Too light? 110 TTSX

[elkhunter11]

The main advantage I see is the added penetration offered by the bullet with the higher BC, mass. Would you not get better penetration from all angles with a 150- 160 gr. ttsx vs a 120 -140 gr ?

If you already have more than enough penetration to do the job,adding more potential penetration helps in what way?There are many hunters using bullets such as the 160 Accubond,or partition or 175gr power point,or corelokt that have no issues with lack of penetration,and the 120gr or 140grTTSX provides even more penetration,due to the bullet construction.Have you even used the TTSX, or TSX,or are you just making assumptions as to the penetration that they provide?

[Dick284]

I did a little test some years back with Mrs. D's 270 win, I loaded up some 130gr. Nosler Partiton's to about 3050fps.
And then some 100gr. Barnes X's (no longer made) to about 3500fps
Both would yeild approximatley 2300ftlbs of energy at 100yds.
I then constructed 2 nearly identical expansion boxes consisting of a 3/4" mail order catalouge, followed by a sheet of 1/2" OSB then about 20" of catalouges. (all catalouges were water soaked for 12hours prior to the test)

So when the 130 Partition was fired into the test media at a distance of 100yds, it penetrated about 12.5" retained about 68% of it's original weight or 88gr. and had a maximum frontal area of the mushroom around 0.5"

The 100gr. X bullet fired into the next media box penetrated about 13" retained 99% of it's original weight or 99gr. had an average mushroom frontal diameter of 0.66"

The conclusion I came to all things being equal, a Barnes X will perform about the same as a well constructed lead bullet when 20% to 30% less bullet weight is used.

Here is a pic of the resultant test bullets:



So let's see, a 140gr. NP for example less 20% equals 112gr.

Pretty close to my findings.

It was once written on the Barnes website that they recommended a reduction in bullet weight with their X bullets, if you were used to lead core bullets. Seems my findings echo their recommendation.

FWIW: any troubles I've personally witnessed with X bullets seemed to happen when a weight reduction was'nt taken into account.


But then again this test was under non laboratory conditions.

[elkhunter11]

I did a little test some years back with Mrs. D's 270 win, I loaded up some 130gr. Nosler Partiton's to about 3050fps.
And then some 100gr. Barnes X's (no longer made) to about 3500fps
Both would yeild approximatley 2300ftlbs of energy at 100yds.
I then constructed 2 nearly identical expansion boxes consisting of a 3/4" mail order catalouge, followed by a sheet of 1/2" OSB then about 20" of catalouges. (all catalouges were water soaked for 12hours prior to the test)

So when the 130 Partition was fired into the test media at a distance of 100yds, it penetrated about 12.5" retained about 68% of it's original weight or 88gr. and had a maximum frontal area of the mushroom around 0.5"

The 100gr. X bullet fired into the next media box penetrated about 13" retained 99% of it's original weight or 99gr. had an average mushroom frontal diameter of 0.66"

So adding 30% to the 100gr X bullet actually resulted in slightly less penetration.So if you were to add 30% to a 120gr TTSX,the result would be a 156gr Partition.Adding 30% to the 140gr TTSX would amount to a 182gr partition.Those numbers pretty well match up to my opinions based on dressing animals killed with both the TSX,TTSX,and the Partition.And of course we are talking about the Partition,which is already a controlled expansion bullet,that penetrates better than many other lead core bullets.

[leo]

I'm not making any assumptions with the penetration you have witnessed . If it works for you then use it. My preference is for a bonded bullet, but I have used Barnes bullets as well. they made holes in any thing I pointed them at, I don't dispute that. But I personally lean toward heavier bullets because I don't believe there is such an issue of too much penetration. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else switch bullets based on my say so , the point of debate is for 2 sides to present thier opinions and for others to make thier own conclusions. We have both done so , neither will change the others mind and I'm okay with that, how about you ?

[Dick284]

Originally Posted by leo

I'm not making any assumptions with the penetration you have witnessed . If it works for you then use it. My preference is for a bonded bullet, but I have used Barnes bullets as well. they made holes in any thing I pointed them at, I don't dispute that. But I personally lean toward heavier bullets because I don't believe there is such an issue of too much penetration. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else switch bullets based on my say so , the point of debate is for 2 sides to present thier opinions and for others to make thier own conclusions. We have both done so , neither will change the others mind and I'm okay with that, how about you ?

Heavy for weight is ok if your talking apples to apples, but if you fail to see that with the X style bullets penetration is equal to the heavier CE lead bullets already, you end up with insufficent expansion and thus lack of expansion, and likely sub par on game bullet performance.

If you like the expansion and penetration performance of a 175gr. Partiton for example, moving to a 175gr. X will result in on game performance of a theroretical 210gr to 225gr. bullet
When in reality 175gr. 7mm Partiton performance is akin to most likely a 140gr. X, or at least a 150gr. X.

Heavy for diameter gets penetration by allowing for shed mass during expansion.

Little or no shed mass during expansion does'nt need the extra mass to begin with to obtain penetration.

It's the only way of comparing two different perfomance criteria I can come up with.

[Papershredder]

Originally Posted by Dick284

Little or no shed mass during expansion does'nt need the extra mass to begin with to obtain penetration.

Thanks; I was looking for an excuse to build a 140g TTSX load up for my .300 WSM. Hopefully I'll be able to pick some up at WSS in GP tommorrow.

[elkhunter11]

But I personally lean toward heavier bullets because I don't believe there is such an issue of too much penetration.

There can be,if you sacrifice proper expansion for penetration.This can happen if you use heavy for caliber Barnes all copper bullets such as the TSX or TTSX.These bullets expand most reliable at higher velocities,and they can fail to fully expand if you drive them too slow,by using heavy bullets at the lower velocities that you must drive the heavy bullets.

As Dick previously posted:

Heavy for weight is ok if your talking apples to apples, but if you fail to see that with the X style bullets penetration is equal to the heavier CE lead bullets already, you end up with insufficent expansion and thus lack of expansion, and likely sub par on game bullet performance.

Even Barnes themselves recommend that you step down in bullet weight when you use the all copper Barnes bullets.

[Papershredder]

Even Barnes themselves recommend that you step down in bullet weight when you use the all copper Barnes bullets.

I'm guessing that same principal would apply to the Nosler E-Tip, and the GMX bullet as well.

[leo]

Thanks for the technical info about Barnes bullets Dick, it would seem you and EH11 know alot more about thier terminal properties than I do. My experience with Barnes, I used them in a 300 mag for 1 season , didn't care for them, maybe because I was using 180gr and should have used 150 ?
I sincerely appreciate the lesson gentlemen, the debate was informative and remained non hostile. to close let me say to all ,it would appear my missconceptions of light for caliber bullets don't pertain to Barnes.

[Rantastic]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

928 yards on an elk with 120g? Wow, the energy for that round falls off nearly 2/3 to around 1200 fps at 500 yards. Pushing that to nearly a km... wonder what's left?

Actually as u decrease the weight of the bullet u can really increase the powder resulting in a much higher muzle velocity.

From my calculations my calculations a 120grain bullet from a 7mm could safely be fired at 3500FPS muzzle and at 1km would have just under 700Ft/lbs of energy... enough to kill anything with the right shot...

So statisticly it could happen, no arguement. Realisticly, not bloody likely, It could 100% have happened but it would be a very risky and unrepeatable shot. I dont recommend it but it very well could have happened just fine.
Our soliders can kill enemies 2.5 km away in the war with a rifle, just for comparison.

The 110 bullet could also work but it doesnt give u any real benefit so u might as well use what shoots well out of ur gun. Long distance shooting however is easier to judge the wind with heavier bullets. but a 110 would make enough ethical lethal energy to kill up to 600m just fine. I happen to be happy with the 140's middle of the road bullet but nothing wrong at all with the lighter as long as you can shoot it well.

[gramps73]

Minus all the nay sayers, one of the better learning tools on the board in a while...thanks for the lesson D284 and EH11

[redranger15]

Originally Posted by gramps73

Minus all the nay sayers, one of the better learning tools on the board in a while...thanks for the lesson D284 and EH11

Yes, thanks for taking the time, helped me decide

[elkhunter11]

From my calculations my calculations a 120grain bullet from a 7mm could safely be fired at 3500FPS muzzle and at 1km would have just under 700Ft/lbs of energy... enough to kill anything with the right shot...

He claimed that the bullet was the 120gr TSX.Even with a muzzle velocity of 3600fps,which is ambitious for a 7mmwby,the energy remaining at 928 yards would be around 500ftlbs,with a velocity of around 1400fps.Expansion would be next to non existent with that bullet at 1400fps,and the energy is far from what I want to make a clean kill on an elk.I for one,would never attempt such a shot.

[clakjp]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

He claimed that the bullet was the 120gr TSX.Even with a muzzle velocity of 3600fps,which is ambitious for a 7mmwby,the energy remaining at 928 yards would be around 500ftlbs,with a velocity of around 1400fps.Expansion would be next to non existent with that bullet at 1400fps,and the energy is far from what I want to make a clean kill on an elk.I for one,would never attempt such a shot.

Dont you have a lot of wind drift with those little bullets? I sure do with my light bullets out of my smaller cal guns.

[elkhunter11]

Dont you have a lot of wind drift with those little bullets? I sure do with my light bullets out of my smaller cal guns.

That depends on the range,the velocity,and the B.C. of the bullet.Inside of 500 yards,I don't find a great deal of difference when comparing hunting bullets.If the wind is very strong,I reduce the range at which I will shoot,regardless of the bullet weight.

[clakjp]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That depends on the range,the velocity,and the B.C. of the bullet.Inside of 500 yards,I don't find a great deal of difference when comparing hunting bullets.If the wind is very strong,I reduce the range at which I will shoot,regardless of the bullet weight.

I am talking at 928 yards on a elk? That bullet at the speeds you posted above would get thrown all over.Right or wrong?

[elkhunter11]

I am talking at 928 yards on a elk? That bullet at the speeds you posted above would get thrown all over.Right or wrong?

Absolutely,unless it was dead calm,the wind would be a huge problem.That is one reason that I don't shoot at game past 500 yards.

[clakjp]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Absolutely,unless it was dead calm,the wind would be a huge problem.That is one reason that I don't shoot at game past 500 yards.

That is why I had a hard time with the 1000yard shot.Not saying it is not possible but 120 grain bullet at that distance is a 1 in a 100000 of a shot.Very lucky shot if true.

[elkhunter11]

That is why I had a hard time with the 1000yard shot.Not saying it is not possible but 120 grain bullet at that distance is a 1 in a 100000 of a shot.Very lucky shot if true.

A 160gr or 175gr hunting bullet wouldn't make a 1000 yard shot on game an easy shot either.

[clakjp]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

A 160gr or 175gr hunting bullet wouldn't make a 1000 yard shot on game an easy shot either.

agreed.. But be alot easier than that lighter one past 500 yards.

[elkhunter11]

agreed.. But be alot easier than that lighter one past 500 yards.

The bullet in question is the TSX/TTSX,are you aware that the 160gr and 175gr TSX/TTSX are flat based bullets,with very low B.C.s?In fact the 140gr TSX,has a higher B.C. than the 160gr TSX/TTSX.When you consider the extra 200fps advantage of the 140gr TSX/TTSX,it actually does better in the wind than the 160gr TSX/TTSX.The 120gr TSX/TTSX has a lower B.C. than the 160gr TSX/TTSX,but it starts out about 400 fps faster,which pretty much evens things out until well after 500 yards.This thread is after all about the TTSX/TSX,which is a poor choice for 500 yard plus shooting.

[clakjp]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The bullet in question is the TSX/TTSX,are you aware that the 160gr and 175gr TSX/TTSX are flat based bullets,with very low B.C.s?In fact the 140gr TSX,has a higher B.C. than the 160gr TSX/TTSX.When you consider the extra 200fps advantage of the 140gr TSX/TTSX,it actually does better in the wind than the 160gr TSX/TTSX.This thread is after all about the TTSX/TSX,which is a poor choice for 500 yard plus shooting.

I was talking others manufactured bullets. I know barnes bullets are not ment for that type of shooting.I dont use barnes bullets.I understand what you meen with them in your above statetment though.

[elkhunter11]

I was talking others manufactured bullets.

I was referring to the TTSX/TSX bullets,since that is the topic of this thread.They work extremely well on game if you use them at higher velocities,and at the ranges that most people choose to shoot big game at.

[clakjp]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I was referring to the TTSX/TSX bullets,since that is the topic of this thread.They work extremely well on game if you use them at higher velocities,and at the ranges that most people choose to shoot big game at.

I understand that. I was stating that it is a hard shot with either barnes or any other.As higher velocities buck the wind better than slower.Also a heavyer bullets normally slow down slower than lighter ones.I dont shoot barnes so I would not know that. Thanks for the info.I like to learn things about other products.