Based on previous (and recent) posts containing questions about the Barnes MRX I would guess they are too new and not enough of them are in the field yet to know much about them.

I am under the impression Barnes only began shipping the 180gr MRX last month. I will be happy to read field reports, too.

Has anybody had the chance to shoot the MRX and if so has anybody had the chance to hunt with them?

These things are brand new.

I'd go with the TSX for now until you can get some realworld experience with the MRX.

Heck why not buy some and try them out over in Namibia? You are only going to be hunting thin skinned plains game. What could it hurt?

They look to be a fine bullet. I do worry that they may shed their rear core on heavy bone but time will tell.

By this time a year from now plenty of field tests on the MRX should be available.

I would rather go to Namibia with a bullet I am already very confident in because I will also be hunting Eland and Leopard along with the usual (Kudu, Mtn. Zebra, Gemsbok, etc...)

According to the Barnes web site only 180 grn 30cal MRX have been shipped...

I've shot the MRX on paper, and they shoot just fine. Same POI as TSX. Used TSX on game the past 3 years with out any problem, just great kills.

I would use the North Fork soft. www.northforkbullets.com

quote:

Originally posted by Eland Slayer:
I would rather go to Namibia with a bullet I am already very confident in because I will also be hunting Eland and Leopard along with the usual (Kudu, Mtn. Zebra, Gemsbok, etc...)

YOu can't get more confident than a bullet that has killed hundreds of head of game on this forum alone....

At the end of the day the TSX is a premium and proven bullet that if it is placed in the correct spot will deliver your trophy.

Don't screw your head up with too many thoughts on how perfect the load is. As long as it groups well it will do the job. If I remember dorrectly you are shooting factory loads, and I don't think the MRX are available in factory yet??? Although that may not be tru stateside.

Rgds,
FB

Yes, I am shooting factory loads. I looked on Federal's website yesterday and it says they have the 180 gr. MRX for the .300 WSM: Look here. I haven't looked for them in stores yet, but I found my TSX's at Gander Mountain. The TSX's shoot right at 1/2" at 100 yds. in my gun. They are very accurate. But, after reading JJHACK's thread on the TSX's with malformed tips, the MRX is sounding a little better right now. But, I could be wrong. The good thing is I still have plenty of time to do some testing on piggies at the deer lease.

ES,

I thought you guys might have had them factory loaded , if we don't. you guys definately have a wider range of choices.

Testing will definately be the way forward and put your mind at rest.

FB

quote:

Originally posted by Eland Slayer:
Yes, I am shooting factory loads. I looked on Federal's website yesterday and it says they have the 180 gr. MRX for the .300 WSM: Look here. I haven't looked for them in stores yet, but I found my TSX's at Gander Mountain. The TSX's shoot right at 1/2" at 100 yds. in my gun. They are very accurate. But, after reading JJHACK's thread on the TSX's with malformed tips, the MRX is sounding a little better right now. But, I could be wrong. The good thing is I still have plenty of time to do some testing on piggies at the deer lease.

I read JJ's posts here and did not see any mentions of deformities (only suspicions of possibilities). He goes on to say that the TSX is his bullet of choice now, until proven otherwise.

From all of your previous posts, I can see that you are putting ALOT of thought into your bullet choice for this trip. The animals you're hunting just aren't that hard to kill, and the TXS will kill all of them with no problems whatsoever, IF you stick it where it needs to be.

IMO, your time would be better spent practicing shooting and studying the anatomy of the animals. This will yield better utility than stressing over bullet choice.

quote:

The animals you're hunting just aren't that hard to kill, and the TXS will kill all of them with no problems whatsoever ...

As will Partitions, Accubonds, Northforks, TBBC's, Corelokt's and other premium bullets.

The MRX may promise less overall meat damage, but selfish as it may be, that really isn't a concern for the traveling sport hunter in Africa. If it delivers that, I will change over to them on principle alone.

if your not sure what to use just use the NOSLER PARITION...all bases covered and problem solved

I have not had any confidence with a corelokt bullet in my career and would not rank that "cup and core" design with the others in this group.

For impala blesbok steenbok etc, they are fine but I would not go all the way to Africa with the anticipation planning and expense to shoot a standard cup and core bullet and hope it stays intact.

I would be curious to hear how the new MRX three piece bullet will reduce the meat damage compared to the TSX bullets? If the velocity is the same, the bullet weight is the same, it retaines 100% weight, and the four petals open when it expands, I'm lost as to the reduction of meat damage compared to the TSX which does exactly the same thing?

If a reduction of meat damage is needed you head shoot, Lung shoot, or use a rifle with under 2500fps MV and a solid. Have fun looking for that animal though! I much prefer to ruin 10 pounds of meat and bring back the rest, compared to losing 100% to feed the jackals

quote:

If a reduction of meat damage is needed you head shoot, Lung shoot, or use a rifle with under 2500fps MV and a solid. Have fun looking for that animal though! I much prefer to ruin 10 pounds of meat and bring back the rest, compared to losing 100% to feed the jackals

Does the TSX retain 100% weight? Photo's I have seen indicate it does not, and my understanding of meat damage relates to bullet particles shredding off during penetration. I fully understand that high velocity and meat damage often go hand in hand, especially when exit holes are exponentially larger than entrance holes. And that less velocity and solids can alleviate that.

If I am wrong, please correct me. I want to fully comprehend this.

I think the MRX is a recognition by Barnes that punching a 1/4 inch diameter hole in a solid peice of copper is not a very sophisticated way to make an expanding bullet.

If you look at the cross section of the MRX as provided by Barnes and/or Federal you will see that it has a much larger diameter HP than the original Barnes X or Tripple Shock.

I say, good for them.

The heavier rear core is also a good thing as it reduces the length of the bullet. I dont know about their alloy but assume it is sintered tungsten. It will be a fairly low density tungsten to comply w AP rules. Specific gravity of tungsten alloy's are all over the place, from lighter than steel (7) to as heavy as depleted uranium (13).

This will be an interesting bullet to watch, but I am w Dan, I'd use the bonded North Fork.

You cant beat a ductile pure copper for expansion and weight retention.

Andy

Gents: Lots of speculation here. I think JJ's post proves the efficay of the TSX and he is just making a couple of observations that COULD present a problem. There's anotehr learned gent that posts here, Terry Blauwkamp who has extensive african field experience with the TSX. Maybe he'll chime in and enlighten us as he always does. jorge

jorge, your observation is correct.

I have some questions about what I'm seeing at the 30,000 ft level. Closer up I'm very happy about the performance.

Put another way, 25 years ago we had cup and core bullets that would go to pieces as a normal practice of hitting heavy game at high velocity. The partition solved this problem about 1/2 way, buy giving us a Full Metal Jacket bullet in the back of every soft point. Typical retained weight of 40-70% depending on the caliber and bullet weight used.

In those days bullet failure was seen as bullets disintegrating and failure to penetrate deeply enough to finish the job. Either due to lack of mass from weight loss or complete disintegration( jacket core seperation) of the bullet.

Today we are "nit picking" a bullet that exits with a bore diameter hole. The opposite condition exists now. We don't have bullets that disintegrate, but rather they stay in one bore diameter section and carry right through.

In my opinion if your shot placement is true, poking a hole through that "bullseye" will not matter as much if it is penetrated as it would have if the bullet went to pieces and stopped short of it's lethal destination.

We have bullets that failed either falling short do to break-up or they fail because they don't open up and deliver that visual impact shock.

The TSX bullets still fly true through the body and penetrate plenty. Now the issue is where you placed the shot, more then....... will it make it through to the vital organs. I'll take failure to open over bullet disintigration 100% of the time. At least failure to open still leaves us the effect of shooting a solid at a minimum.

I have also read comments on this site about bullet failure, what is it? I think the question requires a definition. What exactly is bullet failure? It seems we are all considering this definition a bit differently.

I have read this statemet several times in my life now: "At what point during the animals death did the bullet fail"

Or the bullet exited with a bore size hole so it could not have expanded, must have failed.

Well, with any opinion it should have some resolution to have any credibility,.........at least to me. How significant is a single event to try and prove or disprove a theory or function? As many of you know my background, you know I don't refer to single events to draw my conclusions from. I'm also not stuck with a single firearm type, caliber or cartridge. My hunters bring everything under the sun to shoot with archey, muzzleloaders, handguns, you name it I've probably had somebody hunt with it. They typically take well in excess of 100 big game with me each year. In the last 13-15 years I would say without question they have taken more then 2000 head of big game from the tiny steenbok up to the elephant. This does not incude the many years working in Alaska with goats, both species of bears, deer, wolves, cariboo, moose, etc.

With this kind of resolution you would think bullet failures would be seen eventually on at least some of these species. You would be correct! But then my definition of bullet failure may not be the industry standard (whatever that is) or even another persons opinion.

My simple definitions are
#1 lead and jacket seperation at any point after impact.

#2Not penetrating in a dead straight line.

I have seen both of these more times then I can count with cup and core bullets, I have seen the lack of straight line penetration more times then I can count with several versions of the older Barnes X bullets.

In order to have seen or witnessed these failures I would have had to recovered the game. So the theory of "at what point during the animals death did the bullet fail" is absolutely silly to me.

****If the bullets performance was unacceptable and you still lucked into the location of the dead animal why would you trust it on a second animal? ****

Read that last line over if you think finding a dead animal relates to a successful function of a broken up bullet.

I could go into a list here of specific animals just from last season that I have seen failures on. However it's a safe bet that cup and core bullets are not the prudent choice for todays hunting where big game is important to recover. The original "premium" bullet is the Nosler Partition. Fully three times the cost of a cup and core bullet when released and remained double the cost for many years afterward. This has been the baseline bullet for big game for probably 20 years or more.

Today you can buy a bonded core bullet which is so vastley superior to the partiton at less then half the cost of the partition.

Recent catalog prices for example:
165 grain .308 Nosler Partition 23.16 per 50
165 grain .308 Hornady interbond 31.39 Per 100
165 grain .308 barnes X 28.83 per 50
165 grain .308 Swift Aframe 44.18 per 50

Standard cup and core bullets
165 grain .308 Speer 17.42 per 100
165 grain .308 hornady 16.15 per 100
165 grain .308 Sierra 17.58 per 100

I have seen everyone of these bullets shot and recovered. The majority of the cup and core bullets in many little pieces with the jacket seperated.

More then half the partitions recovered had no front half lead core attached. Not automatically bad. It's in the design to do this. However it does leave many people with a bad feeling to see a bore diameter exit hole even though the bullet had violent internal expansion. It's still not as good at retaining the momentum of a bullet that will retain all its weight or the majority of its weight. It's also hard to beat a bullet that doubles its diameter or more and can maintain that diamater for a great distance. When those bullets exit they leave a hella good blood trail!

I suppose in the end it's up to your definiton of bullet failure. Regardless if it's a sub 3000fps cartridge or over. Standard cup and core bullets will crumble and seperate. The frequency of this is higher the faster they travel. Standard bullets from a 30/30 work well, standard bullets from a 30/378 are a failure waiting to happen. Shoot the cup and core bullets all you want for practice, then switch to the premium bullets for use on game. At least that's what I do with my rifles unless shooting TSX bullets. X bullets and jacketed bullets have not had similiar POI with my guns.

I thought I got good accuracy results shooting Swift A-frame in my .416 Remington. Then I tried the Barnes Triple Shock. The Barnes are clearly superior in my gun. In fact is was scary. From past experience with Barnes-X I wansn't expecting it. I suspect the answer is that the triple shock technology makes up for barrel defects by hugging the rifling more snugly. I intend to try this new load out this year in Zimbabwe on dangerous game. Thanks for asking.

quote:

Originally posted by WPN:
...Does the TSX retain 100% weight? Photo's I have seen indicate it does not, and my understanding of meat damage relates to bullet particles shredding off during penetration. I fully understand that high velocity and meat damage often go hand in hand, especially when exit holes are exponentially larger than entrance holes. And that less velocity and solids can alleviate that.

If I am wrong, please correct me. I want to fully comprehend this.

READ THIS:

Shooting for Meat@4700fps .>> http://www.gsgroup.co.za/22x64.html <<

Meat Damage.................>> http://www.gsgroup.co.za/meat.html <<
............................................ http://www.gsgroup.co.za/meat1.html
............................................ http://www.gsgroup.co.za/meat2.html
7mm/130gn@3000+ impact velocity>> http://www.gsgroup.co.za/fritz.html <<

One potential advantage to the MRX is the shorter length (I believe in most examples much shorter when expanded and the plastic tip is gone) will give the bullet a higher stability factor and may reduce the tendency to tumble--possibly completely making up for the rearward weight bias. But I too, share the concerns that tumbling, if it happens, may cause this one to come appart where the TSX wouldn't.

Pretty much all just speculation at this point though.

quote:

Shooting for Meat@4700fps .>> http://www.gsgroup.co.za/22x64.html <<

Meat Damage.................>> http://www.gsgroup.co.za/meat.html <<

7mm/130gn@3000+ impact velocity>> http://www.gsgroup.co.za/fritz.html <<

Woodjack, thanks for the links. Quite fascinating. The authors' conclusion is in line with what my thoughts have recently been. Interestingly, they completely discount bullet velocity as the culprit, and only accept bullet fragmentation and tumbling as the main causes of meat damage.

I have considered, at least theoretically, that bullet fragmentation be akin to a micro-shrapnel effect with the result of bloodshot muscle fiber surrounding the wound channel. This article seems to support that theory. Well done.

quote:

... (We) laid to rest the theory that speed in itself causes meat damage. We have long contended that bullet fragmentation or tumbling is the real culprit.

It would then be logical to assume that when exit holes are exponentially larger than entrance holes it is bullet tumbling that causes it.
.

The bigger hollow point, coupled with the plastic tip in the MRX seems on face value to be advantageous with the initial set up of the bullet in the animal. I believe they will be superior to the TSX due to this factor alone. Accuracy wise, it will be hard to beat the TSX in my experience.

Superior in which way?

Velocity is the culprit regardless of the bullet used.

Shoot an animal with a 300 weatherby and a 30/30 It is so obvious that a blind man could feel the difference!

A 300 weatherby with a 180 grain X bullet will stay together with less Shrapnel effect then a 170 grain cup an core bullet from a 30/30. Similiar bullet weight exactly the same diameter. One is going 2300fps the other 3200fps. I use these two examples because I owned a 300 weatherby and shot X bullets with it. At the same time of my life my wife was shooting a 30/30 with 170 grain Remington cup and core soft points.

The game we shot was night and day different and the only real difference was the velocity that made a huge mess of the animals. If the soft explosive bullets were the main culprit then the 30/30 would have had more meat damage.

There is absolutely no comparison to the internal damage done to an animal when you compare the two. The velocity is the culprit and anyone who thinks otherwise has simply not seen much game shot with different rifles and cartridges!

It's a simple matter to compare the exploded flesh, bloodshot meat, and and ruptured hides of game shot with rifles over 3000fps and those shot with rifles under 2500fps. This is such a visible difference!

This season I had a hunter with a 45/70 and another with a 50/90 sharps shooting a 510 grain bullet at 1550fps. That sharps just poked a huge hole through his impala and blesbok. However it did nothing beyond that hole. The same animal shot with a 300 magnum would have had 12" diameter of meat pulp, massive jellied purple swelling and very likely exploded hide on the entry and or exit sides.

The authors of the GS Custom articles chronicled bullets to over 4000fps with notably less meat damage than ones of under 3000fps. Could the fact they only used small calibers in their tests have affected the results?

I would like to see an analysis of the hydraulic effect of a high-velocity bullet on game and how it contributes to meat damage. The new Hornady .17HMR and its companion .17 Mach 2 may be a good case in point. Gophers and squirrels just explode on impact. Is it attributable to velocity only, or to bullet fragmentation only (construction), or is it a combination of the two factors together?

Didn't this thread start off by sayong thatthe MRX is a good substitute for the TSX due to the risk of the TSX not expanding?

Now it seems thatthe problemwiththe TSX is shearing off of the petals (which I assume can be termed overexpansion)

Fb

WPN,

The MRX should be superior in that it does not rely on a small hole in the nose to initiate expansion, but it has a larger hole behind a BT to again help the bullet set up rapidly. This can only help with "knock down" power (if the bullet is placed right)

You will note that the TSX's from 375 all seem to have a larger hole, obviously to promote rapid set up and expansion, precisely what the MRX has been designed to address in the smaller calibres.

Fallow Bucks last post is a good one, why is everyone taking about overpansion of the TSX, with the resulting blowing off of petals?

What is better in everyones view: a TSX with it's petals off and turned into virtual wadcutter or a bonded core bullet like a TBBC or the North Fork soft where the lead supports the mushroom, which is much larger than a TSX. What has the most "squat down power" as say in Australia? And what would you all believe is the most effective on game.

We know the TSX works, and we alll believe the MRX should work.

Until the MRX has been sufficiently field reported I would take the TSX.

Montero

WPN,
I have personally shot several hundred head of game with monometal bullets as well as jacketed lead bullets of every concievable style of manufacture, with the purpose of comparing performance. I have also witnessed an even larger number of game shot with these different types of bullets. I can make the following statement confidently:

Given similar shot placement, caliber and speed, the more weight a bullet sheds, the more meat damage you will see. In one comparison we made, we shot springbuck with a 223, 22-250 and a 220 Swift. The 223 and Swift used 40gr HV bullets at 3800fps and 4300fps. The 22-250 used 55gr jacketed bullets at 3640fps. The damage on the 223 and 220 Swift carcasses was difficult to tell apart and compared to the 22-250 less than half of the damage seen with the jacketed 55gr bullet.

Another cause of meat damage is bone fragments. In most cases, if a large bone is hit with a monometal bullet, a lot of damage is seen. Perhaps more than what one gets with a similar weight and caliber jacketed bullet.

Tumbling bullets will usually be extremely destructive and this is an important reason why heavy monometal bullets should be avoided. A 180gr .30 cal monometal bullet is almost the same length as a 220gr jacketed bullet. It is barely stable in a 1:10" twist and, because it is less likely to shorten as much as a jacketed bullet on impact, will probably tumble on impact and result in substantial damage. The higher the impact speed, the more likely a mono will be to tumble. If, for example a 150 or 160gr mono is used in a fast .30 cal rifle, the damage will be less, despite the higher speed.

Meat damage? Avoided because of extreme destruction? I knew there are meat hunters in Africa to whom every ounce of meat is important, didn't know they had computers.

There are professional shooters who cull venison for the meat market. They obtain permits to cull at night with shooting lamps and shoot mostly head shots. Meat damage is of no concern to them.

There are many more hunters who do not have harvesting permits and are obliged to shoot by day. Distances are greater than at night and often game is on the move. This prevents one from shooting for the head. If I go out with an order for 20 or 30 springbuck and pay the landowner per kilogram, I had better be concerned about meat damage. When using monometal bullets, I gain an average of just over 3kg meat per carcass compared to jacketed bullets. 30 springbuck x 3kg = 90kg and at R16.00 per kg, I save R1440.00 ($200.00) by using monometal bullets.

Even if I take only one springbuck or blesbuck on a hunt for myself, I would rather have the extra 3kg of meat than not. In the Eastern Cape a springbuck dresses out to between 12 and 18kg. 3Kg is a substantial gain any way you look at it.

How could any bullet damage 6 lbs of meat on a springbock unless he was shot thru both hams?

If you shoot a springbuck through both back legs, you will throw away considerably more than 6lbs of meat. More like 12 to 15lbs.

A quarter front shot with a jacketed bullet that does not hit any bone but goes a bit high, will usually lose you the backstraps, the offside shoulder and a lot of the neck. 3 to 4 kg easily. The same shot with a mono, almost nothing. I have seen a broadside ribcage shot on a springbuck taken with a 270 with a 130gr jacketed bullet, amputate the offside back ham completely.

When I shoot for the freezer, I use the smallest and lightest mono that I know will get the job done.

Well, Gerard , I now understand that you truly are hunting smaller antelope for profit/meat and can understand your reasoning. However, I suspect that most posters on AR for African Hunting are more concerned with quick kills/quick stops on larger game, and that very few of them are concerned about loss of meat due to bullet destruction rather than loss of meat due to failure of recovery, or loss of more important things due to failure to stop dangerous game. I shall leave it at that.

All I know is that the new MRX bullets had better be F@%$*&% magic!! I looked at a box in the Sportsman's Wearhouse today, $32.00 for 20 .308 cal 180gr bullets. I think my TSX 180 grain bullets that go 3100FPS and print groups well under 1 inch all the time do just fine. I will only buy greater than 1.00 per projectile on big boar ammo.

I just returned from Nambia. I used a 300 WM with Barnes 200 TSX for gemsbok (3),mountain zebra, and black widlebeast. Amazing performance, in retrospect the 180's would have worked just fine. I used a 30-06 with 150 TSX for hartebeast and springbok, again, exceptional performance, recovered bullets looked just like what you see in their reloading maunal. The TSX will serve you well. Good luck on your hunt, Russ Green.

SGraves,
You are right, the requirement of the trophy hunter disregards meat damage entirely. I was addressing the direct question raised by WPN regarding meat damage and speed. You must consider that the meat hunter and the trophy hunter has this in common: Both require the quick recovery of the animal. There would be little point in attempting to save 3kg of meat and in the process lose the entire animal. Meat hunters are also bound by the rule that says if you fire on it and draw blood, you have bought it.

The difference between the local meat hunter and the foreign trophy hunter is that the visitor does not always have the luxury of choosing the rifle/cal to suit the specific game that will be hunted. He has to make do with the caliber appropriate to the largest game he will shoot.