110gr TTSX in 270 win
- Thread starter Bigbear
- Start date
Pathfinder
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Northeast Ontario
Just getting there. The guys on the US boards are raving about the speed they are getting with RL-17 and the 110 TTSX. Still 3 feet of snow here and Im not shooting for a few more weeks it seems.
303EppsFan
CGN Regular
- Location
- Almonte,Ontario
This is on my to-do list. Have the bullets and the cases are prepped. Too may other projects on the go.
I'm curious why there is such an intrest in the 110 gr TTSX especially in the WSM. I would think that a 130gr would be more suitable (in terms of retaining energy) and still be in that 3200 fps range. If the reason is "Just because we can" I'm fine with that. I was just asking because I'm in the process of working up a load in my 270 win with 130 gr TSX and RL 19 and was wondering if I was missing something. I'm hoping to maybe use it for moose and elk. At any rate I'm trying to get away from lead for my hunting ammo because I've got small kids and don't want them injesting any.
George
George
George, my reasoning with the TTSX is that I haven't seen very many of them blow up, lose a petal, or in any way deteriorate from the pictures I've found online in any caliber, against game or test media. I'd like to test them myself in my WSM to see if they can be pushed too fast for their construction (I.E. deform, over-expand, and/or under-penetrate). Secondly, I want to see what kind of expansion and penetration they provide in comparison against the TTSX's of heavier weights ( I also have the 130 and 140's). If they are found to hold together at magnum speeds, penetrate at least 12", and expand to the same diameter as the heavier versions, I can't see a reason not to use them at higher speeds than their counterparts on deer, or even larger moose-size game for that matter. I think you have a perfect bullet for what you intend on hunting, I'm just interested in trying this out. My round of choice for next year's moose hunt was going to be the 130 or 140 TSX as well.
The typical reasoning for using heavier bullets for bigger game is (IMO) they hold together better at higher speeds (don't separate from the jacket), penetrate further (due to more energy, and lower velocity creating less expansion). So if you find a lighter bullet that can still accomplish both those tasks, why not use it? The only exception to this would be long range hunting, where you want a bullet with better ballistics (generally heavier) to ease wind correction, and retain stored energy.
The typical reasoning for using heavier bullets for bigger game is (IMO) they hold together better at higher speeds (don't separate from the jacket), penetrate further (due to more energy, and lower velocity creating less expansion). So if you find a lighter bullet that can still accomplish both those tasks, why not use it? The only exception to this would be long range hunting, where you want a bullet with better ballistics (generally heavier) to ease wind correction, and retain stored energy.
Barnes_270
Regular
- Location
- Langley, BC
That's my exact load for 270 Win as well: 110gr TTSX, 58 grains H4350, Winchester brass, CCI BR2 primer, COAL to give 50 thou off the lands. That's below max, but I stopped there because it was so accurate. Chrony'd at 3200 fps.
Barnes_270
Regular
- Location
- Langley, BC
If you compare the energy retention and wind drift for the 110gr and 130gr TTSX in the Federal factory ammo, it's an absolute wash out to about 400 yards IIRC. The time of flight is less for the 110 due to its faster velocity.
The one difference is the drop - it's a few inches. The 110gr is flatter shooting. Think of the 110gr TTSX as a faster, flatter 140gr partition.
loading a 7mm-08 for the misses and was loading 120gr Vmax for plinking and practice and maybe the odd coyote. I was going to load up some 120 ttsx for deer and moose and I'm having troubles getting it through my head that they will perform like a 140gr cup and core. Just a little mental block on my end.
George
George
