/100gr NosPart lists at .377.
Not much difference.
The beloved "Bob", (gotta hate that term--love the ctg) launches that 100gr at about the same as original posters 338Fed/160TTSX load.
Could drop, wind drift, SD and BC negate the 338 load to the same uselessness as the 257 load? Just say NO!

"Sectional density is the ratio of an object's weight to its cross-sectional area. It conveys the ability for an object to overcome resistance. When a projectile is in flight or impacting an object, it is the sectional density of that projectile which will determine how efficiently it can overcome the resistance to air or object. The greater the sectional density is for a projectile the greater its efficiency is and therefore ability to overcome the resistance of air and object.

Sectional density is stated as:

SD = M/A

* SD = Sectional Density
* M = Mass of the object, kg or lb
* A = cross-sectional area, m2 or in2"

Jeff,
You are correct sir. The SD changes as the bullet expands, due to the fact that the SD is calculated based on the area of the frontal face of the bullet. None-the-less, the heavier bullet will penetrate deeper given equal bullet construction, and expansion diameter and rate.

Conclusion: The 160 TTSX will be sufficiently wind resistant for any sane range you would use this cartridge at, and will penetrate anything you want to shoot with it just fine.

If it were me I'd use the 210's. This is a proven bullet in this caliber. The light bullet thing only makes sense to me when used in a cartridge capable of pushing them really fast. Good Luck!

JO and Jordan Smith, I agree with both of you. My first comparison was 270/160/NP against 338/160/TTSX. I think they'd both keep shank and keep on piling in.
Guess I'm just saying that makes the 338Fed at least as effective on elk as a good 270Win. Move on up to the 210 and
things get even better.
Good explanations, JO.

Personally, I would be on the 270/160 out penetrating the 338/160 by quite a margin.

I am not a total fan of the whole light TSX bullet thing, last fall a bud shot a nice bull at just under 400 yds and his 185 TSX didn't exit. Now maybe it would on the next 49 bulls that he shoots at that range, and then again maybe it wouldn't.

I like 2 holes enough that it made me think a bit and that is always a scarry thing.

I'd no doubt go 210 if it were my choice.

Dober

Penetration is equal, but the hole is bigger with the .338Fed, making it more effective (perhaps only on paper though).

Well, you guys know I'm a .358 slut, and had 338 Federal existed in non-wildcat form whenI did my re-barrel I'd probably be a .338 Fed slut instead... so I'm really not arguing whether 338 Fed is wonderful little cartridge; in my mind, it is.

To my mind, and perhaps this is what Dober is saying also though I wouldn't presume to speak for the man, the 210 Partition is a known quantity while a 160-gn copper bullet, in .33 caliber, is definitly getting into the "science project" realm.

I'm all for science projects but if it were ME, that science project would happen on a caribou hunt where I had multiple tags... or on a gimmee cow elk hunt... or on a baited black bear... something other than a coveted bull elk hunt.

The bullet is not much of a science project. The experiment (as it always is) is how well the shooter can place the bullet. If the bullet goes to the right place, the outcome is quite predictable, the animal will die.

Agreed, but let's put it this way. If you called Barnes and asked them, their standard answer is "drop down a bullet weight and drive it fast". This would be dropping down... gosh... at least two bullet weights from the "standard" for .338 which is 225 grains...

Anyhow for me I'd run either the 185 TSX or the 210 NP for elk... but on the other hand, I look forwards to reading all about how well that 160 works! It's a brave new world out there, things are changed, the old paradigms are losing meaning... and I'm here to learn so if it works, that's GREAT news, not bad news, in my book

If you do decide to use the 160 TTSX, be sure and let us know how it works.

It's definitely on the light end for elk, no question about it. But I'm excited to read the story of the hunt and the outcome of the 160 TTSX blowing clean through a big old bull

the 160 barnes tsx-barnes stepping down in weight-they will penetrate and 3300 fps is not slow. I would definatly us the 160

3300 fps??? Not from the .338 Fed. You must be thinking... I don't know what caliber? Will a 338 WM do that?

Just a WAG based on shooting light bullets in .358... I'm guessing the 338 Fed will push a 160-gn bullet... 2850 fps? Maybe 2900?

todbartell is reporting 2980fps and Barnes is touting a load that adds 100fps to that. The versatility just keeps on coming.
Can't wait for a 85gr Titanium HPBT with a BC of .500!

I'm getting 2980 fps with the 160 TTSX in my Sako. No high pressure signs, but I got more testing to do yet.

Wow. Ain't that .308 case sumpthin' <G>.

I love all the research into pushing that sucker, because it all applies very directly to .358, too.

So, no one here pushing the 160 gr TTSX has shot anything other than milk jugs and paper with it? That wouldn't make me feel good about it...

itsabrandnewboolit!! If anyone has kilt anything with it they're probably not talking. It wasn't around before last season or we'd be reporting.
I think you're smart enough to know it'll perform well.
Now get down to the sport shop, pick up a new Kimber in 338Fed and blaze away!

first I seen of the 160 TTSX was in early July or so.

If anybody has reported on this bullet, they were probably poaching

My thoughts zackly!

My 338-06 load was 210 NP for years and last one was 210 Barnes as the 130 TSX does so well on deer. I would never take a chance on an elk as the tags are so hard for me to get; so I'd go 210. I love it that you young fellas try all of this new stuff and report back. I might just like to carry 400 grains less in my rifle and even less in my pack! Those hills get higher ever year.

I love when people say "which ever is more accurate" or "which ever shoots the best" when deciding which to use on elk. Come on they are not prarie dogs. Use the bullet that is going to KILL the best, not print the best groups off of a bench rest....

well I decided to go with the 210 gr TSX, thanks for all the opinions!

Should work beautifully!

It sounds like the Sako 85 with a 210gr TSX is a real winner!

Even though I posted these elsewhere, adding them to this thread will help someone out who is doing a search.

These are the new 210 gr TTSX in .338", fired from a .338 Win Mag at about 2880 fps. Recovered from under the off side hide of a large bull shot at about 100 yards.





Retained weight on each of them is in excess of 209 gr.

While a 160-grain TSX in the right place would no doubt kill an elk, some years ago (long before the present how-light-can-we-go phase) my old friend Dave Gentry went up to British Columbia to kill a Shiras bull moose, because he was weary of waiting to draw a Montana tag. Dave was one of the early big fans of the X, and he chose for this trip the 175-grain X out of a .338 Winchester Magnum. The shot he eventually got was with a bull quartering away, and after it was all over his conclusion was that even with an X-Bullet, shooting a Shiras moose would have been better done with a heavier bullet. A typical Shiras bull isn't any larger than a big bull elk, and some aren't as large.

My experience with X's is that they'll penetrate about as deeply as a Nosler Partition weighing maybe 15-20% more. This of course depends on the particular Partition, as some of the bigger ones are designed to retain 85-90% of their weight, and hence penetrate just about as deeply as an X of the same weight and diameter. So I would doubt that the 160 TSX would penetrate as deeply as a 210 Partition. Now the 185 .338 TSX very well might, but not the 160.

Personally I'd go with a little more bullet than the 160 in the .338 Federal.

As would I... The 210 TSX in the 338 Federal is a real performer IMHO

Sure would like to see what the expansion would look like at about 2100 or so. The pictures I've seen don't show much upset at all at what would be 300-350 yard shots for these smaller cases. I've got an 85 TSX out of a .243 pulled from a clay bank at 330 yards that could be loaded a 2nd time. Been trying to choose between the 210 Partition and the 210 TSX for my 338-06. So far I haven't seen any posts of guys using the TSX from the smaller cases getting their elk at longer ranges, or water jug tests at say 350. I'm thinking I'd have more confidence in the Partition at 2000-2100 than the TSX. Comeon guys, somebody line up some milk jugs downrange and try it out

The .33 caliber Accubond would be one to consider, too. I do believe there's a 200-gn version.

Ole 270--

I recovered two 210 gr TTSX from a dirt bank at 400 yards. Those bullets looked indistinguishable from the two shown in my photo above; in fact, their expansion and weight retention were part of the reason I subsequently used them on a very important hunt. Based on a muzzle velocity of 2880 fps, the velocity at 400 yards should have been around 2025, based on a ballistics program. The velocity at 100 yards should have been 2665 fps. So if the 338 Federal can get that bullet going 2665, then it is my 338 Win Mag load, minus 100 yards. So it should get that same terminal performance at 300 that I got at 400.

If the 338 Federal can only get 2435 fps, then it is my 338 Win mag load -200 yards.

Those two TSX's you posted look great; like out of a Barnes ad.

I'm surprised they didn't exit, though. Perhaps SD does still have some meaning, even in the world of mono-metal bullets? Perhaps?

It var a big elk.

I just don't think they had enough steam to push the petals through that thick elastic hide. I think that either shot alone would have been fatal within 50 yards. Together, and he was down inside of 10.

If we learned to throw a quick second shot in, rather than stand there like golfers admiring the shot, a lot of these "what is the perfect bullet?" debates would be even more vacuous than they already are. A lot like the "double tap" that the defensive handgunners are so habituated to using.

I haven't had an opportunity to use the new 160gr. TTSX. I have however used both 185gr. TSX and 210gr. NP to kill several boars. Feral hogs/boar are obviously not Elk, however, they are pretty tough and tenacious animals. Based on my experience, I wouldn't hesitate to use either bullet on Elk.

SD is as meaningless as "teats on a boar hog" when talking about bullet penetration without taking into consideration bullet construction and shape. Flat point solids of less SD out penetrate higher SD round nose solids consistently. SD is totally irrelevant when comparing expanding bullets. Simply stating SD has no validity without taking into account the other variables that are in play

160-gr. Barnes @ 2900 or thereabouts makes me wonder why not stick with the good ol' .308 with a 150-gr. Barnes at about the same velocity. Likely to have better penetration, given the longer bullet. I can't say I'm sold on the .338, as I don't think it would offer much over its parent round.

338 Federal with a 210 grain TSX used on Zebra at about 100 Yards. Judging from the size of the wound channel through the heart, I'd say the 338 leaves a larger wound channel than would a 308 win.








Exit in the off shoulder

Hey JWP,

I agree. To clarify, what I was getting at is that I bet the 225-gn TSX would have exited that elk from his .338. So all the variables are held the same except the SD of the bullet...

You're making an assumption based on 15 grains more wieght and less velocity that may or may not be correct

Utah, for what it's worth, I just came in from digging a 210 TSX out of a packed dirt bank. Range was 320+, 2750 at muzzle, 338-06, should be down around 2050 or so at impact. The bullet looks just like those in your pictures, expanded down to the bottom of the cavity. I shot two of them in there, but only found one. Dirt is not elk and it's only a sampling of one, but it sure looks promising.

Ole-
It is reassuring when a bullet gives an impressive performance from different people in different settings.

Bullet performance is probably generates the most unrealistic expectations of any aspect of gun looneyism. We want one-hole accuracy, two-hole penetration, jelled lung, dead right there performance for 20 cents a bullet in every caliber and weight conceivable. Something has got to give.

I have been shooting TSX/TTSX bullets pretty much exclusively at game for the last 2 years because I wanted to give them a reasonable test. I will admit that one of them failed to open (and when I posted the story and photos it generated a 30 page firestorm) but the remaining bullets I have recovered are impressive, as has been the performance in terms of quick and human killing.

Meaning no disrespect......

I've seen more than one reference to what a bullet looks like after being dug out of a dirt/clay bank. Just what does this have to do with bullet performance in an animal?

To my way thinking, the way a bullet performs in dirt applies only to that dirt into which it was shot and has no direct bearing on how it will perform on an animal.

You guys are comparing apples and oranges.

-Mike-

thought I had enough qualifiers in there

Ole_270,

You did....my comments were not directed at just your posting, there were others that were similar.

My point was that those dirt/clay results are, essentially, meaninless when discusiing bullet performance on elk (or any other animal).

-Mike-

Most recently I would have sided with using the 160ttsx especially if it is a Barnes. However, after running calculation across Hornady's ballistic program (assuming 160@2900 and 210@2600), the only benefit IMHO in using a 160 gr ttsx over the 210gr ttsx is the 1.1 less drop at 300 and 2.6 less drop at 400. But take a look at the velocity and energy. At 300yds the velocity is almost idenitical but the energy is approx. 400 ft/lbs difference.
I believe you could wack Elk all day long with the 160gr ttsx but the 210gr ttsx gives a little extra insurance at least on paper.

IMHO- yep.

OK, here is my 2 cents.
I've killed lots of stuff, much of it big and tough with various Nosler Partitions. A very reliable, deep penetrating bullet. Very consistant over the years.
On the other hand, the whole Barnes X family has had a somehwhat erratic history. While their TSX bullets appear to have a very good, consistant history for reliability, the bullet in question is not one of those. It's a TTSX. Designed to open at lower impact velocities, etc. It also has a sectional density of only .200. While the light, older X's and even the TSX do surprisingly well when pushed good and fast when it comes to penetration, we aren't talking about one of those here. Just what it will do in an animal at the velocity it is pushed, simply isn't known. Like some have said, it will kill them. Well, so will lots of lessor loads. The question is which is "best."
For my uses, I insist on something that is very reliable and capable, w/o a doubt has lots of penetration on animals like elk. I'm certain I'll get plenty of that with an NP. What I don't know is just how well the new TTSX, especially in that light a bullet will work.
The other thing is that Nosler Partitions retain alot of their weight at lower impact velocities. The 180 gr. Federal NP load in the .308 has a first class reputation on elk class game. Similar, but not quite the same. Still, given the rep of both, I personally would have more faith in the 210 NP.
Now, if it were my .338 Federal, I suspect I'd handload a few 210 TSX's for my hunt. E

This is a very simple question to answer.

You bought a .338 not a 7mm; therefore use the 210 grain bullets!

+1

The 160 has a relatively poor BC and will lose velocity pretty quick. Another bullet to consider is the 210 Scirocco II. Might be a good option for the 338 Fed.

A quick run of numbers shows the 160 has a velocity of 1768 and KE of 1111 @500yds while the 210 S II has 1832FPS and KE of 1566 @500yds. Bottom line, the heavier bullet is also going faster by 500 yds and will hit harder whatever energy methodology you use. The 160 will drop 1.2" less though (-7.8" vs. -9.3"). But, numbers aside, they will both do the job.

Also, the 200-gn Accubond. Though those plastic tips can be a be-atch in a short action ( due to length). This I know from the .358. Then again the copper bullets can be " too long" as well, and a TIPPED copper bullet could get darn near unusable. You give up too much case capacity.

All that reloading gack aside, the 200 AB should be on the short list for a 338 Fed, in my opinion...

How much? Which powders? FPS??

R-Loco,

I was advised by a popular gun writer to take a look at the 200 AB and TAC powder in the 338 Federal. 2700 FPS should be a realisitic number.

my work with 358 doesn't support 2700 with 200's in a less efficient cartridge (338 fed), but then I'm not a famous gunwriter <g>.

2600 maybe... Either way, a POTENT load methinks...

My work with 200s in the 338 Fed support 2690fps very easily, comfortable loads. Factory 200gr Fusions have given me 2660fps with one lot # and 2705 with another lot#.

I'm not that famous either, yet.

I remember you mentioning those speeds before, and I remember we were excited about JB's article... Me for the .358 part. What you seeing is exciting for what it says for the .358 <g>. I like it!

I am in "no man has gone before" territory with RL7 and 200's in my 358. With RL7 the case capacity is a non-issue. I lobbied JB to mess with that powder, but he didn't. I intend to try some of that there TAC asap. I'm still searching for the perfect load but in my M7 action there's real limits to a guys max OAL... So the heavier tipped or copper bullets lose their luster fast for the speed they cost you. 2500 fps with a 225 Partition is pretty cool.. Knock off 100 fps or so (est) for the 225 Accubond stings a little.

Sorry! Back to 338 fed... Got on a .358 tangent, my bad. :-)

Have you had any luck with H4895? I tried it in my 35Wh with good acc but poor speed. Went to IMR4064 and found good speed and acc with 250gr. Have heard it works in 358Win also.
H4895 just continues to work well in both of my 338 Feds.

shaking my head again...

Ranchette,

Long bullets are a real problem for guys trying to max out a .358 or .338 Fed unless they've built it on a long action. TAC may or may not solve that; but at best it's a uncommon powder, might not agree with a given rifle, etc. In general long bullets are a bummer...

If you load for one of these, I'd be curious as to your experiences, since they seem contrary to what the rest of us have been seeing for a long time. If you DON'T load for one of these, then whataya doing?

338FED, I've not run H4895 but IMR4895 is my main powder with 225's. Case capacity, not pressure signs, is what always puts a ceiling on things for me in my M7... With 200's on down I have found RL7 to be magical. 2640 fps with 200's from a 20" tube. Others have reported good things with RL10 but that just finally showed up in my area and I have not tried it yet.

A gentleman I PM with reports almost 2600 fps with 225's using RL15, but in my rifle his load gave 2400 fps and pressure signs. Which is why my first reaction to 2700 fps with 200's was so immediate; with .358 at least, 2 different rifles, I have never even come close to "Internet" velocities <grin>.

One of the off- season goals is to mess with TAC in my rifle.

Always a pleasure 338Fed!

ooooh... making fun of a handle. what are you, 12 years old?

remember that pm you sent me? I replied how you could be taken seriously around here. you've obviously disregarded that advice.

you really act a lot younger than you are, and not in a good way.

RanchO,

What's you problem with what I've said here? Anyone who's loaded extensively for a short-action .358 runs into the case capacity/OAL problem. Can't imagine 338 Fed is much different. A tipped all-copper bullet of any decent weight for caliber is gonna be TOO LONG. If you have evidense to the contrary let's hear it.

Specifically, Mr. Shaker of Head, what is your issue here?

BTW, you get what you give, with me. You won't see me casting the first or even second stone. Follow me around taking potshots, though, and don't whine when they start coming back your direction. That's fair, eh? :-)

You taking potshots at me is the least of my worries.

Imagine that.

Please, man up and tell me how I'm incorrect in my comment that long bullets are a bummer in this case, and that a tipped all- copper bullet will be as long as it gets. If you are gonna cast the stink-eye at me, you owe me that.

In what way am I wrong?

Man up? <snicker>

I'll let your ESTIMATES get the last word in.. All 100 fps of them.

I've found that with 185TSX in the 338Fed that I run out of powder space with my favorite powder sooner than I run out of space with 200 Speer LedCor bullets. Haven't yet spent the scratch to try 210 or 225 gr all copper bullets. Fear they'll be TOO LONG and unusable. Then here I'll sit, a poor wretch of confused humandom with a partial box of expensive copper jewelry to look at.
Will someone else please try the long copper stuff in a 338Federal and let me know how it goes? Please?!

Now imagine adding TWO TENTHS of an inch to that 185 TSX, for a plastic tip, and you see where my comment about how potentially unusable a tipped copper bullet can be, if you are running something like a M7 especially.

That 2/10" comes directly out of your powder capacity, and it changes the calculus for the bullet choice some. Would you rather have 200-gn Bullet A at (say) 2700 fps, or 200-gn Bullet B at 2575 fps? With a velocity-challenged cartridge like .358 or .338 Fed, where we are using bullets generally designed for something faster (like a 338 WM or 35 Whelen), these things weigh heavy on the mind <grin>...

That 125 fps should be roughly right btw. Went and looked at my notes just for Rancho. At one time I was trying like hell to get the old 200-gn flat base X bullet to run in my .358. Just going from a 200-gn Hornady to the (longer) 200-gn X bullet cost me almost 100 fps... that's with no boattail nor plastic tip, which would add... gosh... pushing a quarter inch to the length of the bullet.

Can't speak directly to 338 Federal, but the very similar .358 will really teach you some new reloading techniques when it comes to figuring out how to fit the most powder in a case... how compressed a load you can run without pushing the bullet back out... etc. :-)

I think 338 Fed is a way cool cartridge and if I didn't already have a .358, I'd be running one for blacktails. And if ever there were cartridges where cup and core bullets shine, it's fat moderate-speed ones like .338Fed and .358.

IMO and IME...

Hey Rancho... have you loaded for a .358 or .338 Fed?

And yeah... "man up" is the exact right way to put it, because coming here and being a PITA just to be a PITA is a pretty wussy thing to do, especially if you got NOTHING to back it up. And I'm not talking about having a flame war, I'm talking about you having some sort of fact or even theory to oppose the FACTS that I've politely stated.

Hint: if someone is speaking the truth, and doing it politely, you should check and make sure you at least have SOMETHING before you take shots at 'em... at least if that someone is me.... <grin>...

If you want to shoot 160gr. bullets why not just shoot a .308 with 165's?

or better yet a 308 with 125's...grin

Dober

Maybe a better question is "Why not shoot both 160 and 210?".
If a dude has a certain cartridge he is loading for what is the sense of asking him why he is not shooting a different bullet in a different caliber? Seems irrelevant.
If a guy wants to shoot 165s in a 308 he'd be doing it. In fact, I've done it myself.

Sorry to steal this thread for a brief second, but I feel this question could benefit Fed owners.

How well do you think a 225gr Woodleigh & Interbond would work compared to the 185gr TSX?


Cheers,
340

I've considered that same question. Some say it'll go over 2400fps with 225 cup-n-core slugs. May be good for dark timber elk inside 75yds.
Should be about 200yds behind the 338WM.
I've had good results with factory loads with the 185TSX bullet, have some 225 cheapos on hand to play with so may find out how the comparo works out.

Hmmmmmm all sounds interesting alright.

I'm having a Fed built up ATM. That's why I'm so curious.
The Fed sure does look like a neat little thumper!

Gotta have some details. ATM? Action, barrel, length,etc.

Pre-64, LS Lothar Walther, 22", stock scrapped back matte oiled finish, rebedded, metal-work smoothed out & reblued(matte), mag-box opened up, trigger tweaked, Williams one-piece floorplate & triggerguard, Pachmayr, Leupold QR bases, low rings & Vx11 2-7x33.

Sounds like a good layout.
As an old retired military friend says, "That'll be approved".

You're laughing with the long mag box. Should be able to load any .338 bullet up to at least 250gr, without losing case capacity.

Nice setup!

Hopefully I get a 3" mag-box, but I also must make sure the throat gels.
Should be a real little performer if all goes to plan.
I will also try a 250gr Woodleigh. This combo is getting 2481fps out of the Ruger HE from reports. 47gr of Varget or IMR4064 with a compressed load.

ALWAYS START AT LEAST 10% LOWER! Every rifle is different.

Jeff,
Your comments on using a Model 7 prompted me to respond here.
I, too, have a Model 7 (KS), though not a 358 or a 338 fed, but a 350 Rem Mag.
I've played around with diferent loads/bullets and pretty well thought that 2650 fps (225 grain Nosler or TSX) was about all I could squeeze out of it's 20" barrel.
Then I tried Ramshot TAC with a 225 TSX. 62 grains of TAC is giving an honest 2773 fps(!!!) with extreme spreads of less than 10 fps and great accuracy. (This load is right out of Barnes' new manual).
This stuff seems to overcome the case capacity issue, at least in the 350. It may well work wonders in your 358 (or 338 Fed).

-Mike-

I read an article once where an Alaskan guide was running through the list of bullet weights he recommended for the caliber of rifle his clients planned on using on their hunts.
Top to bottom on the list, he invariably recommened the heaviest bullet in each caliber, Except in the .338's..he didnt go 225, 250 etc, he recomended the 210 partition and went on to sing the praises of this magical bullet..when that article was written,he was likely referencing .338 win or .340 wby on heavy game and the barnes werent available...I do know thats what I chose to shoot in my .340 and it was fantastic from coyotes to elk, from 75yds to one very lucky 700+yd shot...I think I would agree with Bill N's statement if you feel the likelyhood that bullet trajectory is a likely concern in the country you will be hunting.

todbartell,

160 in a heart beat!

Gmoney: "I'd go 210....

If I wanted to shoot a 160'ish projectile I'd run a plain .308.

40 yards closer to "drop" the same is jack...

My worthless opinion of course...grin..."


What he said...

MickeyD, thanks for the info!

IMHO, a flatter trajectory is the wrong reason to run a bullet as short/light as a .33/160 grn. Trajectory can easily be compensated for in this modern age. I dunno, with this season's batch of TSX failures coming in... Were I running a 338 Fed I'd load it with the proven 210 Partition and just go hunting.

A simple elevation turret or ranging reticle would get you out to 400 yards with that bullet anyways. If I can do that with my .358... Then it's not that hard <g>. Cause I'm not that good.

You're quite right about the .33/160 bullet. To me a bullet that light, especially for elk, belongs in either a 7MM or a .30, NOT a 338, not that the 160 won't kill an elk but it would be damned hard to argue against the 210 Nosler Partition for use in the 338 Fed.

I've been using Nosler Partitions in all my rifles (6MM, 270, 284, 7mm Rem, 308, 30-06, 8MM Rem, 338 Win Mag, 340 WBY, 350 Rem Mag)since the early 70's and have never been anything but very impressed with how they work. Small hole in, MASSIVE damage to the clock work, small hole out. All this with great penetraion that has me beliveing that they will work under virtually any/all conditions---everytime! Don't know if it can get any better.

Recently I started playing with the TSX's. They seem to shoot very well in my rifles, but I have taken too few animals with them to be able to say if they offer any improvement over the Noslers.

I think all this lighter/faster bullet stuff on bigger animals (elk and up), esp.something like a .33/160---man, that is light!, is going to wind up letting people down in adverse conditions. Light and fast will almost certainly work well on good broadside shots, but you can't count getting that kind of opportunity. Plan and prepare for the worst and the ordinary stuff becomes easy.

Just my $.02

-Mike-

Light and fast works well on broadside shots.....and any other shot when the bullet holds together and penetrates like a TSX...

Perhaps, but like I said, I have too little field experience witht he TSX's to KNOW if they offer anything above the Nosler Partitions.

Also, with the 338 Fed we are dealing with a short action case that MAY be somewhat challenged when it comes to case capacity. As such, can we really say that it will be fast enough to make the lighter bullets (TSX's) work as well or any better than a heavier Nosler Partition? From everything I have read it seems that TSX's really benefit from very high velocity.

This all speaks to my limited experience with the TSX and nearly 40 years of using the NP. I do not KNOW that a .33/160 would be the BEST match in the 338 Fed for use on elk, but from my experience I do KNOW that the 210 Nosler will work quite well, and I think, better. Could I be wrong? Yep!

JB mentioned earlier that he had a friend who used the lighter bullet on moose and came away feeling that he would have been better served with a heavier bullet.

Will the 33/160 work on elk? Certainly. Is it the BEST option available for the 338 Fed? In my mind, probably not.

As always, you pays your money and you takes your chances........

In this situation I would opt for the heavier bullet.

-Mike-

I think it bears mentioning that Utah708 recovered TWO .33-cal TSX's from his bull elk this year. And they were 210-gn TSX's and were launched from the much more powerful .338 Win Mag. If someone wants to make the case that a 160 TSX from a 338 Fed is gonna out-penetrate a 210 TSX from a .338... Let's hear it!

However good the TSX is or isn't, it isn't magic. I have not looked up the BC of that bullet, but it cannot be good. So (gack alert) it's gonna drift around in wind rather badly. It's also going to shed it's energy rather quickly. Both those things work against whatever perceived value the 160 might offer as far as a flatter trajectory- and trajectory is the one thing we can predict, test, and compensate for anyway.

And I say, anyone who is gonna try to make this case needs to have us pass them the munchies cause they on some really good stuff!!!

Dober

Barnes claims the BC of the 160TTSX is .342. That places it right between the 257/100NP and the 264/100NP. Not too bad ballistically.
But then I'd NEVER try and shoot an elk with a 257/100 or a 6.5/100 of any construction. Even if started at the magic 3000fps.

And the key word here is claims.....

Dober

Now, the next post will be about Barnes inflating BC numbers. But geez, I really gotta doubt alot of the numbers that Nosler claims in new #6, also.

Ya beat me to it, Dober!

maybe the next will also...grins

Dober

Dang!

B.C numbers are kind of a moot point with me when it comes to the .338 Fed. It's a great little round, but not one that I would be shooting at elk across clear cuts at 450 yards with, that's for sure! I've got other guns for that kind of work.

Dunno about 450, but based on the numbers for a 210 NP and my work with the .358, 400 yards should be doable, with some help from a turret or reticle.

My .358 is still packin' enough speed to be "legal" according to Nosler at 400 yards, with the 225-gn NP, and the heavier bullet tracks pretty well in the wind too.

That said- I agree with you, Jordan, in general. Just making the point that with a little work and proper bullet choice fir the job the little fatties can reach out surprisingly far...

What do mean by "legal"?

-Mike-

Above Nosler's stated minimum velocity for bullet expansion (1800 fps).

Some guys don't care about that, and for all I know they are right... but still, it's a comfort to be within the manufacturer's guidelines <grin>...

That's what I thought you meant, but wasn't sure. Personaly I prefer to see impact speeds to be at least 2000 fps.
Not that 1800 or so wouldn't be adequate, but I guess I just like lots of zeros............

You guyz would really be fubar if you hit an elk @ 1799 fps wouldn't you...grin

Dober

Hey todbartell, Get the new Annual Mannual from Hodgdon. Has a good article about loading DOWN to use the TTSX bullets. Even the lowly 338Fed is loaded down to 243 recoil levels and still kills a big Kudu at 200+ yds with a 160TTSX.
Get, read it, go huntin!

Don't know about 1799, but at 1798 I'm sure the bullets would bounce off!! ;0)

I'm interested in picking this up, where?

If I am not mistaken, I have seen/read where Conni Brooks has successfully used their 185gr bullet to take elk and I also remember reading an article in Outdoor Life (IIRC) where the author used the same bullet in his .338 Fed to take a moose in Newfoundland. If this is the case, would it be feasible to use the 5gr lighter 180gr Nosler AB for elk?

If you are torn between 160 and 210, why not go between with the 180/185gr selections?

(**my apologies if this was mentioned earlier, 8 pages is on the far end of material for me to sort through while at work)

I know the factory loaded 180 Nosler ABs would be great on elk. Went 2730fps from my 22" Tikka. Less than claimed but equal to most 30-06/180 loads. Plenty for elk inside 300yds(?).
Accuracy was about 1.75" or so. Probably good enough for any hunting I do, but the 185TSX factory gave a little better accuracy. So that's what I've used.

It makes sense all right, that I'll agree. Too bad it doesn't always work that way.
Example 1- the 420 grain Flat point Hard Cast at 1380 FPS was out penetrated by the 500 JRH also at 1380 FPS at the Linebaugh Seminar in Jackson, Miss.
Example 2- The 50 Alaskan revolver shooting a 525 grain Flat point harf cast at just under 1600 FPS penetrated exactly the same as the 500 JRH with the 425 grain
Example 3- the 416 Rigby penetrated 4 inches less with the 410 grain solid at 3280 FPS at the same seminar

Clearly the shape, material, and deformation action of the bullet also make a huge difference in penetration.

jwp475,

I don't buy that those are good examples. It's apples to oranges in each case.

Jordan Smith: I am NOT a poacher!
I used my 338 Federal for Big Game Hunting this spring (May 2,008)!
Don't be to quick to jump to conclusions!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

VG,
That big ol' grin at the end of the sentence implies that I was just kidding around! I have no doubts that you're not a poacher. No worries!

Jordan

Par for the course.... You couldn't follow a trail of logic marked with surveyors tape.

You're the guy that started a thread asking if a 120 grain BT in a 7/08 would kill a Deer.. Priceless

Ive got an Encore in 338X284 Win and it shoots really well with the 210gr Partition. While i have not shot an elk yet, thats the load i'll use. It's moving along at close to 2600 FPS..ought to work fine.

Has anyone experimented with RL17 and the 338 Federal? I would be interested in hearing some achieved velocities. Seems like everyone who has used it has benefited with gains

For those searching and come across this: I'm using Win. 748 in Encore .338 Fed with 28" barrel with 48 grains Barnes 185 gr.TTSX In single shot, bullet can be seated out to OAL of 2.950" still .050 off lands. Through Oehler 35, showing 2750. Quickload program shows RL17 too slow, RL-15 more in ballpark of 2700. 748 works up nicely, 50-100 fps per grain starting at 44 grains. No signs of overpressure this rifle at 48 grains. Holds 2000 fps to 300 yds with@ 2700 muzzle. Which was goal for proper expansion with this bullet. TTSX is shorter then 185 GMX ?? can get more powder in without compressing... Encore allows 28" tube without rifle longer then bolt with 22". Don't have group info yet have to reload next round for groups..

28" barrel on a 338 Fed. You ought to be able to get much more than 2750. I get that, or just under,are on a 22" with TAC or 8208 XBR. AA2230 and AR Comp have published loads that are quite good as well. In fact, AR Comp states 2847 for a 180 Accubond in a 24" barrel. I have some loaded up, but have not shot them through the chrono yet.

I'm only telling you what the 35 Oehler tells me, with my barrel. Even with the bullet out to 2.950 OAL, 48 grains of 748 is at the starting point of a compressed load in FL sized, necked down .358 win cases. I was able to size down .358 with no thickening of neck brass,calculated, 55376 psi, 99.16% burn.
Hodgdon tests on their data site, shows a max of 49 grains of 748 in 24" tube getting 2665 @ 53,400 psi. And with 8508XBR, a max compressed load of 47 grains getting 2721. @ 59,000psi. both at OAL of 2.80 My results are more in line with the predictions of my Quickload program plugging in a 28" barrel and OAL of 2.950.
As I said before, with the 185 Gr. Barnes in Encore OAL of 2.950 puts bullet .050 off rifling. And, with 748, a max fill of 48.3 grains. If bullet was set to SAMMI 2.80" 44.9 gr. of 748 would be 100% fill. Seating bullet out further allowing more space in case, is allowing me to get more vel. with less pressure. And, that's what I want in a break action Encore. 2750 fps with .432 BC 185 TTSX is quite acceptable as it lines up exactly, (on paper)until I finish tests, with the BDC range hash lines on my Vortex 2-7X scope. 300 yds. is my personal range limitation for Elk in the Idaho Black timber areas I'll be hunting. Drop difference at 300 yds. between 2750 and 2800 is only 00.6". In Quickload calculations, 8508XBR appears to build more pressure faster at near max loads then 748. Still have to load more rounds for accuracy testing. During velocity tests, most groups had bullets touching at 100 yds. But, groups were in different places by 2 to 3 inches as powder increased. And, had brand new scope adjustments to contend with...And just about out of one old lot of 748,(in metal can), will have to start with new 748 lot at some point... Quickload calculates highest vel. with this combination using IMR 3031 @ 46 grains getting 2850 fps. 57407 psi & 100% burn in 28 in. I only have a little of that powder left in a very old can (20+yrs), have not been able to get any new.

Not questioning your readings at all. Just seems like 748 is not ideal. I think you would get quite a bit more with other powders, that's all. Not that you need to of course! 2750 with the 185 TTSX is not going to stop in an elk based on my experience. I've never seen results from a 338 Fed in anything other than a 22" barrel so I'm very interested in what you can get. Let us know what you work up! I'll bet you'd be well over 3100 FPS with the 160 TTSX with <max load of AA2230 (I get 3020 with one grain under Barnes max load).

Not interested in pushing to max pressures and vel. in my Encore, because of frame stretching. Thats what my custom Savage/PacNor .338 RUM is for with 225 gr. Barnes TTSX. Plugging in other powders into QuickLoad only shows me pressure spikes near max case capacity, whereas 748 stays even....that's why I chose it and I have some to use. If this was a bolt gun and my only one, I would experiment more, but right now interested most in accuracy.......I have one bottle of 8508XBR if I don't get exactly what I want with 748 will try it next.

I plugged in your load into Hornady Ballistic calculator: 160 gr TTSX with BC of .342 at 3020 and my 185 @ 2750 with BC of .432 at 300 yds. sighted at 100 yds, yours drops 12" my load, 14". At 500 yd a 6" difference in favor of 160 gr. and both doing near same velocity, 1800 fps. but 185 has 200 more fpe. IF 2000 fps is needed for proper expansion of these bullets, it appears 400 yds. is max for that expansion with both above loads.

185 does well with retaining energy. As an FYI, I asked Barnes about the .338 185 TTSX and the 1800 FPS min opening velocity and the answer I got was that the bullet actually opened at lower velocities just fine but they published the 1800 to be on the safe side. Did not clarify the test material or what constituted "opening". So far it's been a great bullet for me. Only trying the 160 for variety.

Read OP ?, not replies, here are my choices for the Fed:

185 Barnes
200 - pick your flavor, Federal has a few
210 Partition.

I'd personally use the 185 over 210 Barnes - More capacity for powder, faster, hopefully better impact speed for expansion. The 210 PT is I am sure shorter, so more powder than a Barnes 210, so get more speed up, soft nose, proven very solid.

I'd not think twice than to run Federal's best 200 grain softpoints for everything I pointed that Sako at, but the Barnes 185 and Noz 210 have a stellar reputation. The modest speed will allow good penetration and integrity w/200 cup core.

Let me add, a bud bought my 350 RM, airline failed to allow him to take his ammo - 225 partitions b/c not properly boxed. He freaked out, I said, stay calm, he had a 280 also but really wanted to use the 350, I said buy some Remington 200 Corelokts - his only possible option. He found some, proceeded to knock the snot out of a HUGE Bull that presented w/in 200 yds.

So point is - when I told him SHOOT well and hunt with confidence, in the end it worked. We can over analyze some of the data.

Use one of the above 3 and you will do fine. A 160 I think just peters out faster w/less BC and wt. Prob will work, but I'd rather a 308/165 at that point.

In order of MY preference:

185 Barnes
210 Partition
200 Softpoint

Last info I saw from Barnes May 2012 says 2000fps for most TTSX:

"The LRX (Long Range X) bullets are flying out of here faster than we can make them. These are an optimized version of the Tipped TSX bullet and they have unique qualities that may make them better for you under a few circumstances.

An improved nose and boattail to be even more streamlined (higher BC value). This will again add to the distance you can shoot and still achieve bullet expansion. On top of that, we have lowered the minimum impact velocity to achieve expansion from 2000 fps (for most of the Tipped TSX calibers and weights) to 1600 fps for all of the LRX bullets. Again this will add about another 200 yds to your maximum effective range. In some larger cartridges this will allow the bullets to expand out to distances of 1000 yds or more."

Here in CA. as I hunt Boar all year round, I'm, by law, limited to no-lead bullets, so try for one accurate Barnes load in all my rifles used for big game..