This past year in Africa I got an opportunity to use both the Nosler AccuBond bullets and the Barnes which were TTSX. While both performed well, the Barnes, at least in this case, did a bit better in penetration and better in the bullet maintaining its integrity. So I am looking at some Barnes for the 300 Weatherby.

While I am going to continue to use Nosler too, I thought I might load some for my 300 Weatherby for use on heavier game like elk or moose or on African game up to eland size. I have always just shot the factory Weatherby loaded ammo in this rifle.

What have you found worked the best in the Barnes bullets as far as weight and particular bullet?

My first thought is for the 180 grain TTSX. But I don't know why the TSX wouldn't be just as good. And the TSX is available as a factory load from Weatherby, where as the TTSX is not.

I had read some reports on the TSXs that reminded me of my earlier days with Barnes. Apparently the bullets worked well at ranges past 150 yards or so. But inside of 125 yards they found some just penciled through without expanding and required more follow up shots. Maybe that was from the extra velocity of the Weatherby at closer range.

For my use I would think ranges from 50 yards to 300 yards is 95% of the use and shots . I would prefer just one bullet for it.

While I don't have much real experience with Barnes, the TTSX I shot did open to look like a Barnes factory flyer photo. I don't always put a lot of faith in little polymer tips, but at least the ones I used and saw worked.

I would think that more velocity with the Barnes bullets is a good thing at the ranges most game is taken as in my 50 to 300 yard example.

So what do you guys use and recommend from Barnes in the 300 Weatherby? Thanks.

My experience is with 338WM and 225TTSX. They work great, do extensive internal damage, and almost always exit. They do not have a problem expanding.

quote:

I had read some reports on the TSXs that reminded me of my earlier days with Barnes. Apparently the bullets worked well at ranges past 150 yards or so. But inside of 125 yards they found some just penciled through without expanding and required more follow up shots. Maybe that was from the extra velocity of the Weatherby at closer range

Absolutely makes no sense that bullet would not expand at a higher velocity when it would expand at a lower velocity.

I've had 100% excellent performance with TSX's in 7 mag, 375 mag, 458 Lott and several others, both NA and Africa. That includes buff. The plastic tip improves the BC, but not enough to measure in trajectories under 400 yards. I don't know if Barnes uses them to improve BC, or expansion, or just for marketing. You could call Barnes and talk with a tech. I've found them to be very competent and helpful.

Barnes Vor-TX ammo is now available in 180 gr TTSX

quote:

Absolutely makes no sense that bullet would not expand at a higher velocity when it would expand at a lower velocity.

Exactly.

Me thinks that a lot of those "pencil-through" testimonies are actually cases where the front end 'blew the petals' at high velocity, the remaining blunt cylinder and the free moving petals then did massive damage in the vital area, and the blunt cylinder then punched through the far side leaving a relatively small exit wound for people to build a story on.

PS: blunt cylinders produce a permanent wound channel considerably in excess of the cylinder diameter. See Rathcoombe's "Shooting holes in wounding theory" for lots of details and tests.

^^^^

Yes that was my thought too - that the higher velocity would help the Barnes expand even better.

But my total experience was with 2 shots. the one recovered bullet looked like it came from one of the Barnes advertisements in terms of bullet expansion and petals and in weight too. Both of those were TTSX bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by Terry Blauwkamp:
Barnes Vor-TX ammo is now available in 180 gr TTSX

I saw that too. Thanks.

I think I will give Barnes a call in a day or so too.

I haven't yet sent for 300 Wby dies. In many ways I would just as soon continue to use the Wby ammo or a very good factory load.

While not in a 300 Wby, I've used the 180 grain TSX in my 300 Win Mag at roughly 3100 fps, both here on elk hunts and in Africa.

I've never seen a problem with bullet expansion from 30 yards on a duiker to 429 yards on a vaal rhebok and everything in between: bull elk, kudu, wildebeest, etc.

On my last trip to RSA, I was able to recover two bullets. One from a common reedbuck and one from a blesbuck. I've attached a picture.



You'll notice the close shot blew all the petals off. Even the long shot only had one petal remaining.

I would guess that adding the tip to the TTSX would do nothing but further exacerbate the shearing off of the petals with an initial violent expansion. But, that's just a guess since I don't have personal experience with the TTSX.

Some will say that the petal shearing is a failure of the bullet. However, these same people love the new CEB bullets, which in my opinion are acting in the same way as the Barnes offerings.

Thanks graybird ^^^.

I just don't have any real Barnes experience, besides those 2 shots with the TTSX.

I had long ago tried the Barnes, maybe 25 years ago, and at that time I had accuracy issues and fouling in the rifles I was using them in. I also took a couple of deer with them but not with good results. I realize they aren't at their best on softer game. But I had to try them somewhere.

Another factor at the time was I didn't have nearly the reloading experience or equipment that I have today either.

But I went right back to the Nosler in hand loaded rounds and continued to use the Weatherby factory ammo in the Weatherby chambered rifles. I didn't use any Barnes since.

I don't think the Weatherby is any better, or worse, for that matter than any of the 300s. It is just what I have. But I did have the idea that the Barnes should hold up better with the high velocity if you made a closer shot. Some years back I did have a very close shot with the Weatherby and it did cross my mind that the bullet might just fragment. It did end up doing the job though.

After such great experience with the TTSX I was hoping that Weatherby loaded it. But I am going to get some Weatherby loaded TSX and see how they go. I can always fall back to the 200 grain Partition if I need. But the Barnes was just better from my limited sample of 2.

I have experience with the TTSX in smaller calibers 6 and 7mm. I like the tip on these to ensure expansion upon impact. In my experiences, the tip isn't necessarily required for .308 and up. Also, I'd say the bullets Barnes was supplying 25 years ago are vastly different than the offerings of today.

Yes I agree. And the newer ones changed my mind too. Assuming they shoot well and not as bad fouling as before which I also think is greatly improved too.

I was also thinking the tip would initiate that expansion both on the close and the further shots too. I don't worry too much about any missing petals. The AccuBonds did the job but recovering them and comparing them to the recovered Barnes set me to thinking about this to try and to work on later.

Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with either the TSX, TTSX, Partition or AccuBond along with many other bullets. I'd let the rifle decide which it prefers, and not think twice about it.

I've used the 168 TTSX Barnes launched at 3375 fps from a 300 RUM on 11 elk and 4 pronghorn and have yet to find a bullet. I've not found them lacking in performance but like I said, I'v never found a bullet.

I know Barnes will usually out-penetrate most others but you'll have to decide if that's important to YOUR application.

Zeke

^^^ Thanks Zeke. Thats 150 fps over about what my maximum velocity with 180s would be.

If I buy a set of dies then I pretty much am set on working with the TTSXs. But I was trying to sneak around loading for it.

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:
Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with either the TSX, TTSX, Partition or AccuBond along with many other bullets. I'd let the rifle decide which it prefers, and not think twice about it.

Agreed. I am not fretting any over continuing to use the Nosler's. It was really just to try the Barnes, and in something with a bit higher velocity.

.065 to .075 off the lands, and they all shoot

I used 180 gr TTSX in my .300 Weatherby in Africa on Zebra, Kudu, gemsbok, and smaller animals, never needed more than one shot including a zebra at 350+. Also used them on elk and moose and have had excellent results. They're my go to round.

Yes - y'all are going to make me go buy some dies yet. Thank you RJ and J. ^^^^^

Take a look at the Barnes 175 LRX. Typical Barnes performance with a high BC, which should be a plus in your Weatherby! memtb

I might do that too. But it seemed when I had looked those LRX seemed to have the most negative reviews from users. I didn't really try to read and see why though.

The 168 TTSX is a great bullet in my 300 wby. My elk guide in NM went straight to his Cabelas catalog and ordered them for his wby! This after watching my elks reaction to rhe shot and rhe damage seen during cleaning. At the shot he askes me "where did the elk go" it dropped so fast at impact!

That 168 ^^ is a good bullet. That was my comparison bullet that I referred to in the original post. But it was fired in a 300 WSM.

I also had superb results with the 210 TTSX but from a 338-06. Took this load to Zimbabwe and had one shot kills on sable zebra waterbuck blue wildebeste bushbuck and bushpig.

I have never been able to get cup/core boat-tail bullets to shoot well in any of our .300 Roys (2 700s, 1 Mk5). Am pretty sure I read here on AR that this was just the way of things. So we have always used flat based projos for the Roys.

Have never tried monometals, but the TSX, TTSX, and LRX all appear to have boat tails. The LRX appears to have a longer tapered heel section.

So am wondering how they would shoot in a freebored .300 barrel, and if the LRX would do as well as the other two?

My 26" mark v shoots less than MOA with the 168 TTSX. Yes only a sample of one.

I saw that too about the boattails Sam. That is a great question too. Thanks and maybe some of the other guys have some inputs too.

Thanks too MG ^^.

If I have to load these after reading all of these good posts what powders do you guys like with the Barnes bullets and the 300 Wby?

I have 7828SSC, some Norma MRP, and my favorite that I hoard for hunting use only in some other rifles which is Winchester 780.

My first thought was the 7828 SSC. I have heard guys say that in spite of the somewhat more density of the SSC, that they believe the regular 7828 works best. As I haven't loaded the Wby I could never say. I only have the SSC on hand though at this time.

I also felt like that with Norma loading the factory Weatherby ammo that the MRP was well worth trying in the 300 Wby. Of course I know they use different lots for the factory loads.

I will be using the Weatherby brass and the Fed 215 Gold Medal Mag primers if I do load them.

Thanks.

I have used 180 grain original X-bullets with IMR-7828 (not SSC) to good effect. VERY fast, and less than 1" at a hundred yards. Is there that much difference between regular 7828 and SSC? I'd definitely give it a try. Mine are a little compressed. Might be perfect with SSC.

I went and looked more closely at the various Barnes specs. A good thing about both the the 168 TTSX and the 175 TTSX LR is that they are shorter and could fit a mag length easier and allow for more COL adjustment some too if you needed it.

I've been using IMR 4831 in my 300 Wby with 175 gr Berger VLD Hunting bullets. Not pushing them hard, only 2800 fps, but getting less than 1 MOA at 200 yards. Deer drop in their tracks.

I've been using Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets in my .300 Weatherby since 2010. Accuracy wise, the 168 and 180 grain TSX and the 168 gr TTSX all shoot MOA or less in my rifle.

COAL in my rifle is limited by the magazine.

I've used the 168 gr TSX on one bull elk and 3 Texas exotics. All were one shot DRT kills with complete bullet pass throughs.

My standard hunting bullet now is the 168 gr TTSX at 3250 fps. I've used them on one bull elk, two African hunts, and a New Zealand hunt. Only two of those 15 animals needed a finishing shot.

Most of those bullets completely passed through the animals, including 3 that were shot at over 300 yards. I have never found a "penciled" hit from any of the animals that I have shot with TSX/TTSX bullets.

These are the only .30 caliber TTSX bullets that I have recovered.


I also used 270 grain TSX on 13 animals and 300 grain TSX bullets in my .375 RUM on 5 animals on two other hunts in Africa. Shots ranged from 20 to 348 yards, and again most hits were complete pass throughs, no pencils, and I only recovered these 3 bullets.

Thank you Buf. Nice work. ^^^^

I haven't ordered any yet but I did look more at the Barnes 175's which are apparently designated by Barnes for longer range. Not that I am shooting longer ranges, but does that LRX mean it is a deeper hollow point to allow it to expand at lower velocities similar to what Nosler does too?

It may just be that Barnes wanted to get a BC up there by the Nolser Accubonds in the 180 grain class too. So maybe there is some marketing in these bullets too. Which is fine by me as long as it does the job.

Is there other significant differences for these LRX bullets versus the TTSX?

Thanks guys.

I went thru an entire 50 rounds of the LRX IN A 7-08 and never got a decent group. If u go that route make sure the rifle twist is within the Barnes noted minimum required twist if u go with that bullet.

Thanks MG.

Another thing I got to thinking about after I posted that was that for the ranges I would be shooting in actual hunting situations most of time would be in the 100- 300 yard range, with some shots possibly less, and it is possible a very few out to 400, that I would still have reasonably high velocities from the Weatherby. Therefore the TTSX might be the better choice if indeed the LRX is designed to expand at lower velocities. I should have plenty of velocity to work with the TTSX and probably select the 180 grain TTSX. The 180 gr bullet fired from the Weatherby should be still at approximately 2500 fps at 400 yards.

As much good feedback as is reported on the 168 though I should give those a try too. On first glance I would have thought the 168s to be somewhat light for the Weatherby's, so it has been excellent feedback from the thread. Thanks to all the guys.

TexKD,

I had the same thoughts about the "light" weight of the 168 TTSX for my 300 RUM but Randy Brooks is a personal friend and he said I'd not be disappointed in the performance. He said it performs like a "bigger" bullet than it actually is and I certainly believe he's completely right.
(I forgot to add a couple elk that my wife shot, into my total, with my rifle. I'm up to 13 with that one load/gun!)

Accuracy is stellar too. I ended up shooting some spectacular groups with the 168 TTSX in his tunnel!

I've used lots of the 180 TSX in my 300 Win Mag with excellent results too. Both bullets seem to just work!

Zeke

Did some shooting with my 300 ultra this weekend across my chrono. Some test loads all using RL 25.

My rifle is a stainless Model 70. It shoots all the loads under an inch. Rifle likes RL 25!
All data was at about 70F.

168 TTSX @ 3465 FPS
180 NP @ 3385 FPS
180 Accubond @ 3360 FPS
200 NP @ 3212 FPS.
Have had some issue finding some 200 accbonds and was told they shipped but did not arrive to load prior to my testing.
Was surprised at the accuracy of the NP's.
Taking this rifle on a Alberta whitetail hunt this Fall.
A little concerned about the 180 Accubonds @ 3360 FPS. Has been my long range Texas whitetail load.
It does make a mess of everything you shoot with it. The Deer up north are a little larger than our Texas variety.

EZ

I wouldn't worry about the 180 Accubonds in the 300 RUM. I used that combination on an Australian cull and shot Buffalo, a scrub bull and a coastal grizzly with it as well. Some of those shots were at very close range. A whitetail isn't going anywhere but down. Count on it making a mess, and trophy buck live weights of 300 plus pounds.

Thanks for the confidence!

EZ

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
I wouldn't worry about the 180 Accubonds in the 300 RUM. I used that combination on an Australian cull and shot Buffalo, a scrub bull and a coastal grizzly with it as well. Some of those shots were at very close range. A whitetail isn't going anywhere but down. Count on it making a mess, and trophy buck live weights of 300 plus pounds.

quote:

Originally posted by eezridr:
Did some shooting with my 300 ultra this weekend across my chrono. Some test loads all using RL 25.

My rifle is a stainless Model 70. It shoots all the loads under an inch. Rifle likes RL 25!
All data was at about 70F.

168 TTSX @ 3465 FPS
180 NP @ 3385 FPS
180 Accubond @ 3360 FPS
200 NP @ 3212 FPS.
Have had some issue finding some 200 accbonds and was told they shipped but did not arrive to load prior to my testing.
Was surprised at the accuracy of the NP's.
Taking this rifle on a Alberta whitetail hunt this Fall.
A little concerned about the 180 Accubonds @ 3360 FPS. Has been my long range Texas whitetail load.
It does make a mess of everything you shoot with it. The Deer up north are a little larger than our Texas variety.

EZ

Interesting. Those loads are sizzling. In my experience any of those will flatten a whitetail. Even the biggest white tails.

Thanks for the data too.

I haven't been loading shooting mine yet. First there is rain.

And then there is the part where I want to get my 300 Weatherby Model 70 restocked from its original stock to maybe a McMilan (maybe the Supergrade?) or even a Echols Legend.

But I prefer the stocks with a smaller grip and wrist and the stocks seem to still be on long lead times. To have Hill Country Rifle do the work would likely be 8-9 months. So I haven't got primed to go test bullets.

If any one wants to add in on the stock(s) please do.

Thanks.