Dear All,

More and more of you have had the opportunity to work with the new Barnes TTSX bullets now. For those of you who have worked with both the TSX as well as the new TTSX (preferably in the same caliber and bullet weight), did you:

- find the same accuracy with TTSX as with TSX??
- are velocities comparable (or even the same)??
- have you been able to use your TSX loads with the TTSX bullets (assuming identical bullet weights)??
- if you have been using the same loads, have POIs been (close to) identical??

Thanks for your time in advance.

- mike

Good post, and I would like to add "where does this leave the Barnes X Original?"

I was not able to get as good accuracy with TTSX as I did with TSX. 168 gr. 30/06, 130 gr. 270 WSM, 180 Gr, 300 RUM. I tried the same loads as the TSX and none shot as good. I tried up an down a gr or two. I never made it to Chrono. I would need to try more loads to give them a good try. I found them very long and had some seating depth issues.

I stayed with the TSX in all cases.

I have tried 110 & 130 270s, They compare nearly identically with 130 TSX 270. Accuracy and velocity match

In .308 cal the 130s and 150 are a match for velocity, the 130 TTSX is much more accurate though. The 150s accuracy are about the same.

I didn't find the 130 TSXs all that bad, the worst was still under 3" and the best was under 1".

So far, I'd judge the TTSXs to be a substantial improvement over the TSXs

I only have experience with the 130 & 168gr T-TSX vs TSX. My rifle is a 30-06 ULA bought third hand but in as new condition.

My load @ 56.5gr of H4350/AR2209 was more accurate in the T-TSX than in the TSX. My 58.5gr load of the same powder & bullet was not accurate at all whereas it was accurate in the TSX. Velocities were 10-15fps diff, so I would say they are the same for speed.

With the 130gr T-TSX vs TSX I could not get as good accuracy with the T-TSX as with the TSX. Mind you accuracy is still very good but with the TSX several loads grouped less than 1/2 inch for 3 shots at 100m.

I'd say you can use whatever TSX loads you may have as a start but you still have to fine tune. I have seated all mine 50 thou off the lands. My ULA seem s to have a very tight throat and the 168T-TSX is quite a different shape to the TSX and allows it to be seated further out. Not so much diff in the 130 grainers.

Hope this helps,

Regards,
JohnT

110 TSX v. 110 TTSX in 270, 2 separate rifles:

IMR4350 is best with TSX, while H4350 was best with TTSX.

130 TSX v. TTSX in 270. TSX shot best with Re19, TTSX best with H4350

168 TSX v. TTSX in 30.06. TSX was best with max H4350, TTSX best with Re19 max load.

Even though we'd think these bullet should react the same, in many cases, they do not. The very subtle differences in length, depth and diameter of hollow point, tip, etc. seem to make enough difference that it's like working up a load all over again.

Accuracy for both types was easily matched with a little work.

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
Even though we'd think these bullet should react the same, in many cases, they do not. The very subtle differences in length, depth and diameter of hollow point, tip, etc. seem to make enough difference that it's like working up a load all over again.

This seems to be the conclusion of most of the posts above. On the surface that is somewhat surprising, and not what I had expected. But it is valuable to know up front, that you should essentially treat the two bullets as separate (albeit related) products, and that load development will likely produce different "best" loads for the two bullets.

Thanks a ton guys, this is most useful!

- mike

Take a look at what nosler does in their load manuals. Every bullet they have in a caliber and weight, even the combined technology bullets, are all described under one set of load data, claiming that one powder and charge was best for all of their available bullets.

I've never found that to be the case after I've worked up a load with their bullets.

I've loaded and shot them both out of two different cartridges. I used the same load for the TTSX and TSX in both cases. The '06 in 180 grain was the same velocity and accuracy. The 338-378 Wby also was the same velocity and accuracy. The BC is slightly better from the TTSX bullets but I haven't had a chance at long range shooting to see how much difference there is past 300 yards. I will be hunting elk this year with the TTSX bullets.

Ken....

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
Take a look at what nosler does in their load manuals. Every bullet they have in a caliber and weight, even the combined technology bullets, are all described under one set of load data, claiming that one powder and charge was best for all of their available bullets.

Barnes does something similar with the load data on their website, which seems even harder to believe given the big difference in BC between the TSX and MRX

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
Even though we'd think these bullet should react the same, in many cases, they do not. The very subtle differences in length, depth and diameter of hollow point, tip, etc. seem to make enough difference that it's like working up a load all over again.



This seems to be the conclusion of most of the posts above. On the surface that is somewhat surprising, and not what I had expected. But it is valuable to know up front, that you should essentially treat the two bullets as separate (albeit related) products, and that load development will likely produce different "best" loads for the two bullets.

Thanks a ton guys, this is most useful!

Emphatically that is my opinion of them. The TSXs give you a starting point that may well be better than the starting point suggested by a cup & core bullet. But... you cannot bet on it. My conclusion that the TTSX is a better bullet is based on the fact that I have observed no downside to them yet. I think maybe if I try to spin them as fast as my 300 can spin 130s I might have a little trouble too. With my '06 doing so well with them I see no reason to go there so the 300 is pushing 150s now.

quote:

Originally posted by GrayDuck:

quote:

Originally posted by Doc:
Take a look at what nosler does in their load manuals. Every bullet they have in a caliber and weight, even the combined technology bullets, are all described under one set of load data, claiming that one powder and charge was best for all of their available bullets.

Barnes does something similar with the load data on their website, which seems even harder to believe given the big difference in BC between the TSX and MRX

Yes they do, and I agree, it's tough to believe. Any company that has a number of bullets in one caliber, one weight, like Nosler, Barnes, Hornady, well, I just don't buy that one powder and one charge was the VERY BEST for all of those bullets.

Don't know if this will help, since I'm waiting on my 338RUM rebarrel to get here to try them, but I bought a box of 225 gr TTSX's and one of the tips was broken off. The hollow point behind the TTSX is significantly larger than the TSX


That would give me a lot more confidence in the TTSX in the smaller calibers where the TSX hollow point is too small

338, 308, 284, 277, 264


Barnes still needs to work on consistancy though. I sorted the bullets and there were some that were off weight


The breakout is:
224.0 gr - 1
224.2 gr - 1
224.3 gr - 2
224.5 gr - 1
224.6 gr - 1
224.7 gr - 1
224.8 gr - 2
224.9 gr - 12
225.0 gr - 12
225.1 gr - 9
225.2 gr - 1
225.3 gr - 1
225.4 gr - 3
225.6 gr - 2
225.7 gr - 1

Don't know if shooting 2 consecutive bullets, one weighing 224.0 and the next weighing 225.7 would make a difference in POI or not.

Here are some TSX's recovered from a recent Hunt for you guys to look at.

Looks like the 2 that were under 100 yards had the petals come off. Great performance at the longer distances where velocity has dropped to normal levels. I'm surprised you recovered all these bullets.

woods wrote:

quote:

I bought a box of 225 gr TTSX's and one of the tips was broken off. The hollow point behind the TTSX is significantly larger than the TSX

The more cavernous opening and the delrin tip serve to address a single issue: long range/low velocity expansion problems that are inherent to both the X and TSX, particularly in the smaller calibers.

The TTSX is definitely a step in the right direction for Barnes, but the TTSX still does not live up to the claim of "full depth of cavity expansion down to 1600 fps." Under both highly-controlled and field conditions, I have yet to witness as much in any of the .30 caliber an under offerings.

quote:

Originally posted by woods:
Looks like the 2 that were under 100 yards had the petals come off. Great performance at the longer distances where velocity has dropped to normal levels. I'm surprised you recovered all these bullets.

Most of the recovered bullets where second shots, as most of the first shots where pass throughs. The 2 300 RUM first shots one at 405 yds. on a Gemsbuck with a Range Finder and 160 yds on an Eland with the PH for the Range Finder where in the off side skin, both animals dropped instantly.

The 270 WSM pretty much the same thing, anything broadsinde where most likely pass throughs. I do remember the springubuck and Hartebeest where facing straight on and the bullet on the Springbuck was under the skin on the rear so it penetrated the full lenght of the animal. The Hartebeest it was is the ham again pretty good penetration. Kudu in the off side skin, the Kudu dropped instantly. The Wildebeest was hit a little high, the bullet was in the off side skin on the first shot but he ran less than 100 yds broke off from the others and was standing under a tree dying. Second shot knocked it down.

All of the first shots where fatal however, We keep shooting till it is down and not moving.

First off, thanks for the picture to both Woods and Tradewinds.

Having done this for 50 odd years I have seen failure/poor performance from darn near every bullet at one time or another. So, the odd failure is nothing for me to worry about

The +- one grain spread on the .338 TTSXs also is not something that concerns me. I have seen worse with other bullets.

The recovered TSXs are just astonishing in terms of how uniform they are! That's just mind boggling that you got that many back and that they were that consistent. When I started reloading the only bullet that would give you that kind consistent result on impact was a FMJ round. Over the years the groups get smaller and the results more consistent. It looks to me that Barnes has addressed their problem with occasional failure to open in a good way and that in all probability the TTSXs are the leading edge of our next generation of bullets.

Certainly the TSXs have a well deserved reputation for accuracy. They may not be as accurate as our best match bullets, but, they are fully equal to anything off the shelf that we use for hunting. Given the probability of ever tightening restrictions on lead use I am really looking forward to what Hornady, Sierra et al will be undoubtedly be providing, and what the competition will do for all of them.

I think we live in a really good time for this, and that we are and will continue to be beneficiaries of a huge amount of work. What we have for bullets isn't perfect. But... it's a hell of a lot better than we have ever had before and it's improving at a very rapid pace.

I started loading when milsurp powder was what we had, crummy jackets on bullets that made it necessary for us to spin bullets to sort them. Now we can grab a can of really good powder, a box of bullets a bag of brass, slap them together and EXPECT them to shoot into less than an inch without any more work. No more sort the bullets and brass by weight first, then spin them, then trim and true the brass. We can and do still do that, but now it gives us phenomenal accuracy.

miles58 wrote:

quote:

the TTSXs are the leading edge of our next generation of bullets

Not quite. They have a ways to go before they ascend to that type of prominence. In the sub-30 calibers, the X, TSX and even the TTSX still have low velocity expansion issues.

Barnes was claiming "full depth of cavity expansion down to 1600 fps." In both controlled expansion testing and field use, I ahve yet to see such materialize in any of the .30 caliber and under bullets I have used.

With that being said, the TTSX 7mm 120 grainer is incredibly accurate in my 7mm Bullberry carbine.

The TTSX bullets do not have the same velocity requirments for expansion. Example the 168 Grain TTSX requires 2000 FPS. They are not all the same. The pictures and data above is interesting and the TSX bullets pentrated well, I like that

This is one of the best threads that I have ever read!!

I previously ran the 160gn TSX through my 7STW at max loads with SUB-MOA accuracy out to 250 yards with factory barrel. I've heard from several sources that the TSX likes to be driven fast for best accuracy. The following picture is the first three round group from a custom 300WM 180TTSX with a moderate dose of RL22. Once I bumped up to 73 grains the groups opened up. The 300WM group is above the tiny 204 holes.
(COAL listed is from ogive)

quote:

Posted 06 August 2008 02:42 Hide Post
miles58 wrote:

quote:
the TTSXs are the leading edge of our next generation of bullets



Not quite. They have a ways to go before they ascend to that type of prominence. In the sub-30 calibers, the X, TSX and even the TTSX still have low velocity expansion issues.

Barnes was claiming "full depth of cavity expansion down to 1600 fps." In both controlled expansion testing and field use, I ahve yet to see such materialize in any of the .30 caliber and under bullets I have used.

With that being said, the TTSX 7mm 120 grainer is incredibly accurate in my 7mm Bullberry carbine.

Bobby,

In all probability is a pretty fair approximation IMO. They give us very uniform performance, they give us very good accuracy. They may not be the next great thing, but they are the most likely candidate I have seen.

Yeah, there's stories about TSXs not working right. But, we don't have the numbers of pictures of shed cores etc that we've had with other bullets do we?

I fully expect the other makers to step up with new designs. Some will be better designs. Some won't. I am willing to bet though that we are looking at a basic design that will not change as much as it already has changed from C&Cs.