300 win mag ammo

And my point is the heavier bullets for caliber penetrate more than the lighter ones.

The weight of the bullet as it penetrates does effect penetration,however the weight of the unfired bullet really means nothing.

If Barnes has figured out how to defeat the laws of physics, they should let the rest of us know.

Barnes is not defeating the laws of physics,rather you are failing to realize just how they apply in this application.

A 200 gr bullet that quickly sheds 50% of it's weight only has 100gr to continue penetrating,whereas a 180gr bullet that only sheds 10% in total still has over 160gr to continue penetrating.Using the laws of physics,which do you think will penetrate more?

The barnes tsx almost always retains in excess of 90% of it's weight while most other premium bullets like the partition average 60% to 70% at most.The standard cup and core bullets average 50% or less on average.
So we have a 180gr tsx that retains over 160gr,a 168gr tsx that retains 150gr,a 200gr partition that retains at most 140gr and a 220gr hornady that retains 110gr.

I have only recovered one tsx myself as most have exited due to the tremendous penetration that they offer.The bullet that I did recover is shown below.It is a 180gr tsx that was fired from a 300ultramag at 3380fps.It struck the elk at a raking angle and destroyed a large section of the elks spine as it travelled through and lodged under the hide.The remaining bullet weighed just over 160gr despite striking so much bone.

PA050015.jpg



If you want to see more examples of recovered tsx bullets,check out this link.

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104557
 
Last edited:
The law here actually rules out bullets below .30 for bison too which is sensible and limits hunters to basically a .30/06 with 180s changed from a .30/06 with 200s.

Lets look at this law. The law says nothign about bullet constructiuon, only weight. This is why i htink the law is flawed: You could legally use a 300 RUM loaded with 180 gr Ballistic Tip bullets on Bison, but you coudln't legally use the same cartridge with a 168gr TSX oe a 165 gr Nosler Partiton. Who here believes that the 180gr BT is goign to perform better on a big animal at high velocity than a stouter bullet like the TSX? The law is flawed in that respect.

Minimalism is a bad practice for hunting big game. You guys are assuming perfect shots and conditions which may work here or in your chair but it is plain foolishness in the field.

Just the opposite, actually. I use premium bullets for when everyhtig goes wrong. If I was going to assume perfect conditions, I'd use a 30-06 with 180gr cup and core bullets for everyhting.

Tell me just how many big moose(alaska/yukon) and bison and even elk you've shot with these or other rounds. There is no hint of experience in the things you say and please don't quote from magazines and other's hunts. Your experiences!

I have no expereince with Yukon game, as I have never been able to hunt in Yukon. However, i admit that you have surely shot more moose and bison than I have. I would be happy to try out a 168gr TSX on an Alaka/Yukon moose if you invite me along on hunting trip, though;) :dancingbanana:

I used to hunt quite a lot with a .300 Wby and all sort of bullets were tried. It worked like a hot damn until I moved to the north 12 years ago. Then I encountered really big animals. Two years into it, I gave up on the .300 Wby. It just doesn't do what I want, I don't like to chase big wounded animals for all sort of reasons. I went to bigger diameter bullets and never looked back. As I recall what I ended up using in that .300 for some years were Barnes, Nosler and GS bullets all in 200 grain weight.


If you are saying that a .308 caliber 200gr Nosler Partiton shot through the vitals will not cleanly kill the biggest moose in the world, I would suggest you have other problems than the bullet/cartridge choice. :runaway:

There are lots of stories of small bullets used on big game usually with a guide to later stop the animal or horror stories of magazines full to stop them

And there are lots of stories about grizzlies and moose doing bang flops when hit with a 7mm-30 cal bullet. And all these form regular hunters with no guide fo rback up. Hmmm..

On deer and sheep sure, elk are getting big and most guys that know what they are doing start looking for a bigger gun.

I woudl not suggest that it woudl hurt to use a bigger gun on big animals.

I do want to hear of your kills with these bullets though or at least how you've gone out and tested them well before hunting. Otherwise you don't know what you're talking about. Magazines are paid to sell you Barnes TSX bullets.

The TSX hasn't been out very long, so I have only shot a black bear with it. I have seen lots of bears go down to X bullets, including one grizzly that did a bang flop wiht a 7mm160gr X bullet.

To be honest, I havent' shot alot of game in the last couple of years, since I have been a bit more selective, rather than meat hunting for moose, I spent much of last season chasing California Bighorns. SoI haven't got alot of real world experience using the TSX. However, I have tested in newspaper most bullets. 7mm160gr X bullets seemed to penetrate just as well as .375 300gr Cup and Core bullets.

I have shot several moose with the 7mm Rem Mag and 175gr Nosler Partitons, and one wiht a 338 WM. using Nosler Partitons. I also have witnessed 2 more shot with 338WM. All died pretty much the same, which is to say, if they were hit properly, they all died quickly. One moose was not hit very well and took a few more shots to finish it off. That was wiht the 338WM and (IIRC) factory Federal or WInchester ammo- Non Premium 225 or 250gr bullets. (it wans't my rilfe, so I can't say fo rsure)

I have never had a chance to hunt bison, as I have not drawn a tag, but if I did, I woudl use either my 300WSM with 180gr TSX bullets, or ,375 with 270gr TSX bullets. Mostly I woudl use the 375 because i coudl, not that it is 100% necessary, or that I woudl feel "outgunned" shooting a bison with a 180gr TSX.

However, my point was really about a stupid regulation, which makes no sense, given the comparison I made.:dancingbanana:
 
Last edited:
And my point is the heavier bullets for caliber penetrate more than the lighter ones.


The weight of the bullet as it penetrates does effect penetration,however the weight of the unfired bullet really means nothing.


Quote:
If Barnes has figured out how to defeat the laws of physics, they should let the rest of us know.


Barnes is not defeating the laws of physics,rather you are failing to realize just how they apply in this application.

A 200 gr bullet that quickly sheds 50% of it's weight only has 100gr to continue penetrating,whereas a 180gr bullet that only sheds 10% in total still has over 160gr to continue penetrating.Using the laws of physics,which do you think will penetrate more?

The barnes tsx almost always retains in excess of 90% of it's weight while most other premium bullets like the partition average 60% to 70% at most.The standard cup and core bullets average 50% or less on average.
So we have a 180gr tsx that retains over 160gr,a 168gr tsx that retains 150gr,a 200gr partition that retains at most 140gr and a 220gr hornady that retains 110gr

Great post Stubblejumper. A simple explanation that clearly illustrates what many do not understand regarding performance of X bullets.

This sums it all up:

The weight of the bullet as it penetrates does effect penetration,however the weight of the unfired bullet really means nothing.
 
Here's another example of a lighter TSX giving better penetration than a heavier cup and core. This is the .35 cal bullet test I did with my Whelen a few months ago. The 225gr TSX gave better penetration than the three other 250gr bullet tested. The 250 grainer quickly lost about 50gr while the recovered weight of the 225gr TSX was......225gr.

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90368&highlight=whelen
 
Casull said:
. The average guy does not stay as calm or usually get as close. You have enough experience to use whatever you like, but I disagree with recommending lighter bullets to hunters, especially saying there is no advantage to heavier bullets, there obviously is. Barnes wouldn't make them if they couldn't sell them.

Bigger bullets and larger cartridges usually mean more recoil. I wouldn't want to suggest that someone with little experience in shooting shodul pick a heavier recoiler. One of the nice things about the TSX is you can use lighter bullets that give a bit more velocity and have less recoil than the heavier, conventional bullet, yet you do not sacrifice performance on game.:)


I fully beleive in modern bullet quality. I used a XLC on my bison. However, I also think that bullets should be as heavy as your rifle will accurately use. Physics simply tells us that the heavier bullet is going to be harder to stop. Same bullet, same construction and caliber, the heavier bullet WILL penetrare deeper. Sometime that little bit is what it needed. And also, why not use the heavier bullets? The advantage seems very obvious.

Most of us (I know I was) were comparing lighter TSX bullets to heavier and larger conventional cup and core bullets.

Why not use the heavier bullets of the same construciton? Because of what I menitoned above, and also, because it is often unnecessary. How much further through the whole animal do you want to shoot?;) :p
 
I think the .300 WM with a 180 TSX is more than enough gun for 95% of game taken in N. America. But hey, whatever rocks your boat (or body) :p
I have owned and fired them all from .243 Win up to the .416 Rigby and .458WM and no need to take the physical abuse if you don't have to.
 
I want to shoot completely through the big animal as in two holes from any angle.
I am not comparing cup and core bullets to monlithics, I am comparing apples to apples. 168 compared to 200 grain TSX bullets. The 200 will out penetrate the 168, no way it can't. It is simple force and effect. To say the weight of the unfired bullet is meaningless is ridiculous. If it were so, Barnes would make one bullet in each caliber. They do not, they make a range and for a good reason. I am not defending old bullets to new, they are not the same I agree. Big animals require more penetration because of this mass, it's why Barnes makes heavier bullets in each caliber to suit it to the game hunted. I am familiar with Barnes bullets have even tested them and there is some of my data in their current loading manual.
I won't defend game laws regarding caliber, it's too small a factor to be given so much value.
With the choice of a .300 or .375 for bison. The answer is very obvious. The .270 with ANY bullet is totally inadequate for bison! The guy I know that has been on more bison hunts than you or I will be, uses a .45/70 Ruger with 350 grain Barnes bullets. He is knowledgable in guns and animals, his choice is very sensible if rather boring.
I am sure there are lots of moose taken every year with .300s. Some lost too I'll bet. This is not in any way overgunned. In fact it's a reasonable minimum. Hunting game with a marginal rifle or load is irresponsible, it should not be done. Wounded animals are the result. Experienced hunters don't graduate toward smaller and smaller rifles, they more often go to a larger gun and heavier loads. The more game I shoot or see shot leads me to want to use a heavier rifle. The effects are just greater and more humane. Use a rifle you can handle and shoot well. And use enough gun, overkill is hogwash. How can anything be too dead or down too quickly. It can sure as hell not be down quick enough though.
Don't argue that I don't understand new bullets. It's not true, I use and enjoy them too. Same bullet heavier= more penetration. There is not other way about it. It's straight physics. There is a point where the bullet will completely penetrate the animal from any direction, beyond that is useless agreed, but that is not where this is. Why not just carry the extra 20 grains of bullet?
The second bison of my experience was shot this past December with 500grain .458 Hornady bullets. They did not fully penetrate the bison. They were recovered in the animal. The .458 is not too much rifle for bison either though it may be on the limit for some shooters. The tales of them running away with mag fulls of .300s and .338s are common here. The .375 seems a good choice with good bullets like good 300 grainers. I would like to see what the .270 with any bullet would do to one. But I'd have a real gun there to end the deal.
Recoil is another factor all together. I admit, I like it and I know some don't. But the difference between a 168 grain and 200 grain in a 300 mag is not enough to matter.
Here is a picture of a 570 grain Barnes XLC recovered after passing through the chest of a bison. It retains more than 99% of it's weight. I agree they are amazing bullets.
435661.JPG
 
Last edited:
I am not comparing cup and core bullets to monlithics,

Yeah, but Bartlel, Stubblejumper and I were...:runaway:




I am comparing apples to apples. 168 compared to 200 grain TSX bullets. The 200 will out penetrate the 168, no way it can't. It is simple force and effect.

I am sure someone can rig a test to have the 168gr penetrate more- I *have* seen a test where the 200gr Partiton penetrated less than the 180grainer.. :p But yes, what you are saying makes perfect sense.


To say the weight of the unfired bullet is meaningless is ridiculous.

Not if you were comparing bullets of different construction. Which SJ was...


:runaway:

I love that crazy guy....;)
 
I want to shoot completely through the big animal as in two holes from any angle.


Here is a picture of a 570 grain Barnes XLC recovered after passing through the chest of a bison.

So using your own logic the 570gr bullet failed.Are you suggesting that you need an even heavier bullet for bison?Perhaps you should try a .50bmg?:D

The second bison of my experience was shot this past December with 500grain .458 Hornady bullets.They did not fully penetrate the bison.

Perhaps a lighter barnes tsx would have performed better,since as you yourself posted:

The guy I know that has been on more bison hunts than you or I will be, uses a .45/70 Ruger with 350 grain Barnes bullets. He is knowledgable in guns and animals, his choice is very sensible if rather boring.

Obviously,he does not see the need for a 500gr bullet now does he?He is not using a heavy for caliber bullet,as you are preaching,yet you say he is very knowledgeable and has a great deal of experience hunting bison.In fact he is using a light for caliber barnes bullet as myself ,Tod, Gatehouse,and others, are suggesting.


The tales of them running away with mag fulls of .300s and .338s are common here.

Since bison are regularly killed cleanly with 300mags and even smaller cartridges just north of the city where I live,we can only assume that the people that are losing bison after emptying full mags into them are not placing their shots properly.In that case they need to study the anatomy of the bison more carefully and practise their shooting.:D


To say the weight of the unfired bullet is meaningless is ridiculous

If you fail to understand why only the weight that remains while the bullet is actually penetrating the game is important,I am afraid that you just don't understand the mechanics of bullet expansion and penetration.:D
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid it is you that doesn't understand. You just don't seem to get it.
In what way did the 570 XLC fail? It did fully penetrate the animal, I recovered it from the snow on the lake well behind.
I personally would not choose the 350s over the 500s for close in hunting. The reason he chooses 350s is for the midrange trajectory. Bison hunting here at least can be a reasonably long range proposition, the 500 from medium loads in the .45/70 does not have the trajectory he saught, the 350s do. No question though, the 500 would penetrate better. In this case I know well. I have put 350 grain bullets cross ways through big moose from the .45/70 Ruger. The same load was stopped by another big moose a different year with a straight on frontal shot. The same weight bullet with the same shot in another year from the .416 showed better penetration, obviously higher BC and SD. But the .45/70 has a trajectory limit which the .300 doesn't in the ranges we are talking about.
on prairie where shots a predictable or a farm, the .300 should work great. I am saying there are lots of stories every year where the animals run a long time after being hit with them. These woods bison are large and the shots can be challenging with hills, trees and so on. They are leary after some intense hunting.
The only reason I even mention bison is that you asked where would the heavier bullet of the same caliber be needed. This is where I see the need. I know something about bison, moose and bear hunting, if I knew of water buff hunting or whatever I would talk of that.
I do understand bullet dynamics and every prinicle says the heavier bullet of the same caliber and construction will penetrate deeper. Sure a test could be rigged but then it's useless. A real honest test will show the heavier going deeper. If there is a way around this, you have just solved all our energy problems and about time too, I am tired of paying this much for gas.
I guess I do have issues because I don't think a .300 with 200s will kill any moose alive in any situation. Woods hunting brings in challenges. I have hunted them with a .300 and while it did kill them, I was not impressed with the performance. But that is my experience and my experiences have lead to my opinions, not a Barnes ad.
 
I guess I do have issues because I don't think a .300 with 200s will kill any moose alive in any situation.

That one statement in itself does prove that you have issues,that can't be solved here.
 
Last edited:
Probably, but I have actually tried it and didn't like it. The .300 is not a great moose rifle, the .35s from the .358 and up are better and a whole line of rounds above that. The .300 lacks two things for big moose, diameter and bullet weight. The .44 mag would be a better choice in close. The .45/70 outclassed it altogether. It's interesting that you need to insult to make your argument. I don't agree with you and from what I've heard you don't listen much. You'll wound a lot of animals before you listen to anyone. Call Randy Brooks down at Barnes sometime and get his opinions, but you might still have to listen.
 
Last edited:
It's a far better round up close as I said. Not at distance. Have you tried it? I have as well as the .454 Casull. Up close they are far better killers of big game than any .30.
Ever notice how those that know the least, know it the loudest.
 
Listen, you started this discussion by telling me I was out to lunch because I didn't beleive in everything you read in a magazine. I told you your theory was impossible, which it is. You have been saying I don't get it the whole thread as opposed to listening to another side of it. Your physics don't work out, it's wrong. There is another opinion, I have contrdicted your "facts" through out because they are wrong. Then you insult me for not agreeing with you. You have been yelling "there are the facts" with no real facts from the start. You have hunted enough, you're going to do it your way, fine fair enough. Don't insult me because I don't agree. And I do know a bit about these things. Worst of all is that hunters and new hunters across the country might take what you say seriously. You can't listen while you're talking!
 
I agree totally that the new bullets make smaller guns much better killers. I took my first Elk with a light for caliber 300 gr. 416 X bullet back in the early 90s. When I first started hunting I used the 300 mags a bunch, they worked quite well. Now I wouldn't think of going on a serious hunt for big game (Moose, Elk) with one. Not because they don't work but because there are far better rounds for the job. Everyone has their own opinion, I'm with Rob on this one bigger is definatly better. Its like my mashal arts instructor used to say, two men of equal ability the bigger man wins. Bigger TSXs are better than small ones.
 
Fact-the overall case length of the 44mag is 1.285"

Fact-until a few years ago,it was illegal to hunt big game in Alberta with any cartridge having a case length of less than 1.75"

Therefore,it was illegal to hunt big game with the 44mag.The reason given by the game department was that cartridges with shorter case lengths lacked the energy necessary to provide clean kills on big game.And of course you have posted previously, that you support the game department placing regulations on the cartridges that one can use to hunt big game.Yet now you post that the 44mag is a good moose cartridge.:D

The only reason that this regulation was changed a few years ago,is because of the introduction of the new 243wssm and 257wssm cartridges.
 
Worst of all is that hunters and new hunters across the country might take what you say seriously.

Actually the worst thing that could happen is for a new hunter to take you seriously and go out and buy a .416 or larger caliber rifle and not be able to shoot it well because of the recoil.The result would be much more wounded game than if they used a smaller cartridge that they can shoot well.
 
When I first started hunting I used the 300 mags a bunch, they worked quite well.

As myself and others have be posting all along, but Casull has been disputing all along.So on that topic you don't agree with Casull,rather you agree with the rest of us.
 
Back
Top Bottom