Bullet expansion

Johnn Peterson

Johnn Peterson

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
39   0   0
Location
Chemainus B.C.
Hi guys, a quick question. In a few calibers I have, I'm planning on going to some of 'todays' bullet technology, Barnes to be more specific. My primary question or concern is, if any, is there a difference in the velocity required to initiate expansion between a TSX and/or a TTSX of the same weight? Would a TTSX start expanding at a lower velocity than a TSX of similar weight??
 
the regular x bullet , starts to expand around 1600 fps , regardless of cailber

i would expect the tsx to be about the same , not sure about the ttsx .

if anything i would expect the ttsx to open up a bit faster .
 
I sent an e-mail inquiry to Barnes, stating I am in the process of changing over to their TSX and/or TTSX bullets in 7x61 S&H, 30-06, 308NM, 358NM and probably 270 Win a little later. I basically asked which would expand sooner or at a lower velocity, the TSX or TTSX. Their reply received this morning was;

Johnn
Both the TSX and TTSX should start expanding at the same time, the TTSX appears to expand a little better at lower velocity.
Thanks
Ryan Farr / Customer Service
Barnes Bullets, LLC
 
Another Barnes bullet question:confused::
I am, for the most part, just really getting into the use of Barnes bullets and I have a question for those of you that use them. For a little testing in 30 cal, some of what I have are;
168gr TSX BT
168gr TTSX BT
165gr TSX BT
165gr MRX BT
My question for bullet weights in that range, what is the reasoning for having virtually the same bullet selection with only 3grs difference in weight??:confused:
 
I see nothing special about the MRX.

In heavy bullets the TTSX is better at long range...Mainly because it retains the magic 1800fps further out and it bucks the wind a bit better. In the case of the 168 there is no real world gain...Only statistical.
I would load the TSX and be done with it.

If you want maximum downrange efficiency from your 308NM I would look either at the 200Accubond or at the 200TTSX. The increase in performance (at distance) is impressive over something like a 168gr.

All of the bullets you listed will all shoot differently....That is for sure...If one doesn't shoot the other might.

I would consider 1800fps a safe minimum for expansion....Leaves a margin for error. While the bullet does begin to expand the covered bullet is not exactly a sight to behold.
FWIW at 2900fps the plain 168TSX will hold 1800fps to just short of 550 yards.

I assume this is far enough? :p
 
X-fan said:
I see nothing special about the MRX.

In heavy bullets the TTSX is better at long range...Mainly because it retains the magic 1800fps further out and it bucks the wind a bit better. In the case of the 168 there is no real world gain...Only statistical.
I would load the TSX and be done with it.

If you want maximum downrange efficiency from your 308NM I would look either at the 200Accubond or at the 200TTSX. The increase in performance (at distance) is impressive over something like a 168gr.

All of the bullets you listed will all shoot differently....That is for sure...If one doesn't shoot the other might.

I would consider 1800fps a safe minimum for expansion....Leaves a margin for error. While the bullet does begin to expand the covered bullet is not exactly a sight to behold.
FWIW at 2900fps the plain 168TSX will hold 1800fps to just short of 550 yards.

I assume this is far enough? :p
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feed back. I guess what really has me puzzled is why a lot of the same bullet configurations would be offered in bullets, with only 3grs difference in weight:confused:. For only 3grs difference, why not just go with a 165gr or a 168gr in 30 cal:confused:?? Hardly seems worth the effort having two individual products that close in weight. Must be a reason, just wondering what it might be.

Got some Barnes 225gr TSX loads in process for one of my latest toys, a 358 Norma Magnum:D. Working on some 'Moose medicine' for my Moose draw this fall.
 
Last edited:
Marketing?

Both weights have been around forever and some guys want a 168gr. If you don't sell 168 grains that guy will go elsewhere.....At least that is my bet.

The weight difference has no bearing on reality other than your rifle may prefer one over the other...If the 30 cal has an advantage I suppose that is it.
 
X-fan said:
Marketing?

Both weights have been around forever and some guys want a 168gr. If you don't sell 168 grains that guy will go elsewhere.....At least that is my bet.

The weight difference has no bearing on reality other than your rifle may prefer one over the other...If the 30 cal has an advantage I suppose that is it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're probably right. I could sorta' see it if there was a shape or major design difference, if one was a round nose flat base and the other a spire point BT.
 
About 1950 my older brother read a Jack O'Connor account in Outdoor life, about some new, really tough bullets Fred Barnes was making. The jackets were made from ordinary copper tubing that you can buy in a hardware store. This tubing was several times thicker than normal bullet jackets. The lead seemed to be bonded to it and the front was tapered down with a bit of lead exposed.
My brother sent for quite an order of them, in each of 150 and 200 grain. These were really tough bullets that opened up, but hung together. I made some fast, one shot kills on moose, with the 150 grain ones.
In reality, I wonder how much better is the pure copper ones, as compared to these?
Here is a picture of three of the 200 grain that I still have.
PANASONIC081.jpg
 
They definately look like some of Barnes initial efforts in bullet manufacturing. In some of Keiths articles and books he makes mention of Barnes bullets and seems to have been quite impressed with them. If Jack O'Connor endorsed them that must have been the closest those two authors ever came to agreement on anything:p.

With the accuracy and results on game I've got with lead core bullets such as those made by Sierra, they've performed well for me. With bullets such as the Barnes TSX and TTSX, apparently they're accurate, open up well and hold together without the lead fragmentation issue. That's what I'm after and in the process of changing over to in a few calibers for hunting.
 
The 165gr TSX I have here, have 4 grooves in them. The 168 TSX has only 3 grooves and measures 14 thou longer. I would think that would be enough difference to affect COL issues in some magazines, and the extra groove may lower pressures as well.
 
Johnn Peterson said:
Another Barnes bullet question:confused::
I am, for the most part, just really getting into the use of Barnes bullets and I have a question for those of you that use them. For a little testing in 30 cal, some of what I have are;
168gr TSX BT
168gr TTSX BT
165gr TSX BT
165gr MRX BT
My question for bullet weights in that range, what is the reasoning for having virtually the same bullet selection with only 3grs difference in weight??:confused:
Click to expand...

I doubt you are really going to have to do much testing! The TSX (and especially the TTSX ) bullets are very accurate and very easy to work up a load. Frankly, I wouldn't even bother wiht the MRX. I'd try the 168gr TTSX first and if it shoots, you are good to go.


H4831 said:
In reality, I wonder how much better is the pure copper ones, as compared to these?
Click to expand...

Only way to compare them fairly would be to test them side by side for penetration, wound channel, accuracy. Then look into cost of manufacture.

Bullets being bullets, I would imagine that they both will manage to kill stuff.:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom