I was thinking about trying the .308 180 gr tsx bullet. However, a couple of things have kept me from doing so. Because of the bullets all copper construction, they are comparitively longer than lead core bullets of the same weight. It seems that they would be harder to stabilize. i would be reloading them in a 3oo win mag. I would have to conform to standard oal since my gun has a detachable box mag. It seems that the bullet would be seated past the end of the ogive curve, resulting in a tendency to fall into the case neck. Another thing that concerns me is the loss of powder space, as I like to use max loads of slow burning powders and am not into compressing loads. Has anyone had experience with the tsx in the 300 win mag and how did they perform? Also, has anyone tried the new MRX bullets. Some of the other "premium" polymer tipped bullets{scirroco and ballistic tips} claim to be effective elk medicine, but they simply lose too much of their weight for me. How do the MRX's compare in terms of weight retention?

I just had a problem with 7mm Barnes triple x bullets. When seated to correct max OAL, they were to long and contacted the riflings in the barrel. After sticking one in the barrel, I pushed them deeper twice. I made up 4 different loads, consisting of 32 rounds total. They all tumbled except 1.

After contacting Barnes' customer service, they said that there was a known issue of tumbling of the 175 grain 7mm bullets at lower altitudes. If I returned the unused portion, they will replace them with 160 grain which have no such problems. When asked about the excessive depth of seating, they said that there was no known problems.

I have had great luck using the 180gr tsx in my 300ultramags.In spite of the longer length,they consistantly produce 5/8" groups in both rifles and produce 40fps more than any other bullet than I have tried while using less powder to do it.
As far as the 7mmremmag is concerned,I know of two individuals that used the 140gr tsx last year to take elk and moose.Accuracy was very good and the performance on game was every bit as good as the 175gr partition.

The 180 TSX is no longer than the 180 Accubond
Check out these 300 yard groups from my 300 Win Mag and the 180 TSX

http://longrangehunting.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat...arch=true#Post109677

Hey molar

Buy a box of 180 TSX, load some up with 75.5 gr RL22, seat 'em out as far as you can to fit the mag or .05" from the lands and you'll never look back. No problem with falling into the case, not even close. No loss of powder space.

Let's go through the numbers for some 180 gr bullets:

bullet / bullet OAL / distance from ogive to base / distance from ogive to tip (meplat)

partition spitzer / 1.268" / .652" / .616"
barnes triple shock / 1.387" / .810" / .577"
accubond / 1.387" / .750" / .637"
fail safe / 1.298" / .757" / .541"

now the most important number is the middle one which tells us how far back from the ogive the bullet will extend toward and into the case. Theoretically you can seat that point to reach the lands or back as you prefer.

The TSX is indeed the longer bullet from the ogive measurement to the base. If you add the .05" you want to set the bullet back and allow .01" that you would seat the Accubond, then the TSX will add another .04" into the case. Comparing the Accubond to the TSX, that would mean that the TSX would extend .810-.750+.04=.1" farther into the case.

However, the COAL dimensions will be different because the last number now becomes important. That is the amount the bullet extends from the ogive to the meplat. Comparing the same 2 bullets we see that the Accubond extends .637-.577=.06" further than the TSX to which we add the .04" of less seating depth and the AB will have a COAL of .06+.04=.1" longer.

So the Accubond will be .1" longer COAL but the TSX will stick into the case .1" further.

Man, what did I just say, I need to get a life! See you guys later.