Barnes experts.....

Hardway

Very Active Member
Messages
2,838
I have'nt messed with them much. Trying to decide between TTSX and TSX....308 win 150gr. I'm a little concerned with the TSX and low velocities out to 400yds on our little chicken azz blacktails. Thinkin the 150 TTSX @ 2900fps would make a good all around bullet out to 400yds...deer, hogs, bears. Will still open up at lower speeds and strong enough for an up close shoulder shot?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
At the velocity you're talking I'd go with the TTSX.

To be honest while I'm a big fan of the Barnes I don't think they're needed or the best for what you're talking about. I'd look at the Hornady Interlock or any of that style of bullet you like best.

I haven't used the TTSX and I'm sure it expands faster, but my experience even with the magnums is the TSX doesn't open any faster than it needs to. I'd worry about long distance 308 win shots.
 
I'm hunting in lead free areas so I need a solid copper boolit.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
If 400 is your max range, i'd go 130ttsx

--------------------------------------

If rifle hunting was gay swbuckmaster would do it...
 
Hardway. I would say the 150gr ttsx would be a perfect lead free round for the 308. I have had great success on blacktail and hog with the ttsx. Expansion has been great. My dad has had great success in a 257wby also. What about the etips? You try them yet?
 
>lead free area ???? oh crap
>not bullets now ! where
>is this at?

Ca...what rock are you under?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
I just started with Barnes this year, but have used a lot of Hornady bullets in the past. I think you will do well with either. I may be wrong, but I believe Hornady has a lead free bullet called the GMX or something like that. Pretty much like the SST, but lead free. It may be worth checking out.

But, by no means would you be going wrong using the barnes. One thing that I have been told by others, is that with a solid cooper bullet, you can go lighter than you would normally with a lead bullet. So you may be able to drop down a weight with the barnes. I don't have access to the bullets available at work, but I am sure this a 130-140 range 308 TTSX that you may want to try out to compare to the 150 TTSX.
 
You might want to checkout the Nosler E-tip all copper bullet. I read on Cabela's customer reports that some rifles have trouble working up a load for those Barnes bullets. The new Nosler E-tip has had good reports and good groups at long ranges according to shooters. I bought some E-tips but haven't loaded them yet. I talked to Nosler and the E-tip and most copper bullets build some extra pressure so you need to seat the bullet back about 0.05-0.1. Also the copper bullets are longer in length/take up more case capicity so you need to also watch bullet depth/ powder capicity issues depending on the specific load, powder used, shell capicity etc.. Nosler 1-800-285-3921 has good current best powder/accurate load data on the E-tip for all calibers offered.

I'm in the same boat and needed to convert from lead to copper for pig hunt'n in CA..Have plenty of Accu-bonds new in the box's for 30cal 180gr, 270cal 130gr. if anyone wants to buy some at a savings.

)))).......>
 
I tried the E tip in 2 rifles, higher pressure, lower velocity and less accuracy than the TSX. when Nosler puts the rings in the E Tip I'll try them again, they will.
 
Well I sure hope I have better luck with the E-tips than your experiences. Scares me a little if you had issues in two different guns. Got'm now so I'll load them up..

))))......>
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-11 AT 11:34AM (MST)[p]Every gun is different, you may have great results. for what it's worth I've only found one gun that didn't like the TSX.

The grooves are a major improvment, granted the old X bullet is different than the TSX in more ways than the grooves but I gave up on them. I couldn't get velocity or decent accuracy from the X bullet, the TSX was totally the opposite. I have to think the grooves are a major part of that, seems Horady thought they were a good idea too. when you have a long bullet of solid copper draging down the barrel doesn't a reduced bearing surface and a place for metal to flow seem like a good idea?
 
The E-Tip isn't solid copper. How much more velocity can be expected from a grooved bullet vs a non grooved? I can get 3370 out of a 180 E-Tip. I'd be really surprised to see that from a TTSX. mtmuley
 
I load the TSX with the same load I use for the 180 partition. I show less pressure signs and get 50 FPS more out of the 180 TSX, 3220 FPS in a 24" 300 win mag. you can't tell me the E tip has the same drag as the shorter for it's weight partition, and the TSX has even less. so yes the grooves work.
 
I'm comparing what I get with an E-Tip and what a friend gets with a TTSX in the same cartridge. My theory is the grooves are necessary with a Barnes because they are "stickier" for lack of a better term. If the grooves are good, then pretty soon everyone will copycat the GS Custom. mtmuley
 
Then if the Nosler isn't as sticky the grooves would make it even faster. from what I see there is no downside.

If I cared more I'd take an E Tip and turn 4 grooves in it and chronogragh it. you'd remove a grain or two but I'd bet it's faster with less pressure. since the TTSX is better anyway why bother.
 
The grooves on a Barnes are to relieve some pressure and so you can push them harder. Im not a huge fan of non lead bullets but since CA has such wonderful laws I have to use them. I am currently trying the etips and having some good results. The gmx is a great bullet also. Have a few buddies using them.
 
I have had great results in a variety of rifles with the TSX. I am not from California. The grooves are in fact one of the keys to their performance for the reasons stated above. They also reduce copper fouling alot which was an issue with some of the original copper bullets. In short,the TSX has earned its stripes as a very good bullet.
 
Use the Barnes TTSX!

I've used the 150 gr in a .308 Win and a 300 WSM and the results on deer size game are the same.... DEAD!
They expand well at lower velocities and smaller size big game animals.

I've used them on 5 deer and 1 mountain goat so far.

I use the 168 TTSX in my 300 RUM and it kills like lightning!

Good luck, Zeke
 
barnes bullets are solid copper. hornady (gmx = guilding metal expanding) and nosler are made of guilding metal which is copper with a bit of tin and nickel. guilding metal is what most bullet jackets are made out of and is used because it fouls less than pure copper. the more nickel in it the less sticky it is. less sticky means less friction and lower chamber pressure. barnes uses the grooves to reduce friction on its all copper bullets. this info could be outdated but i believe that barnes is still using pure copper bullets.
 
My experience with the tsx has been spectacular. I shoot a 150tsx out of my 300RUM at 3600fps. They kill like lightning.
 
I have yet to shoot any Barnes products, may have to go that way in the future, believe them to be a great product but have no idea what to expect velocity and BC wise. Being this thread is near played out, maybe i can ask a question without being too much of a hijack...

Maybe someone here could tell us the "similarities" of one that gets 3300 FPS with accubonds in a certain caliber, what he might expect to get with a similar grain Barnes bullet? I do understand that the barnes product is likely to be "longer" than conventional lead base bullets per grain of weight but don't necessarily see higher BC's. That has me curious as well.

E-tips did not shoot well at all in the factory rounds that i tried thru my 270WSM. In fairness, i just tried the one loading but it was a costly experiment.

Joey
 
Joey, I have found with most rifles Ive loaded with barnes that they shoot very well. Also it seems to me that barnes bullets like to be pushed a little harder than a lead core bullet. They hold up very well and my dad loves them in his 257wby. On a side note Etips can be very tough to get to group. Have heard most people loading them at least .100 off the lands to start.
 
IME, you can run banes a little harder than any Nosler, they have less bearing surface. Try the 110TTSX at 3500+, and dont worry about penetration...

--------------------------------------
untitled-2.jpg

If rifle hunting was gay swbuckmaster would do it...
 
I loaded some barnes 150gr ttsx's for the 308. Got em up to about 2900fps and were grouping right at a half inch. I was'nt showing any pressure signs and could probably push em a little more but dont see any reason. I took the 10 or so that I had left and went hog hunting. I shot a 120lb sow at about 175yds right behind the ear. Little hole going in and a hole about the size of my fist on the exit. Damn near split the spinal cord in half...... I may mess with Reddogs 130's but the 150's have been green lit for future expirimenting:)

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
I test shot the old Barnes without the grooves and with the blue coating on it in 165 grns. at the time I was shooting 180 gr.Ballistic Tips in my .300 Wby. with good results and I am pretty sure the 165 Barnes was supposed to have a similar BC as the 180 Ballistic Tip as a result of a similar length and profile.

They shot well but the blue coating flaked off and got everywhere in the action and the copper fouling was pretty bad so I scrapped the change to them. They did seem to like to be souped up a bit and produced better than expected velocities with workable pressures.

I was under the impression the grooves were developed to limit fouling however I have no specific experience or knowledge to that fact.

I do believe that for weight in comparison with standard lead core bullets they do have a higher BC.

Bill
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-11 AT 01:00PM (MST)[p]I wasn't positive that the Barnes bullets had a lower BC for the same weight bullets but i thought that i had read of that before so i went to Barnes and Noslers websites and dug up the following info.

.277 130gr.... TTSX...Accubond
.................. .392.... .435
.... ..140gr.....-0-..... .496

.308 150gr..... .420.... .435
.....168.165.... .470.... .475
.....180.......... .484.... .507
.....200.......... .546.... .588

There's not a huge margin between them but as i mentioned i would have thought that the longer for weight Barnes bullets would have the higher BC's. Just is not the case and am curious of the real reason why?

Joey
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-24-11 AT 08:28PM (MST)[p]Wow Sage.

Like you I would have thought the TTSX would have a better BC. Kinda tips my way of thinking ballistics on its head.

I always thought with a similar profile and more length at the same weight the result would be a better BC. I know its not that simple but as a rule of thumb kinda thing.

I have found other strange things when researching ideas for a build I wanna do on a Long Magnum action. Looking in a Nosler reloading guide I found the following:
All Bullets are Ballistic Tips
- - - - - - - - - Ballistic Coefficient
- - - - - - -7mm-----------------------.270

140gr.-------.485------------------------.456

150gr.-------.493------------------------.496

Same bullet design from the same manufacturer and one would think the 140gr. .270 would have a higher BC as it does in the 150gr. also the difference in BC within each Caliber is slight in the 7mm and large in the .270.

The differences seem to get even more confusing when you mix manufacturers as I have read that different makers have different methods of calculating BC. May not be true however as someone told me that Abe Lincoln said not everything you read on the internet is true. LOL. Hard to believe, right?

Hopefully a true expert on such things can come on here and shed some light on this one for us cuz I am kinda itchin' to try the TTSX in something.

Bill
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-11 AT 10:12PM (MST)[p]The original X and XLC (the blue ones) did have a very high BC..But fouled horribly, and had some expansion problems.

The reason the current crop of barnes is lower in BC, is because of the grooves..That and they had to change the ogive slightly to promote more consistent expansion.

They are coming out with a new LRX (long range X), and I'm curious to weather it will have drive bands like GS customs, grooves, or simply be a very long bullet with minimal bearing surface, like an A-max.

I've had no problem with the MRX or TSX at LR, but past 600 they do leave me wanting a more forgiving bullet, but under 600, its really a non issue, as there BC is plenty high for that.

As an aside, its all in a bullets make..Take the 155 scenar in 308" for example, with its .5+ G1 BC rating..that rivals or bests most bullet makers 180 and even 200 grainers BC in that caliber..It has a very long hollow nose.

Another huge discrepancy is in 7mm, compare the various 162's, and you will see .4's,.5's..then the A-max at dang near .7
 
Thanks for the info guys, Dog!

Well i'm satisfied with the 140 grain Accubond loading for my 270WSM as is. Hopefully i won't have to look for a non-leaded version anytime soon. With the Barnes TTSX option of their 130 gr being a full .1+ lower BC, substantial IMO, i'll stick with the Accuubond product.

Joey
 
Joey, FWIW, if you try the barnes, I think you will find one of two things regarding their BC..Either Nosler is extremely high with their listings, or Barnes is extremely low (I think barnes is off). Every MRX or TTSX bullet I've used I've had to bump the BC up .1-.2 G1 points in JBM to match my in field confirmed drop!

Below is a copy/paste of what Kirby Allen had to say about testing the 265 TTSX.. notice he had to bump the BC to match real world findings to over .8, from the barnes listed .5's. (another reason I hate CDS type scopes, but thats another discussion)..From Kirby:


""Well, this past week I was able for the first time to test the 265 gr Tipped TSX bullet out of my 338 Allen Magnum. The rifle was one of my 32" Xtreme Heavy Sporters that I made for a customer.

The customer wanted a bullet option for closer range hunting, 500 to 800 yards on game up to elk size critters. Now the 300 gr SMK is my standard bullet choice for the 338 Allen Magnum but at 500 yards it will turn into nothing but scraps with the AMs velocity potential. Past 1000 yards, it performs great.

Looked around and noticed that Barnes had their 265 gr TTSX out. First off, let me discribe this bullet a bit. Barnes lists them as having a BC of roughly .570. In all honesty, this is a mystery to me. Here is why. When I set this new bullet next to a 300 gr SMK with a BC in the .800 to .820 range when fired from my 338 Allen Magnum, the first obvious difference is that the TTSX bullet is roughly 0.075" longer. In fact, its not much shorter then the Barnes 300 gr VLD!

The Ogive design is nearly identical to the 300 gr SMK in profile and length. The boat tail design is SLIGHTLY shorter then the SMK but not by much. Seeing this, I had a very hard time believing that this bullet had a BC of sub .6.

For testing this rifle, the customer wanted me to test the 300 gr SMK, 300 gr Rocky Mountain Aluminum tipped bullet and the 265 gr TTSX. I did some quick velocity development at the shop and was impressed to see that with 148.0 gr of H-50BMG, the 338 AM could drive the 265 gr TTSX to a legit 3500 fps, 3497 fps on average to be specific for five shots. Extreme Spread was 18 fps. Not amazing but plenty good.

A few days later I was able to get out to the range and test these bullets. I started with the 300 gr RMB loaded to 3300 fps and zeroed the rifle at 1100 yards. After testing those bullets I switched to the 265 gr TTSX. The first shot landed dead center in the group that had been made with the 300 gr RMB. This impressed me. Does not say alot about the BC value but with the same sight adjustment, it impacted at exactly the same point as the 300 gr RMB which is advertised to have a BC in the .97 range. To be fair, I believe the BC of the 300 gr RMB is closer to the .850 range from what I can tell comparing it to the 300 gr SMK.

Accuracy was very good for the Barnes. I shot three, three shot strings and 8 of the 9 shots landed in a sub 5" cluster. The one shot did fly a bit to the right to open the total group to around 3/4 moa but that easily could have been me with a slight pull or the wind catching me a bit.

I was very impressed to see how well this bullet shot at this level of velocity. Obviously there was no slippage of the lands even in the 1-10 twist at this velocity.

Giving this bullet a conservative BC of .750 with a 3500 fps velocity, at 1000 yards, this bullet should retain just under 2400 fps and have just shy of 3300 ft/lbs of retained energy. THis should be PLENTY for complete expansion on game. In fact, Barnes says that this bullet will expand at velocities as low as 1600 fps. I find this a bit optomistic from what I have seen from other X bullets but even if we put a velocity limit of 1800 fps on this bullet, it will reach out to 1600 yards with 1800 fps and a retained 1900 ft/lbs of energy.

Remember these numbers are with a conservative BC of .750. I would not be surpised to see the BC of this bullet be in the .83 to .85 range but I have not proven that with testing at several different ranges and figuring moa adjustment needed for these other ranges. IF it does have a BC in the .85 range which again, would not surpise me, it will retain 1800 fps out to +1800 yards. For a true extreme terminal performance bullet, this is most impressive.

When I was done with the accuracy testing at 1100 yards, I drove over and recovered some of the fired bullets. The SMK will be in a mangled ball of copper and lead when fired into this wet sand at this range from the 338 AM. THe RMB remains were pretty limited. There were some larger jacket frags but not much more then that.

I only found a couple of the Barnes bullets. Not sure if the others bounced out of the dirt and were somewhere on the hillside but the two I Did find were laying on the top of the impacted sand, each had fully expanded to the base of their HP. Each had lost one part of one petal but other then that, looked picture perfect retaining 90 and 92% of their original bullet weight.

Now I have just started testing these bullets but so far, Accuracy is right there with the 300 gr SMK and that is saying alot. Velocity is very high, consistancy is good and so far terminal performance looks impressive. My only real worry is how these bullets will expand on soft hits at long range, such as clean chest impacts on smaller game such as deer and pronghorns. Only one way to test this though!!!

I will also be testing these bullets in my 338 Allen Xpress where I suspect they will be able to be driven to 3200 fps. Even at this reduced velocity, they should still retain 1800 fps out to 1450 yards or so.

I have never been a huge Barnes bullet fan. In fact I distain the old standard X bullet. I fully admit that the new TSX design is a vastly improved bullet but it has also always been a bit weak as far as long range expansion was concerned. The tipped design will hopefully solve this problem. Time will tell.

I also ordered in several other of the TTSX bullets to test in my Allen Magnums. Namely the 200 gr TTSX for my 300 Allen Xpress and the 120 gr 6.5mm TTSX for my 6.5mm Allen Magnum.

The 200 gr TTSX is another impressive bullet. It is easily 50 thou longer then even the 240 gr SMK!!! I am hoping and expecting to see this bullet reach 3450 fps in my 300 AX, excited to see!!! I can drive the 200 gr Accubond to 3500 fps in my 300 AX with a 30" barrel length so time will tell.

The 120 gr TTSX is another neat bullet. Only slightly shorter then the 142 gr SMK or 140 gr A-Max. The 142 gr SMK can be drive to 3550 fps in a 30" barrel length so who knows what the 120 gr TTSX will be able to handle and it should also be able to survive the impacts as well!!!"
 
Beavis, The 338AM is built of the 408 Chey tac case. Kirby builds some of the most extreme and amazing rifles around. If ever I had the cash a 257AM or 270AM would be on the list. 257AM built off 338RUM case and the 270AM is built off 7RUM.
 
Dog, Thanks for that!! It all adds up to me. The ttsx version just "looks" to me, from my limited past experience, and from what i know about longer for caliber bullets, like it would want to really fly...at least close up there to the Accubond.

I'll keep this info in mind...good stuff!!

Joey
 
I knew I shouldn't have read that REDDOG. I've stayed away from Barnes for a long time because of all the negative stuff. Now I have to wonder about the 200 grain .30 TTSX. Wonder what the actual BC is with that bullet? mtmuley
 
Reddog I must admit I quit reading when the guy descibed 500-800 yards as "closer range" hunting. (I admit I wouldn't have understood it anyway.) All I can say is I have heard MANY testimonials about the effectiveness of the TSX as one of the best performing big game bullets on the market from guys who hunt for living including several African PH's.
 
Cbeard, you have to understand, Kriby is one of, if not THE premier LR rifle builder in the country..That dont mean its for hunting, just LR.He's a guy that can set up, and make a 3000 yard hit, he aint a BS'er. Even tho guys like this talk extreme range, it dont mean they are gonna take any shot at big game that presents its self..They aint best of the west.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-11 AT 09:30PM (MST)[p]mtmuley, ignore the online BS, and simply kill something with them. I've been using them for years now and honestly, every kill I make with them, I look at the critter and the damage, and wonder WTF all the negative talk is about...Boils down to armchair hunters that have never used them 90% of the time..They simply work, and IME, impressively.

That said, I'm always looking for a better mouse trap,and sure wish GS would get on the ball and be a viable option here in the states..A 5 week wait for them to cross the pond, at 2x the price is ridiculous.
 
REDDOG, I'm sure you've heard the rumour that GS is considering a US facility. Makes sense as a big bullet market exists here. (All they would need is a TV show. LOL) Looks like I may have to throw a few TTSX's down range. I wasn't interested in the 180, but the 200 has my attention. What's the story on this LRX. Monometal, hybrid or what? mtmuley
 
The 200gr lrx is a gimick IMO. Its nothing more than the ttsx. My brother just got some and we compared them. According to Barnes one has a tangent ogive and one is secant. The 200gr ttsx is an awesome bullet though.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-11 AT 08:58PM (MST)[p]Thats not good to hear Cahunter..They just lost a bunch of points in my book..What a joke, If thats the case, its prolly safe to assume the 265TTSX and the 265LRX will be one in the same??

The ogive change means nothing really, and I have to wonder what the pitch will be from barnes..Sub-Sonic transition, LOl?

I have heard about the GS deal in the states muley. I have been hearing that the US contact is much easier to work with than Gerard, but still has the issue of getting them in from the RSA.
 
Reddog I will take a pic of one tomorrow for you. I am also going to call Barnes and ask them what "all" the differences between the 2 are.
 
>all that aside....how do they compare
>to corelokts??
>
>
>
>JB
>
497fc2397b939f19.jpg


The TTSX has a blue tip.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
The LRX have the functioning velocity lowered so they get better expansion at slower velocities. As far as ogive not meaning much, it means a ton when talking B.C. One note on B.C. differance's, the range at which a company shoots them will play a big role in the final number, also some companies, like Nosler do not actually shoot thier B.C rather they use a computer generated formula.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom