Of late, I had become aware that Barnes had changed the BCs published on their webpage for the TSX bullets:

Barnes TSX Page

To be honest, I originally figured Barnes was getting a bit more realistic about the BCs they decided to publish, but as I was about to do some ballistic calculations for TSX loads, I dropped them a mail with the following question

quote:

Dear Barnes,

why have you modified the BC listed for the .308 cal 168 grs TSX on your
website?? You used to list the BC of said bullet as .476, now it is listed
as .404. Which is correct??

Other TSX BCs (e.g. .257 cal 100 grs) seem to have remained the same...
- mike

Barnes kindly came back with the following reply:

quote:

Hi Mike

Many of the new TSX Bullet have had the ogive's changed. Most of them went
to a more rounded tangent ogive that gives us better accuracy. Unfortunately
this design reduces the BC values. Coupled with the Tripple Shock annelure
rings that also give a slight reduction of the BC value we are seeing an
average drop of 10% to 15% with a few exceptions.

We are currently retesting all of the TSX bullets and will make the new
values available as they are shot. The new catalog has about 1/3 of the new
values posted. They are also available on our web site. If you have any
questions about a specific bullet, please feel free to call or email.

We Aim to please, reloading is a great hobby, enjoy it.

Ty Herring
Barnes Bullets
Customer Service Director

If I take this at face value, I have a hard time deciding whether it is 1) good for Barnes to improve (an already very well shooting) product??, or 2) that it is a pain in the posterior that they change their bullet setup, as this may invalidate all sorts of data painstakingly established through tests...

Barnes has a bit of a tradition changing their bullets - was there not something about them changing the number of bands on (some of) the TSXs a while back??

What do you think of this issue??

- mike

They say you can't stop progress. I would choose improved accuracy (and consistancy) over a slightly lower BC, but then I don't do any long shot hunting, at least yet. As a result I don't often use the BC data for anything other than paper comparisons. Once in a while I will shoot the same load at targets at varying distances to see what "my" BC for that bullet is, in terms of drop that is. I think a lot of the data is mathematically, rather than empirically, derived anyway and I don't use it in any practical manner. Some might ask, "but what if that super trophy is 400 yards off, what will you do?" I don't shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
They say you can't stop progress. I would choose improved accuracy (and consistancy) over a slightly lower BC, but then I don't do any long shot hunting, at least yet. As a result I don't often use the BC data for anything other than paper comparisons. Once in a while I will shoot the same load at targets at varying distances to see what "my" BC for that bullet is, in terms of drop that is. I think a lot of the data is mathematically, rather than empirically, derived anyway and I don't use it in any practical manner. Some might ask, "but what if that super trophy is 400 yards off, what will you do?" I don't shoot.

I've been in that situation, I shot, got the
stupid deer too. I say he was stupid because
only a stupid deer would stand next to a 400yard target stand 20min after I check-sighted in my rifle against a target on that stand.

AllanD

The "changes" he mentioned were going from XBT's to TSX's. They aren't changing all their TSX's right now--they're just finally giving them accurate BC's.

I like a company that developes a good bullet design and keeps producing it long term. I don't want to go to the bother of developing a load only to have the company change the bullet design and, even worse, call it by the same name it went by before. I'm a bit sick of Barnes changing things so frequently. I just placed an order for bullets today and didn't include any Barnes offerings in large part for this reason.

I also have not gotten the best accuracy from Barnes bullets. It is adequate but not the best. And yes, I've used Barnes bore cleaner to make sure my barrels were meticulously clean and I still have gotten better accuracy with other bullets (at significantly less expense) in every gun I've tried them in so far. I'm going to try them in a few more guns (why I'm not sure) and if I don't get better results, will probably give up on them. All that said, I do like they way the perform on game.

quote:

Originally posted by Jon A:
The "changes" he mentioned were going from XBT's to TSX's. They aren't changing all their TSX's right now--they're just finally giving them accurate BC's.

Jon A is correct!! Call or email Tye and he will confirm this.

quote:

Jon A is correct!! Call or email Tye and he will confirm this.

If they aren't changing the TSX that's good. They DID change the original X's before without changing the product number and this did me no good.

On another note though, If they aren't actually changing the bullets, Ty is an awfully inept communicator. His E-mail above indicates clearly that they were retesting and updating the data for the TSX.

Gabe

I think I would actually prefer if their bullets stayed the same, and they just re-iterated (or corrected, as it may be) their BC numbers. Barnes has been (in)famous for publishing high BC values, probably in the name of a positive marketing message. I don't have a problem with them correcting this data, after all a realistic trajectory calculation is better than an optimistic one...

I mailed with Ty again after I had received his reply, and his answer also goes a bit in the direction of what you are indicating. Somehow I can't get away from the feeling Barnes did not want to simply own up to correcting BCs, which were previously too high.... I also see Ty's point about simple trajectory calculations not being the final word. The guys who are truely into long range shooting seem to be rather anal about barometric pressure, temperature etc etc.

My reply:

quote:

Thanks Ty,

Does that mean I can still figure on the old BC values for TSX bullets I
have bought up until about a year ago??

In particular, I primarily use the following TSX bullets:
- .308 cal 168 grs TSX, BC = .476 (changed to .404 on your website)
- .277 cal 130 grs TSX, BC = .466 (this remains the value listed on your
website)
- .257 cal 100 grs TSX, BC = .420 (this remains the value listed on your
website)
- .375 cal 270 grs TSX, BC = .503 (don't know if this was changed??)

I can certainly appreciate you'd like to make your product (even) better. On
the other hand, any time you change your bullet setup, you'll invalidate an
awful lot of data painstakingly established through countless tests by your
existing customers. The .308 cal 168 grs TSX was always advertized by you as
set up with a "match" profile, and indeed it has shot very well for me. In
the light of this, it is hard to see how you could significantly improve on
accuracy on that particular bullet??

- mike

And Ty's...

quote:

Hi Mike

The .308 cal 168gr "Match Grade" TSX is one of the few that did not have the
ogive changed. The rings alone make the BC Value fall in that particular
case.

At the time the bullets were made into TSX's, the ogives were changed too.
We have been reshooting the BC values as we make each new batch of TSX
Bullets.

This means all of your hard work was not in vein but some of the values are
listed as the old value and consiquently they are not correct.

By reducing the old values by 15% this will allow you to make more correct
trajectory charts.

BC values are a funny thing. Depending on the rifle and conditions on a
given day you might see the BC value change by 40 points for a given load.
They are only designed to get you close. The best value for you can be
determined by shooting various ranges and setting the value to match your
actual trajectory.

We Aim to please, reloading is a great hobby, enjoy it.

Ty Herring
Barnes Bullets
Customer Service Director

- mike

My opinion is that with the new mrx coming out they had to change the bc's of the tsx. I think it's all a smokescreen to cover the very overly optimistic bc's they had before. I used to love Barnes bullets, and still have some, but I haven't seen anything for my usage that a accubond won't do just as well, kill the animal, usually quicker, and is easier to find a load for, not to mention cheaper.

It appears that Barnes beta tests their products by releasing them to the public. I prefer to purchase a product on which all the R&D has been completed before release so that I can continue to buy the same (perfected) product year in and year out.

I like Barnes bullets and am glad to see them investing in better designs. I do however get tired of not knowing if a bullet will be changed every year. It takes a lot of time and effort to work loads for new bullets....I like to do it once! Barnes has a history of changing the metal material, shape, coating, even design and weight of a bullet. Maybe some day they will figure out what works and leave it alone. Until then we still have the Nosler Partition.....has not changed for years!

quote:

BC values are a funny thing. Depending on the rifle and conditions on a given day you might see the BC value change by 40 points for a given load. They are only designed to get you close. The best value for you can be determined by shooting various ranges and setting the value to match your actual trajectory.

Hey Mike, This paragraph from Ty should be included in every discussion, article or book written about Ballistic Coefficients.

It really doesn't matter what the "written" BC value was or is going to be, what matters is the actual Point-of-Impact with a specific rifle using a specific Load.

And it is extremely interesting to note Ty mentioned the BC can change from day to day. Few Bullet manufacturers would be willing to be that honest with the general public. It sure speaks well for Ty and Barnes.
---

I also know it can be frustrating to find a particular Bullet that works great and then it gets changed or is no longer available. Try to find a 30cal 165gr Speer Hot-Cor RN on the shelf.

There is only one way to avoid this trap. If a person finds a Bullet that REALLY performs well for them, then they really need to "stock up" on them.

Bullets continually change due to Dies wearing out and having to be remade, slight enhancements to the existing design, radical alterations, or manufacturers correcting faulty data(these BCs). It is just the way things work.

If Ty happens to read this thread - excellent reply to a vexing situation for a manufacturer.

Here is my bottom line conclusion. If you like it stock up. How many people got burned when Nosler quit making the Solid Base, mmmm to have 10 boxes of the 224 in 60 gr. Barnes' changes have all been to make a good product better and they seemed to have worked.

Perry

When I switched over to 180gr TSXs for my 300s, I ordered a second batch of bullets. In the box was a little note saying they had changed the ogive slightly and it would not affect accuracy but I would have to readjust my seating die and I did and they worked as advertised. Same POI. jorge