lightweight X bullets and moose
- Thread starter vpsalin
- Start date
How may the bullet very well fail? The reliability of mono-metals is well documented. Losing a petal or two of even all isn't failure....it's not typical but it still does the job just fine.
Being that the entire shank behind the hollow point is one piece of solid metal, even if all of the petals broke off, the remaining bullet shank would still provide more than adequate penetration.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
I've shot one elk, 3 yr old bull,with a 257 WBY and 100 gr. TSX. Recovered both bullets, one had shed its petals. Distance was about 150 yds. I like the 257 and the TSX, but I won't use that combo on elk anymore. The elk died, but not "dramatically".
I'm a firm believer in big heavy bullets for big animals.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
To be fair, the 257 Weatherby, though a fine cartridge, is a poor choice for moose. Sure, it'll do the job, but you're better served with something 7mm plus.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
That criticism of the original X bullet might be a little harsh, considering it was a new technology, and is only true if the comparison is made against the TSX, which didn't exist at the time. When the X bullet came out, the concept was pretty new, and it required old school shooters to look at bullets in a new way. I'm not sure whose bullet was first, Barnes' or GS Custom's, but the Barnes bullet went through some growing pains to become the product we enjoy today. I recall buying boxes of the same bullet and finding nose cavities that in one box were small like a HPBT match bullet then the next could be used as an ashtray. Coatings were added to the bullet to control fouling, that bullet was known as the XLC. All in all, today's TSX and TTSX are pretty good; the major complaints associated with the old Xs no longer exist, and their performance is repeatable and predictable.
I've heard the argument against sectional density before, and I'm not sure it holds up. I've reviewed Ackley's Handbook to ensure I understand the term, and interestingly, the entire chapter deals with trajectory, with little mention of terminal performance or penetration though a denser than air medium. Perhaps that's because SD is only a viable comparison of penetration when its applied to solid bullets that don't upset. When bullet upset occurs, the depth of penetration is so variable and impacted by so many elements that the number is meaningless. For example the degree of bullet upset is dependent upon impact velocity, bullet design, material, and construction, while penetration relates to how those elements react across a wide range of impact velocities, and degrees of precession, on a target of unknown composition. This is akin to attempting to compute killing power from kinetic energy, the correlation doesn't work.
Anyway, the density part of SD refers to the weight of the bullet material expressed in pounds per cubic foot, while sectional part refers to a cross sectional area of the bullet, which increases proportionately with the square of the diameter. Because the TSX is monogeneous (its made up of only one alloy) the SD calculation for it is actually more accurate than for the heterogeneous jacketed lead core bullet, due to the averaging in the calculation that becomes necessary to take all the dissimilar metals in the jacket material and the lead or alloyed lead core of the traditional bullet into consideration. I think we can agree that ballistic coefficient is a relatively important term to the rifleman, and its impossible to arrive at a BC, without first determining the SD. Yet if the form factor of a bullet is unknown, SD can still be used to provide an idea of comparative trajectory of two bullets of equal diameter, being similar in shape and length, but of different weight. So, I think we can conclude that SD, when applied as intended, remains a viable formula.
Last edited:
I can tell you that 140 gr .264 cal Barnes XLC has penetrated length wise on a bull moose struck in the chest frontal aspect at a whopping 33 yards. Muzzle velocity for the load was 2,818 fps out of a Rem 700 Classic 6.5x55mm. Bullet was recovered under the skin on the hind quarter, with 100% weight retention. Second (though unnecessary) shot was (unsurprisingly) a complete pass through the ribs at the same distance.
I'd say bullet construction and how that applies to expansion rate and weight retention basically make the SD formula useless. SD has long been considered a viable means of predicting penetration and it likely was before they wrapped lead bullets in copper/guilding metal jackets.
Hardly, the X bullet was brought to market way too hastily and did not receive sufficient testing. The damage it's done to the reputation of mono-metals is enormous even though as you say, most of the issues have now been addressed. Barnes definitely lead the way with a commercial version of a mono-metal but I'd say other manufacturers have now brought even further innovations to the mono-metal and Barnes is playing a bit of catch up.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
The best way to assess a new bullet is by getting reports back from the field. In the bullet business getting the product out to the public is critical to the success of the product, particularly when new technology is in play. Barnes' marketing people have done a very good job of having the company name associated with "lead free". I'd suggest that Barnes' sales figures for the TSX/TTSX are pretty good, and if a fellow walks into his local gun emporium to buy a box of premium bullets and finds the TSXs significantly cheaper than say Partitions, or E-tips for that matter, that doesn't hurt either. So despite some grumbling on the internet, Barnes bullets are still making their way into the field.
Being located in South Africa, GS Custom has a huge advantage over North American manufacturers with respect to bullet testing. In this regard dozens if not hundreds of antelope can be shot and the terminal performance of the bullet examined, photographed, and recorded, then adjustments if any are needed, can be made to the product. A North American manufacturer can't do that. They must get the bullet out there, and determine from field reports what the strengths and weaknesses of the bullet are, and learn from that what further refinements must be made.
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Like I said, SD becomes suspect once the bullet expands, so arguments could have been made against its use even when chunks of lead were propelled by black powder. However, you could measure the expanded diameter and weigh a recovered bullet, and determine its final SD, then multiply that SD by the estimated impact velocity as a means for comparison to similar bullets. I suppose if someone wanted to they could fire a bullet into a water tank close enough that the muzzle velocity coincided with the impact velocity, then repeat the exercise at 300 yards, then measure the depth of penetration in water (a known density) weigh and measure the recovered bullets, and from that data come up with a modified SD calculation that applied to the penetration potential of expanding bullets, but somehow it seems like a lot of trouble.
The point I'm making Boomer is that SD is not a reliable calculation when comparing two different bullets. Too many variables are introduced with a jacket on the bullet. For its time it likely was a useful formula like many others but its usefulness is gone. It serves zero purpose for modern bullets.
I'm not certain that I agree that making your consumers paying guinea pigs is the best course here. If they had it to do all over again I'm sure Barnes would have done far more testing with the X bullet. I'm not certain the race to get your product mass marketed first so you can make more money is a viable excuse for sloppy product testing. Regardless, the new generations are good bullets.
Barnes brought the mono metal to the masses. In my opinion the "problems" were largely overstated, as is often the case when you're the new kid on the block.
I have used Barnes since the original X. Always worked fine and resulted in good penetration and dead animals. The changes to subsequent designs did more to prevent fouling and increase accuracy in my opinion.
JMHO - and it ain't based on hype, theory and sponsor bias.
And to the original question - my guess is if you do your part, you will be pleased with the bullet doing its part. That opinion is based on 120ttsx 7-08 experience, and 130 ttsx experience in a 308.
Sectional density is absolutely as important as it ever was. The bullet construction above all argument doesn't change that, it just works with the fact that a expanded bullet also has a sectional density. If you really want to have some fun, consider that a bullets sectional density changes in the animal and if its shedding weight it may also be shedding frontal area to compensate (gaining sectional density). Or it might not, and just get bigger and penetrate less (losing sectional density). The velocity will also be changing at the same time as the weight and diameter of the bullet changes, changing the amount of energy available to do work on the changing bullet.
Doesn't that sound fun? Actually it doesn't, not even a little bit fun. Most people who are looking for a simple answer to bullet performance get it by ignoring half of what's going on. The best is to just go hunting and say screw it. Believe the results and invent your own theory. I recommend light.
Doesn't that sound fun? Actually it doesn't, not even a little bit fun. Most people who are looking for a simple answer to bullet performance get it by ignoring half of what's going on. The best is to just go hunting and say screw it. Believe the results and invent your own theory. I recommend light.
- Location
- AB foothills
More than a few years ago, myself and my wife were faced with the same dilemma.
She shot a 270Win for many years, when she gave herself a scope kiss, it was almost curtains for her and hunting, she developed such a vicious flinch from the incident, it seemed like forever before she shook that monster.
I started with reduced loads and 100gr soft points, just to get her confidence and form back, I slowly took the load up to around top end, this is where I tried getting her back to 130's, but even at moderate speeds she was not pleased with the recoil.
About that time I found some of the original Barnes X 100 gr. bullets. And wouldn't you know it the simple shot fantastic outta that old 270 she had, at about 3350fps.
Then that summer she was drawn for moose!
I had pretty big misgivings about those 100gr. Pills, and a moose.
I decided to prove to myself that those 100gr. X's would do at least as good as a 130gr Nosler Partition, so I took the X's up to around 3400fps, and loaded up some 130gr. Partitions to around 3000fps.
This gave both bullets around the same energy level at 100yds.
I then built two similarly constructed expansion boxes, consisting of soaked mail order catalogs, and a single piece of 3/8" OSB.
I soaked the catalogs over night in the bath tub, ensuring as even of soaking as one could get.
I used 2 identical 3/4" thick catalogs first followed by a piece of cut OSB, then the remaining catalogs were fitted into the same size of cardboard boxes.
These two boxes were set up at 100 yards, and after determining the POI's on paper, a single shot was taken into the centre of each expansion box, using both bullets into each box.
Wadaya think was discovered?
The 130gr. Partition penetrated about 12.5", and had a reatained weight of
86gr.(66%)
The 100gr. X penetrated around 13.5", and had a retained weight of 98.5gr.(98.5%)
Whodathunkit you can lose some 23% in bullet weight, and yield similar terminal effects?
I repeated the test once more a month later(begged and borrowed catalogs) and set them up the same. The results were within a 1/2" for penetration, and only a percent or two difference in weight retention.
(12"vs 12.5"/65%vs 99%)
To this end my wife successfully harvested a paddle horn bull at 65yds.
With a single double lung shot.
She also took all manner of deer, another moose, and an antelope, with that load, over many years.
Sadly the barrel on that rifle was ruined by some errant snow in the bore, which caused a mid bore bulge.
Doubly sadly her new 270 detests those old 100gr X's, so the end of a wonderful run had ended.
She shot a 270Win for many years, when she gave herself a scope kiss, it was almost curtains for her and hunting, she developed such a vicious flinch from the incident, it seemed like forever before she shook that monster.
I started with reduced loads and 100gr soft points, just to get her confidence and form back, I slowly took the load up to around top end, this is where I tried getting her back to 130's, but even at moderate speeds she was not pleased with the recoil.
About that time I found some of the original Barnes X 100 gr. bullets. And wouldn't you know it the simple shot fantastic outta that old 270 she had, at about 3350fps.
Then that summer she was drawn for moose!
I had pretty big misgivings about those 100gr. Pills, and a moose.
I decided to prove to myself that those 100gr. X's would do at least as good as a 130gr Nosler Partition, so I took the X's up to around 3400fps, and loaded up some 130gr. Partitions to around 3000fps.
This gave both bullets around the same energy level at 100yds.
I then built two similarly constructed expansion boxes, consisting of soaked mail order catalogs, and a single piece of 3/8" OSB.
I soaked the catalogs over night in the bath tub, ensuring as even of soaking as one could get.
I used 2 identical 3/4" thick catalogs first followed by a piece of cut OSB, then the remaining catalogs were fitted into the same size of cardboard boxes.
These two boxes were set up at 100 yards, and after determining the POI's on paper, a single shot was taken into the centre of each expansion box, using both bullets into each box.
Wadaya think was discovered?
The 130gr. Partition penetrated about 12.5", and had a reatained weight of
86gr.(66%)
The 100gr. X penetrated around 13.5", and had a retained weight of 98.5gr.(98.5%)
Whodathunkit you can lose some 23% in bullet weight, and yield similar terminal effects?
I repeated the test once more a month later(begged and borrowed catalogs) and set them up the same. The results were within a 1/2" for penetration, and only a percent or two difference in weight retention.
(12"vs 12.5"/65%vs 99%)
To this end my wife successfully harvested a paddle horn bull at 65yds.
With a single double lung shot.
She also took all manner of deer, another moose, and an antelope, with that load, over many years.
Sadly the barrel on that rifle was ruined by some errant snow in the bore, which caused a mid bore bulge.
Doubly sadly her new 270 detests those old 100gr X's, so the end of a wonderful run had ended.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
I'd be curious to see the difference in penetration at 250 yards. I wonder if the lighter bullets loss of energy at that distance (though not a huge loss) would change the results or if the controlled(er) nature of a monometal bullet's expansion would possibly increase the penetration due to a decrease in expansion.
