I am happy

I just talked to Ty at Barnes and the Ballistic Co-efficient on the 185 gr. TTSX is:

0.432

That is good news.

IMR-4831 is listed 67.0 gr's (2785 fps) and max. 73.5 gr's (3046 fps)

With a ballistic co-efficient of 0.432 and a min. load of 2785 fps, this bullet will perform on par with slightly more recoil than the trusted 30-06 w/180's. Trajectory will also be very similar.

With a good B.C., 73.5 gr's at 3050 fps will definately reach 400 yards and drop an elk.

I have thought about trying the 160 gr. for mule deer yet the B.C. is quite a bit less, also the 25 gr. lighter bullet will wind drift more and moving at 3300 fps is going to tear a very large wound channel. 3000 fps with a heavier bullet makes better sense and can be used on elk or moose as well as deer.

I have a hard time following barnes and their bc's. A 168 tsx 308 has a lesser bc than that and so does their own 250 tsx/338. The tip doesn't make that big of a diff and the ribs have a horrible reputation for slowing down the tsx's. I'd treat that bc with a grain of salt on the 185. I know they are longer for caliber but that just seems high to me. NO matter what they should be tested for drop at the ranges intended to be hunted anyhow so I guess whatever they say has to be proven in the actual gun anyhow. AND, of course if the bullet isn't accurate usually the bc goes down the drain big time.

Did he say what the minimum recommended velocity for expansion is?

Sounds like it may work on a 338 Federal.

You guys need to check out Michael458's test results for the .338 caliber TSX/TTSX bullets posted today; here's the hyperlink:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...43/m/2861098911/p/17

I just don't understand the purpose in using 185 gr anything in a 338 Mag. Why not just use a 180 gr bullet in a 30-06 or 300 Mag? Once the BC gets over .300, SD becomes a much more important determinant between bullets.

B.C. is about wind drift and bullet drop. S.D. is an over rated way to determine which animal is more dead,, one killed with a .30-06 or a 7mm mag, which by the way must be the 7mm mag due to higher S.D.

quote:

Originally posted by ForrestB:
I just don't understand the purpose in using 185 gr anything in a 338 Mag.

I am a broke farmer. Want 1 gun, and preferably 1 bullet for everything that I hunt. Mainly mule deer and elk.

I seriously can't afford to shoot 2 seperate bullet weights the way I prefer. That would mean 2 different powder's and setting up out to 400 yards for each. The TTSX are just too expensive for me to do this. Using the 185 TTSX I can find the most accurate load, then set up my zero on the Accu-Range reticle and figure out the yardage of each. Then practice a couple boxes and I am finished.

quote:

Why not just use a 180 gr bullet in a 30-06 or 300 Mag?

The .338 bullets offer significantly more frontal area than the .308 when both are expanded. If I could afford 2 guns I would use the 338 Win. Mag on moose and elk and a 300 Mag. on the mule deer. The 185 TTSX would give me enough velocity to beat windage and shoot long range mule deer. Yet, it would still have enough weight to exit moose and elk.

quote:

Once the BC gets over .300, SD becomes a much more important determinant between bullets.

Dealing with such a powerful cartridge coupled with the nearly 100% weight retention of the Barnes bullets, I do not even consider SD when looking at a hunting rig. It does not even enter my mind. It is an insignificant figure with both 338 Win. Mag. power and 300 Win. Mag. power using modern bullets.

Frontal area and its ability to displace tissue, deliver shock and hemmorage is important. Weight retention is important. Ballistic co-efficient is important. Velocity in the critical 2850-3050 is important and of course accuracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Moorepower:
B.C. is about wind drift and bullet drop. S.D. is an over rated way to determine which animal is more dead,, one killed with a .30-06 or a 7mm mag, which by the way must be the 7mm mag due to higher S.D.

+1

Using these modern Barnes bullets, I propose we change the SD criteria. Using the 30-06 and the 7mm Rem. Mag. the new criteria would put both in the 2 category, meaning 2 holes in the animal. One on this side and another on the far side.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:
I think your right:

(.338)

- 185 TSX : .352

- 185 MRX : .379

- 185 TTSX: .432 ?

Something doesn't add up.

Regardless I will try the 185 TTSX and see how it does in the wind at 400 yards.

1. Hollow point flat base
2. Shorter bullet as its not monometal, more traditional BC
3. Poly tip and likely a boat tail

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
You guys need to check out Michael458's test results for the .338 caliber TSX/TTSX bullets posted today; here's the hyperlink:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...43/m/2861098911/p/17

So a 160 TTSX out of my 338 Federal at 3,000fps will penetrate one inch less than a 210 TSX at 3,200fps from a 338 Ultra Mag? Interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:
You guys need to check out Michael458's test results for the .338 caliber TSX/TTSX bullets posted today; here's the hyperlink:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...43/m/2861098911/p/17

So a 160 TTSX out of my 338 Federal at 3,000fps will penetrate one inch less than a 210 TSX at 3,200fps from a 338 Ultra Mag? Interesting.

Actually that would be the 160gr TTSX BT vis-a-vis the 185gr TTSX BT, the 210gr TSX wasn’t tested. The 225gr TSX was however tested and it penetrated eight inches more with substantially greater impact trauma than the 160gr TTSX BT. Edited: You're correct, the 210gr TSX was testing earlier, it's on page 14 along with test results of other .338 caliber bullets. My bad.

Something to understand is that Michael458’s test medium is designed to replicate a correlation between bullet performance in the test medium and in thick-skinned heavy-boned African DG and plains game. I believe Michael has stated bullets display virtually identical expansion with 20%-30% greater penetration depth in live game vis-à-vis his test medium. The thread contains pictures of bullet extracted from both test media and live game with the relating ballistics and penetration data; these pictures are scattered throughout the thread.

Checked out the 338 TTSX 160 and 185 tests.

The 160 loads are very slow. 300 fps slow in the 338 Win. Mag.

If I was going to shoot the 160 in the Win. Mag., a big part of the reason would be to max it out velocity wise for mule deer to battle wind drift.

I have been shooting a .338 Win. Mag. and 250 grain bullets for 35 years and I consider it "flat shooting" enough for a 400 yard shot at caribou and moose. The 210 grain Nosler Partition has a great reputation for long range work with the .338 Win. Mag. It also gives deep penetration near or far. If I lived in the "lower 48" and hunted with a .338 Win. Mag. I would be using it.

Nice thread here. I have been following the 'terminal ballistics' thread, too, in big bores.

As should be clear above, bullet weights with mono-metal bullets can typically be used at one level relatively lighter for the same penetration and wounding, but with flatter trajectory. A sort of 'win, win' in the bullet world.

The .338 185 TTSX with the .432 bc would be an excellent deer plus elk bullet. Excellent. They get the .bc by letting the bullet length go out a bit more but it is still very very stable in a 10" twist.
Only if you add brown bear to the equation would you want to up the ante. Then you couldn't find anything better than the 225TTSX for guaranteed penetration from all angles plus a bc of .514 for great downrange energies. The 338 WM should do about 2800 fps. The 185 TTSX can do 3100+ in 338WM.

In the 338Fed, the 185 TTSX would make a superb allround bullet, but I might want a stouter bullet and punch for walking around in Africa. Even having said this, I'm thinking I might load up some 185s in 338WM for longrange plains game, say a hartebeest or waterbuck at 300-400 yards. It's hard to beat 3100 fps for long range placement, unless one goes up to the Ultra/Lapua. The 160s would also work but they
might be a little marginal on raking shots.

In any case, with the new bullet technology, one needs to consider lighter in various calibres. 185 TTSX is not too light or a mismatch of calibre in 338. It's pretty close to Jack OConnor's beloved 130 grain in 270, but without weight loss and significantly better diameter. And it feels comforting on a shoulder, like a job well done.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

I'm thinking I might load up some 185s in 338WM for longrange plains game, say a hartebeest or waterbuck at 300-400 yards. It's hard to beat 3100 fps for long range placement, unless one goes up to the Ultra/Lapua.

The irony is Ultra/Lapua offer significantly more recoil than the Win. Mag. when attempting a 400 yard shot. The 338 Win. Mag. can be built in a typical 8.75 pound rifle to carry all day in mule deer habitat.

I have not shot the 338 Win. Mag. with the 185 TTSX but I am anticipating a nice gentle push on the shoulder even at full power with a good slow powder. The 300 Win. Mag with 180's can be a jarring snap on the shoulder at full power.

quote:

In any case, with the new bullet technology, one needs to consider lighter in various calibres. 185 TTSX is not too light or a mismatch of calibre in 338.

+1

The all copper bullets are win win:

- Extremely accurate.
- They force the bullet to be longer in a given weight increasing B.C.
- Pass-through.