Picture of the New Barnes .375" 350gr TSX

[Camp Cook]

Left to Right...

Hornady 220gr FP
Hornady 225gr Spire Point
Speer 235gr Semi Spitzer
Claw 235gr from South Africa Bonded Open Tip
Nosler Accubond 260gr
Hornady 270gr Spitzer
Claw 270gr from South Africa Bonded Open Tip
Swift A-Frame 300gr
Nosler Partition 300gr
Sierra Gameking 300gr
Barnes TSX 350gr measures just under 1.7" long

 

[jeff270]

Thats nuts I can't even use a max load of H4350 under a 300 gr tsx.
If they had made the shape if the nose like a hand gun HP it would shorten up the lenght a bit and allow a bit more powder in the case.

 

[mmattockx]

Thats nuts I can't even use a max load of H4350 under a 300 gr tsx.
If they had made the shape if the nose like a hand gun HP it would shorten up the lenght a bit and allow a bit more powder in the case.

BC would go to pot if they increase the meplat diameter like you suggest. The length is just the price of using copper instead of lead as the material, copper is only 72.6% the density of lead and it takes a long bullet to make up that deficit.

Mark

 

[Gatehouse]

If I was going to hunt elephants with a .375, I might look into using those.

 

[Camp Cook]

The BC is only .408...

Using this bullet in any case design that is shorter than a 375RUM would just take up to much case capacity and velocities would be very slow basically the H&H/Ruger just don't have the case capacity to use this bullet.

I have no intentions of using this bullet as a do all bullet for general hunting I'll be loaded with my 260gr or 300 gr loads my intended use for this bullet will be to shoot it only when I have the scope removed and the XS ghost ring sight installed so max 200 yards.

 

[mmattockx]

The BC is only .408...

Using this bullet in any case design that is shorter than a 375RUM would just take up to much case capacity and velocities would be very slow basically the H&H/Ruger just don't have the case capacity to use this bullet.

I have no intentions of using this bullet as a do all bullet for general hunting I'll be loaded with my 260gr or 300 gr loads my intended use for this bullet will be to shoot it only when I have the scope removed and the XS ghost ring sight installed so max 200 yards.

Well, Hornady lists the BC of their two 300gr. round nose .375 bullets as 0.265 and 0.275, so 0.408 is a huge improvement over those. Opening the nose up like a handgun bullet would bring it back to nearly the same as the round nose bullets.

I can believe it is too long to be practical in some .375's, the non-lead bullets have a significant problem in this respect. It is the same problem that prevents a high BC 140gr. non-lead bullet in .264 caliber (which I would love to have).

Mark

 

[Camp Cook]

260gr & 300gr Accubonds and 300gr Gamekings all have a BC of appr .473 which is why I stated that the BC was only .408 I really expected it to be a lot higher...

 

[Gatehouse]

The BC is only .408...

Using this bullet in any case design that is shorter than a 375RUM would just take up to much case capacity and velocities would be very slow basically the H&H/Ruger just don't have the case capacity to use this bullet.
.

Barnes disagrees

Barnes lists data for this bullet and the 350gr banded solid for 375 Ruger and H&H

(All 24" barrels)

Ruger 350gr TSX @ 2403fps
H&H 350gr TSX @ 2319fps
RUM 350gr TSX @ 2580fps

Lots of guys hunting Africa load thier H&H to 2300-2500fps with 300gr bullets, I think a 2300-2400fps 350 gr bullet should work just as well.

As much as I like the TSX bullets, I dont' plan on using the 350gr TSX. I don't even see any north American reason to bother with the 300gr TSX, I think the 270gr will work just as good. I could see using a 350gr Woodleigh (non monometal) though.

Be interesting to see side by side penetration and wound volume tests with 270, 300 and 350 TSX. I'm sure some enterprising gun writer will hammer a bullet tube with a few of them soon enough.

 

[mmattockx]

260gr & 300gr Accubonds and 300gr Gamekings all have a BC of appr .473 which is why I stated that the BC was only .408 I really expected it to be a lot higher...

That's the material density killing them, to keep the weight up they need to use a blunt nosed, flat based design that just doesn't fly as well as the others. Using a lead core gives a lot more options as to the final shape and weight, with a reasonable length. Too bad it's toxic.

Mark

 

[X-fan]

Barnes disagrees

Barnes lists data for this bullet and the 350gr banded solid for 375 Ruger and H&H

(All 24" barrels)

Ruger 350gr TSX @ 2403fps
H&H 350gr TSX @ 2319fps
RUM 350gr TSX @ 2580fps

Lots of guys hunting Africa load thier H&H to 2300-2500fps with 300gr bullets, I think a 2300-2400fps 350 gr bullet should work just as well.

As much as I like the TSX bullets, I dont' plan on using the 350gr TSX. I don't even see any north American reason to bother with the 300gr TSX, I think the 270gr will work just as good. I could see using a 350gr Woodleigh (non monometal) though.

Be interesting to see side by side penetration and wound volume tests with 270, 300 and 350 TSX. I'm sure some enterprising gun writer will hammer a bullet tube with a few of them soon enough.

I'd like to see those results.

I'm hoping Barnes was smart enough to realize that the guy that wants the 350gr 375 wants penetration above all else and redesigned the nose of the the bullet? I ordered a few Boxes from Bartel so we shall see.

I talked to another guy running the 350 in an Ultra and he claimed his working load is 2650fps...We shall see.

If you try them in your Ruger make sure you don't seat them too deep and plug the primer flash hole!

 

[Gatehouse]

I'm hoping Barnes was smart enough to realize that the guy that wants the 350gr 375 wants penetration above all else and redesigned the nose of the the bullet?

They are making a 350gr Banded solid for ultimate penetration.

If you try them in your Ruger make sure you don't seat them too deep and plug the primer flash hole!

I don't intend to try them, I think they would be a poor choice for north american game.

 

[Camp Cook]

I have found Barnes data to be on the conservative side.

Example Barnes data stated 80grs of RL17 as a top load for these 350gr TSX, I started low and slowly worked up and had absolutely no pressures signs and the primers didn't start to flatten even the slightest bit until I was 3grs over that and even @ 3 1/2grs over they were only slightly flat.

Here is a picture of a 50 yard target shot with the 83grs/350gr load I was using my XS Sights backup ghost ring sight I plan on reducing the load down to 82grs which should give me 2430fps - 2440fps

The 3 shot cloverleaf are the 350gr bullets the higher two holes are from my 14" T/C Contender carbine in 45 Colt I was sighting it in.

 

[Boomer]

I like heavy for caliber bullets, but I won't be trying this one any time soon. We know that the TSXs have the same depth of nose cavity within caliber, so a super heavy without the additional frontal area doesn't seem to make much sense. I even wonder why I bother with the 300 gr TSX when the 270 gr shoots flatter and penetrates to an equal depth as a result of it's higher impact velocity at any given range, with exactly the same expanded frontal area.

IMHO, if you guys are set on heavy for caliber bullets, Rhino and Woodleigh produce the best terminal performance in a super heavy. Barnes has jumped on the super heavy bandwagon without much thought going into the end product, just a case of, “If that's what people want, we'll give it to them.” That's a bit of a shame because I think a 350 gr round nose .375 built along the lines of the Barnes original would be an excellent bullet. I guess I'll have to by a box though, but I expect it will be money wasted.

 

[X-fan]

They are making a 350gr Banded solid for ultimate penetration.




I don't intend to try them, I think they would be a poor choice for north american game.

Sort of like a 45/70 only more useful?

In the Ultra they should be similar to the 300gr/375 Ruger in trajectory.

The C.O.s don't like solids.

 

[Gatehouse]

I don't think the solids would be useful for north America either, but I don't ever recall a CO examining the bullets I'm using, either!!

 

[X-fan]

I like heavy for caliber bullets, but I won't be trying this one any time soon. We know that the TSXs have the same depth of nose cavity within caliber, so a super heavy without the additional frontal area doesn't seem to make much sense. I even wonder why I bother with the 300 gr TSX when the 270 gr shoots flatter and penetrates to an equal depth as a result of it's higher impact velocity at any given range, with exactly the same expanded frontal area.

IMHO, if you guys are set on heavy for caliber bullets, Rhino and Woodleigh produce the best terminal performance in a super heavy. Barnes has jumped on the super heavy bandwagon without much thought going into the end product, just a case of, “If that's what people want, we'll give it to them.” That's a bit of a shame because I think a 350 gr round nose .375 built along the lines of the Barnes original would be an excellent bullet. I guess I'll have to by a box though, but I expect it will be money wasted.

The 380 Rhino looks pretty good...Bit of a pain to get though.

Will let you know if Barnes has changed the front end when I get them...I doubt it. I have mentioned this before, but I actually preferred the old original X bullet...Now there we had penetration!

Time to make more bullet test tubes.

 

[Boomer]

Prior to going to Africa I did some bullet testing that changed my mind about how bullet weight effects penetration. If we compare two expanding bullets of equal caliber, where both bullets are designed to retain much of their original weight, it became apparent to me that weight in its self did not increase penetration. Funny, I always thought a heavy bullet would out penetrate a light one, but that is not necessarily always correct. What the heavy bullet did do however, in the case of the 380 gr Rhino, was to expand to a much larger diameter, and this large expanded frontal area, resulted in a wound volume that was all out of proportion to the caliber. The penetration in my test material was 32" for a 270 gr XLC @ 2850, and a 300 gr X @ 2600. The penetration of the 380 gr Rhino @ 2300 was also 32", so the momentum of this heavy bullet with a frontal diameter of .92" caused it to penetrate as well as the high velocity Xs which both had an expanded frontal area of about .72". So not only didn't heavy bullet weight increase penetration, the high velocity impacts of the lighter bullets had less effect on wound volume than did the expanded frontal area of the heavy bullet.

I expect that I would be able to stoke up that 350 gr TSX to about 2450, and I also expect that it's expansion will be equal to the 270 gr version as is typical with the other TSXs I've used, weight is increased by lengthening the shank and all the hollow points are equal in depth within caliber, so expansion can be no greater. It too will have and expanded diameter of .72" and will penetrate 32 inches. This has been my sole criticism of the X family of bullets for quite some time, in that choosing a heavy for caliber bullet has no terminal advantage. A 300 gr wounds like a 270 gr, and a 350 gr will wound like a 300 gr. This is simply because the manufacturing process used by Barnes means that the only way to make a heavier bullet is by lengthening the shank of the bullet, rather than the expandable nose section. Thus the TSXs are great bullets in medium weight bullets, but have no advantage in heavy or super heavy weights compared to the light weights.

Now folks will say that my test doesn't mean much because the test medium wasn't a live animal, but here's something interesting. In the end my Brno .375 Ultra carbine didn't make the trip overseas, but one of the rifles I used there was a .500 NE John Wilkes double with 580 gr X bullets loaded to 2100. I recovered one of these .510/580s from my buff. It expanded to .92" and penetrated about 32". How about that.

 

[Camp Cook]

Was just doing some research on loads for my 375RUM and rediscovered this old thread was a good read the info/experiences shared is fantastic.

I just recently purchased some 350gr .375" Woodleighs haven't had a chance to load them yet though been working too much.

 

[grizzly416]

Barnes disagrees

Barnes lists data for this bullet and the 350gr banded solid for 375 Ruger and H&H

(All 24" barrels)

Ruger 350gr TSX @ 2403fps
H&H 350gr TSX @ 2319fps
RUM 350gr TSX @ 2580fps

Lots of guys hunting Africa load thier H&H to 2300-2500fps with 300gr bullets, I think a 2300-2400fps 350 gr bullet should work just as well.

As much as I like the TSX bullets, I dont' plan on using the 350gr TSX. I don't even see any north American reason to bother with the 300gr TSX, I think the 270gr will work just as good. I could see using a 350gr Woodleigh (non monometal) though.

Be interesting to see side by side penetration and wound volume tests with 270, 300 and 350 TSX. I'm sure some enterprising gun writer will hammer a bullet tube with a few of them soon enough.

my king of the mountain(378 weatherby) will shove those out of the barrel at 2900 fps

 

[Camp Cook]

You go right ahead = that is far more recoil than I want to deal with...