Barnes Bullets: Discuss

Biguglyman,
I used the 270 grain TSX in Africa as well, it's hard to imagine a bullet working much better, or on more varied game. Accurate and deadly, even the "meat saver" crowd has to like them. My own zebra, hit through both shouders went down like it was hit by an invisible truck. :eek: I loaded 300 grains TSXs for my return trip, out of consideration for the eland, buffalo, and giraffe that will be on the menu. It's not like I don't think the 270s are up to it, but big is big. Besides, I'm fickle.;)
 
Tell me something... :confused:

I have read numerous times an advantage of the Barnes X bullet is that due to it's ability to hold 99.5% weight retention, that this allows the use of lighter (for caliber) bullets and this then allows higher velocities.

BUT I also read that the one failing of the X bullet is that at higher velocities and particularly on lighter game, it can pencil through.

So when this happens exactly how does this occur?

Do the petals begin to open too quickly and break off, creating basically a solid that passes through without expansion? Or what? :confused:

Also why is it that people claim the X bullet expands better at lower velocity? I'd think the expansion would be better at higher velocities (unless it is due to the petals breaking off). I'd think it would be exactly opposite... :confused:

Has anybody ever done testing (or read about someone that did) that demonstrates this "penciling" thing?


I am going to load 300gr X bullets in my .405 Winchester and try 'em, which would be the first time I've ever used a Barnes bullet. One reason is the stock 300gr Hornady doesn't look any hell to me (only .254 S.D.) and there aren't a helluva lot of readily available options. Barnes does make a 325 gr .411 cal X bullet too.

I already got it figured that I will be going after black bear with this spring 2008 (and maybe this fall)! :)
 
keep in mind alot of negative stuff you'll read, is pertaining to the older Barnes X, produced from the late 80s through late 90s, before the XLC was introduced. The newer TSX seems to of gotten most if not all of the QC issues cleared up from the earlier X design. New TSX dont foul as much, less finicky to load, very accurate, and expansion is dependable.
 
There is no question that the TSX is a better bullet than the original X. I generally like X bullets but for a couple of design features, and for those content to use bullets of normal weight for caliber they work wonderfully.

My criticism of the X's has to do with the depth of the hollow point in relation to the length of the bullet shank. Barnes increases the weight of the bullet by making the shank longer, but does not make the hollow point deeper. I am sure this simplifies the manufacturing process, however the heavier bullet cannot expand any larger than a lighter one, because the depth of the hollow point has not changed. As a result, a heavier X bullet within caliber gains no killing power over the lighter bullet. In theory, given a scenario where the petals break off and only the shank is left, due to it's length and due to the resistance the bullet encounters to forward motion inside the game animal, it could swap ends resulting in the loss of straight line penetration. As far as I'm concerned Barnes might as well make a single weight of bullet per caliber, because if you want a bigger hole you will have to go to a bigger caliber rather than heavier bullet. This is unfortunate, because the X bullet platform could easily allow for much larger expansion. The result would be seen in improved terminal performance, at lower velocities, with thicker petals nearer the base of the bullet, reducing the chance of bullet failure.
 
Boomer what you say makes sense, but if Barnes altered the depth of the cavity to increase expansion, that would reduce the depth of penetration. It seems to me that next to weight retention this (depth of penetration) is Barnes major claim to fame and I'd think they wouldn't want to mess with that.

In the .411 cal .405 Winchester, I would think the expansion will be adequate.

Barnes makes a 300gr and a 325gr bullet in .411 caliber. I'm thinking of using the 300gr bullet. Frankly if somebody made a 340 or 350gr conventional lead core bullet I would buy that, but I don't know of a source at this time.

Maybe Hawk, Woodleigh or Northfork? :confused:



Edit: Oh yeah, the other thing is Barnes does not offer a TSX in .411 cal, only the "regular" X Bullet.
 
I have been using the Barnes x bullets in my rifles for over 10 years. I have taken a number of bull elk and moose with the bullets in both a 30-06 and 7 mm rem mag. The bullets I have recovered look like a poster for the Barnes company ads with 4 distinct pedals. The bullets retain their weight extremely well and are very accurate when a proper load is developed. I have used Nosler partitions in the past and was quite happy with their performance but they do not hold together like the Barnes. Also there is no bullet deformation when continually loading and unloading your rifle. I know that we are fortunate to be able to have these discussions because when I first started reloading your component choices was extremely limited. I always tell my hunting partners " At what point in the death of the animal did the bullet performance fail". You cannot go wrong with Barnes.
 
whntr I've pulled lots of Nosler Parts, with the nose sheared away, out of dead moose and then complained about the way the bullet had come apart... :D

Yet in spite of that, IMHO the Nosler Partition is the best big game bullet for N.A. big game. Dollar for dollar you cannot beat the performance... :rockOn:

Barnes X sure are pretty though.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I don't buy the '100% weight retention' hype. 100% retention is only necessary if you're using a bullet with marginal-for-the-application weight anyway. Any weight that is 'lost' doesn't just 'vapourize' and vanish, it's in the critter having made many tiny secondary channels.

It's like getting cut with a sharp razor vs a dull blade - the dull blade does more damage and bleeds a lot more, and doesn't heal as well or as quickly. Sure, it may take more effort to cut as deeply with a dull blade than a sharp one
 
I know its the off season and all but sometimes its best just to not over analyze #### and goooo huntin (or in this case, go to the range and blast off some rounds) :D
 
Where I see Barnes' strong points is when they are driven extremely fast or when you are hunting the biggest of animals that demand the deepest of penetration. I like them in my STW to get back the penetration that is inevitably lost with super high velocities and lead/copper bullets. Not to say they won't shoot through a deer, but don't try it lengthwise.
Conversely, at 2100 to 2600 fps and bigger calibers they penetrate forever, and this sort of mono bullet is making serious inroads into territory dominated by solids not too long ago. 3 PHs told me to bring "My" TSXs and leave the solids at home for buffalo.
I have noticed that game usually shows less reaction to solid hits than I was used to with standard bullets.As much as I prefer exit wounds, I'm also forced to admit that I have had a lot more bang flops with softer bullets that may not provide them. Another characteristic is that they are very meat and cape friendly, and even give a fighting chance of leaving a coyote worth skinning.
 
Nosler Partition is the best big game bullet for N.A. big game. Dollar for dollar you cannot beat the performance...
Click to expand...

I was just going to post the same thing. I have never lost an animal hit with a partition and I have yet to recover a bullet. I would like to try the TSX but the partitions have been so reliable that I'm scared to switch. Why fix something that isn't broken?:)
 
I would like to try the TSX but the partitions have been so reliable that I'm scared to switch. Why fix something that isn't broken?
Click to expand...

Luckily everyone doesn't feel that way or we would still be using pointed sticks to hunt game.
As for myself,I still like the ballistic tips for deer and smaller game,because they do result in quicker kills on average,but I use the tsx for larger game such as moose and elk where more penetration is desired.I have used the partition extensively as well,and I find that the tsx penetrates better,and is more accurate in my rifles.
 
I have shot exactly 1 head of game with the TSX (130 gr 270, Muley buck) while I have shot over 100 head with the Partition. Never a problem with NP bullets, and every animal just happened to die, usually in seconds. Now the TSX seems to work well, and I hear many testimonials to that effect, but I hate to fix what isn't broken also. I will never get to shoot as much game with the TSX, since I won't live long enough to shoot another 100+ head of game. However, I am willing to give them credit as I accumulate evidence. I never had any problem with accuracy with Partitions, and the TSX is the first Barnes all-copper offering that has shot well in my rifles. I'll report back after shooting a moose and an Elk with the TSX. I no longer shoot any non-premium bullet at game, only targets. Regards, Eagleye.
 
Demonical said:
Boomer what you say makes sense, but if Barnes altered the depth of the cavity to increase expansion, that would reduce the depth of penetration. It seems to me that next to weight retention this (depth of penetration) is Barnes major claim to fame and I'd think they wouldn't want to mess with that.

In the .411 cal .405 Winchester, I would think the expansion will be adequate.

Barnes makes a 300gr and a 325gr bullet in .411 caliber. I'm thinking of using the 300gr bullet. Frankly if somebody made a 340 or 350gr conventional lead core bullet I would buy that, but I don't know of a source at this time.

Maybe Hawk, Woodleigh or Northfork? :confused:



Edit: Oh yeah, the other thing is Barnes does not offer a TSX in .411 cal, only the "regular" X Bullet.
Click to expand...

I tested a couple of X's against the 380 Rhino fired from my .375. The bullet performance for the X's was identical with respect to depth of penetration, and wound volume. One was a 270 gr XLC the other a 300 gr X. The petals blew off both X bullets, leaving a cylindrical plug which was slightly expanded at the nose. Penetration was exactly the same at 32". The bullets were chronographed during the test, with the 270 gr @ 2850 and the 300 @ 2600. The expanded frontal area at the nose of the bullet measured .72" on both bullets. The third bullet in the test was the 380 gr Rhino which is a bonded lead core design with a solid shank. Like the X's it opens in petals, but because of the lower velocity and the pure lead bonding to the petals, no petals broke off. Like the X's this bullet penetrated 32", but it's velocity was only 2300 fps, and it expanded diameter was .92" The wound volume was at least 3 times that of the X's, but it tore apart the pails which held the test medium, so it is difficult to know for sure. I've just finished building a test box 80" long, and I intend to repeat the test at some point this summer, this time with a 300 gr TSX.

It is interesting when we compare this test to the real world. The only bullet I was able to recover from my Tanzanian buffalo was a 570 gr .510" X. This bullet looks like the ones in the Barnes adds. Despite the fact that this bullet left the muzzle estimated at only 2150, it expanded to an inch in diameter, and penetrated nearly 3' on a quartering toward shot. Sort of like the 380' gr Rhino in the test.

Based on this experience, I would suggest that if Barnes made a heavy weight .375 X bullet, say 350 grs to stay within a length which will stabalize in a normal twist barrel, and the bullet was redesigned to expand farther along it's shank, the result would be big bore performance on game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom