For years I've been loading my hunting ammo with the regular 'leaded' stuff, but a coworker and I switched to Barnes TSX last year, I had good results accuracy-wise, while his completly sucked. For the record, I'm loading 150grs .308 TSX, he is loading 130 grains 270 TSX.
Now while loaded the leaded bullets, I always seated 10 thou off the lands of my rifle, but on the Barnes promotional DVD, they suggested that with TSX bullets, it was recommended to seat 70 thou off the lands (!) for accuracy (1/2 inches at 100 with their test on the DVD). I completly ignored that and I'm still seating the way I used to do, and I retained the same great accuracy I used to have with the leaded stuff once I found the magic powder load. My rifle is a "heavily NationalMatchized Rink 14S" (Basically, only the reciever is still original.)
On the other hand my coworker did take the advice of seating 70 thou, and he never managed to get even remotely close to under 1.75" at 100 regardless of the powder type & load (and we've tried 3 different propellants with all kind of loads, wasted 100 TSX on paper
), while he used to shoot 3/4" at 100. His rifle is a Remington 700 in 270Win
So what's the deal with that recommendation from Barnes?
Now while loaded the leaded bullets, I always seated 10 thou off the lands of my rifle, but on the Barnes promotional DVD, they suggested that with TSX bullets, it was recommended to seat 70 thou off the lands (!) for accuracy (1/2 inches at 100 with their test on the DVD). I completly ignored that and I'm still seating the way I used to do, and I retained the same great accuracy I used to have with the leaded stuff once I found the magic powder load. My rifle is a "heavily NationalMatchized Rink 14S" (Basically, only the reciever is still original.)
On the other hand my coworker did take the advice of seating 70 thou, and he never managed to get even remotely close to under 1.75" at 100 regardless of the powder type & load (and we've tried 3 different propellants with all kind of loads, wasted 100 TSX on paper
So what's the deal with that recommendation from Barnes?
Last edited:

















































