TSX Bang Flops

I've checked out the TSX extensively and it's one drawback seems to be that it is generally a poor long range performer.
Click to expand...


Hmmm... that has not been my experience. And my ballistics calculator seems to suggest the same. In fact - comparing a 30 cal 168 matchking bullet (even better balistically than the game king) and a 168 grain TSB, both accellerated to 2800 fps (mine is over that but call it a medium load), then they are almost BANG on the same at 500 yards. And in fact the TSX is a tiny hair higher.

And that's consistant with my real world shooting - i've only ever shot it out to 300 yards, but the ballistics were what i expected and consistent with what my ballistics calculator is saying.

So i think i may have to call you on that.. i don't see the TSX being ballistically inferior in the slightest, it'll hold it's own with most bullets as is. I think they were looking for even BETTER long range performance than one would expect from a good bullet... but to be honest I also think it's mostly marketing hype and there's little practical benefit from it.
 
Foxer said:
Hmmm... that has not been my experience. And my ballistics calculator seems to suggest the same. In fact - comparing a 30 cal 168 matchking bullet (even better balistically than the game king) and a 168 grain TSB, both accellerated to 2800 fps (mine is over that but call it a medium load), then they are almost BANG on the same at 500 yards. And in fact the TSX is a tiny hair higher.

And that's consistant with my real world shooting - i've only ever shot it out to 300 yards, but the ballistics were what i expected and consistent with what my ballistics calculator is saying.

So i think i may have to call you on that.. i don't see the TSX being ballistically inferior in the slightest, it'll hold it's own with most bullets as is. I think they were looking for even BETTER long range performance than one would expect from a good bullet... but to be honest I also think it's mostly marketing hype and there's little practical benefit from it.
Click to expand...


Here's my info with Hornady ballistics calculator for my 338 win mag, which is what I hunt with.

Ballistics Calculation 250 grain bullets in .338 win mag at 2700 fps

Input Variables Firearm type Rifle Sight Height 1.5
Bullet Weight (grains) 250 Ballistic Coefficient .565
Muzzle Velocity (fps) 2700 Temperature 59
Barometric Pressure (hg) 29.53 Relative Humidity 78%
Zero Range (yards) 200 Wind Speed (mph) 0

Ballistics Table in Yards Sierra Gameking .338 win mag 250 gr., .565 B.C.
Range (yards) Muzzle 50 100 200 300 400 500
Velocity (fps) 2700 2621 2542 2390 2243 2101 1965
Energy (ft.-lb.) 4047 3812 3588 3171 2793 2451 2143
Trajectory (200 yd. zero) -1.5 0.8 1.9 0.0 -8.0 -22.9 -45.7
Come Up in MOA -1.5 -1.6 -1.8 0.0 2.5 5.5 8.7

#############################################XX

Ballistics Table in Yards Barnes TSX .338 win mag 250 gr., .425 B.C.

Range (yards) Muzzle 50 100 200 300 400 500
Velocity (fps) 2700 2595 2492 2293 2103 1923 1752
Energy (ft.-lb.) 4047 3737 3446 2918 2455 2052 1705
Trajectory (200 yd. zero) -1.5 0.9 2.0 0.0 -8.7 -25.2 -51.2
Come Up in MOA -1.5 -1.7 -2.0 0.0 2.8 6.0 9.8


438 ft/lbs less energy, and basically six inches more drop at 500 yards
for the TSX. That's a significant difference in energy. And I'm being generous to the TSX in terms of velocity - Barnes lists their 250gr .338 bullet at a max velocity of 2619 in the 338 win mag, not 2700 like I calculated for. At 2619 fps the difference is even greater.

I'm really not trying to bash the TSX, I do think their great; just not what I would pick for a long range bullet. For general use out to 300 yards they would be my first pick for a serious hunting bullet.
 
Last edited:
Well I tried them this year. Two W/T does and a buck. Two heart shots and one double lung. They all ran from 20 yards - 40 yards. Recovered only one bullet and it had lost two petals but the damage it caused was massive. The grouse I shot with one was a bang flop though!

Still I was so impressed with the performance that I'll keep using them. The thing I really like is that they held together so well. Call me weird but I don't like the idea of 40 grains of lead shedded into the bloodstream of the animals I kill. The solid copper just makes me all warm and fuzzy inside!
 
Barnes is screwing with their BC's for a variety of reasons. The original bc's were given the same way sierra does - put the bullet up against a 'chart' and figure it out. I don't know quite what the heck they're up to but several of their current bc's are much lower.

For example, the original data for the 225 grain version was 485. It's currently listed on their website as .386 And - if you look you'll notice the BC of several bullets DECREASES as the weight goes up - when was the last time you heard of the same bullet with a longer shape having a lower bc? Usually a 180 will have a higher bc than the 165, etc etc.

According to the current website data the 168 should .404 - the old data was 476 or theirabouts - well i've shot the thing (two boxes now) and i can tell you that the data generated by '404' is way the hell off. The data I was getting with the original numbers was much closer to my real world experience at 100 and 200 yards.

So i don't know what exactly to tell you - maybe that data is right for the 338, but i wouldn't be so sure. I'd shoot a few and see. OF course - maybe for some reason that particular bullet in that calibre is weird or something.

Remember with barnes you always one to go 'one bullet down' - if you're shooting 250s with gamekings, go with the 225 with the x bullet.
 
Foxer said:
According to the current website data the 168 should .404 - the old data was 476 or theirabouts - well i've shot the thing (two boxes now) and i can tell you that the data generated by '404' is way the hell off. The data I was getting with the original numbers was much closer to my real world experience at 100 and 200 yards.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info foxer. It really doesn't matter what the published BC's are - the real test is to shoot them in your rifle. I would like to hear if anyone has tested "book" drop vs "feild" drop at distances over 300 yards (perferably out to 500 yards)? I plan to test the .284 140 out to 500 yards this spring.
 
Foxer said:
Barnes is screwing with their BC's for a variety of reasons. The original bc's were given the same way sierra does - put the bullet up against a 'chart' and figure it out. I don't know quite what the heck they're up to but several of their current bc's are much lower.

For example, the original data for the 225 grain version was 485. It's currently listed on their website as .386 And - if you look you'll notice the BC of several bullets DECREASES as the weight goes up - when was the last time you heard of the same bullet with a longer shape having a lower bc? Usually a 180 will have a higher bc than the 165, etc etc.

According to the current website data the 168 should .404 - the old data was 476 or theirabouts - well i've shot the thing (two boxes now) and i can tell you that the data generated by '404' is way the hell off. The data I was getting with the original numbers was much closer to my real world experience at 100 and 200 yards.

So i don't know what exactly to tell you - maybe that data is right for the 338, but i wouldn't be so sure. I'd shoot a few and see. OF course - maybe for some reason that particular bullet in that calibre is weird or something.

Remember with barnes you always one to go 'one bullet down' - if you're shooting 250s with gamekings, go with the 225 with the x bullet.
Click to expand...

Yes, I had heard about the "one bullet down" thing, but the info on the 225's is even less impressive than the 250's. Their data may be a bit screwy as you indicated. I have not shot them in my .338 to be honest; I was doing to change from my 250 gr Gamekings to the TSX's (225's actually), but then I started to do some figuring on paper the TSX's have got about 20% less power at 500 yards, and I do use my .338 as my long range bomber, so I decided against it. When I do run out of my Gamekings I'll likely pick up some TSX's and try them anyways. Hopefully by them Barnes will have worked out thier BC's a bit better - and have a boat tail in the .338 other than thier 210 grain bullet. I checked it out as well, though I hate to go that light in a .338, but I wasn't particularly impressed with it's on paper ballistics either.
 
Yes, I had heard about the "one bullet down" thing, but the info on the 225's is even less impressive than the 250's.
Click to expand...

Well right at the moment, the website claims the BC for the 225 is higher than the 250's i believe.
When I do run out of my Gamekings I'll likely pick up some TSX's and try them anyways.
Click to expand...

That's what I reccommend. I suspect you'll be pleasantly surprised. I only have experience with the 30 cals so i can't say for sure tho. But the results i get compared to the calculated results using their 'new' bc are quite a ways apart.
 
Barnes original BC numbers for the TSX were "optimistic":)

Doesnt' matter to me much, as I don't mind clicking up another MOA on the scope if I am to shoot at 400 or 500 yards.:)
 
Foxer said:
Well that's not true - it's been the death of more than one thread around here :D
Click to expand...

This was the death of something:
IMG_3752.jpg
;)

.270 Triple Shock - recovered weight = 130.0 grains. :)
 
Last edited:
Just checked out Barnes web site again - A new "Tipped" TSX is out, specifically made to improve long range ballistics over the TSX- and they've got a 225 gr .338 boattail!!! I think I've found my next .338 bullet, provided the cost is more like the TSX than the MRX. I hope they come out with a 130 gr 6.5mm soon! Remove the spaces from my http to check out.

h t t p://www.barnesbullets.com/products/rifle/tipped-tsx-bullet/
 
How long are the nose on these buggers going to be? I can barely fit the 168 grain 30 cals into my mag and still be the right distance off the lands. if that nose is any longer than the previous ones it's going to be a real tight fit.
 
Well, there's no question they're going to be longer

Barnses claim that BC's are higher than the basic TSX. In fact the 130 gr .277 TSX's have a higher BC than the .277 TTSX's of the same weight. The .284 and .308 BC's are only marginally higher-not enough to make a significant difference at longer ranges.

I suspect the plastic tip has been added to reduce tip damage in the magazine, to promote better, more reliable expansion and to look ###y. There have been reports of the TSX penciling through game for no apparent reason. Theories abound.

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3221043/m/334107787

An interesting thing about bullet shape and BC. At supersonic speeds, about 70% of drag is on the tail of the bullet while only about 10% is at the tip. It's the shape of the ogive that counts when it comes to a bullet slicing efficiently through air. Perhaps that's why big clunky looking bullets like the 9.3mm 286 gr Nosler Partition has a BC of .482 and the 9.3mm 286 Hornady is .410.
 
oaktree said:
1 deer tag = 1 bang flop this year......

185gr TSX, .340 Weatherby @ 25 yards..... Hit high in the spine.....

Results?

18" of missing "vaporized" spine, awful large football shaped hole in the hide, blood shot rib cages (2), blood shot tenderloins (2), :( but 1 very flopped dead deer.........

Next year? 7mm-08 using 140 gr TSXs..... Or, .340 with a much better placed shot.....
Click to expand...

Not a good caliber for that kind of shot.

I would have prefered a 30-30 or anything not magnum.
 
The basic TSX is clearly an outstanding hunting bullet for ranges inside about 400 yards or a little more for .30-06-level cartridges. They're fast, accurate, and they tear a big hole in the animal, making definitive kills, kind of like having the blade of a blender travelling at 200,000 rpm and driving through an animal.

Are they superb sniper/hunting bullets at ranges from 500 to 1,000 yards? Who knows.

In my opinion, once you start shooting past 500 yards, the ballistic coefficient becomes really critical. It's a no-brainer that the 180-grain Nosler .30 cal Accubond has a much higher ballistic coefficient than either the 168 or 180 TSX. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that the 180 Accubond would get where you want it to go more reliably beyond 500 yards than the TSX, though the real-world difference may not be that huge.

Still, if you're seriously thinking of shooting at extreme ranges (and you've got the shooting cred to be able to pull that kind of shot off consistently), then I think you would be better served with a hunting bullet designed with that kind of shooting in mind, like the Accubond. This is why I chose the 180 Accubond for my long-range hunting load in my Sako .300 Winchester Magnum (topped with a Nikon 3.3 - 10 mildot scope).

Apart from the ballistic coefficient issue, a bullet like the Accubond or Interbond has an even more significant advantage over the basic TSX at long range. Once the impact velocity goes below a certain threshold, those solid copper bullets will cease to open consistently and reliably. There will come a point at extreme range, when that TSX has slowed down so much that it just pencils through the animal.

I'd expect that a plastic-tipped bullet will extend this range because even if the velocity drops, that plastic tip still acts as a wedge that hammers back and splits the bullet open upon impact. This is the great claim to fame of the Accubond, and the great hope promised by the new TSX.

What's the upshot of all of this? I wouldn't be surprised if the new tipped TSX satisfies all the criteria and becomes the long-range bullet of choice. I'm definitely planning to try this one out.
 
Last edited:
Chiming in with my approval, the TSX is a great bullet. Shoots real well in my .257 Weatherby. Even on ultra high speed short range impacts, the bullet stays together. At WBY MAG speeds it expands to it's fullest size even over extreme range, stays together, and penetrates like crazy. It's my favorite bullet for any high velocity cartridge.
 
Since this post a year has gone by, and a few more success storries with the TSX, developed a great load (doglegs Load) with my 257 wby, and took a nice whitetail with my 308 this year and a TSX. Also tried to devloping a 7mm RUM TSX load with success, so that will be tagging along this deer season.

Never ran into accuracy issues with this bullet and shoot as close as one could ask accuracy wise to a match bullet.

3 more rifles converted to TSX projectiles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom