The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Medium Bore Rifles TSX failureGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| TSX failure | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
Most accurate summary of the "X", it's progeny, and ilk I've ever read. My first experience with the X was watching my hunting partner make a perfect frontal chest shot on a black bear at 35 yards with a 285 grain X from a 9.3X62. Finally found the bear many hours later, but only after returning to camp for the hounds (no blood). The bullet failed EXACTLY as pictured above. "Squib" or "defective" load? Bullshit, it was just loaded with a Barnes X. That was 15 years ago. I see that they haven't gotten any better - because they can't. It absolutely amazes me that some consider the Barnes and it's kin to be "premium" bullets. Mono-metal "expanding" bullets (an oxymoron to begin with) are no more than a cheap excuse for those manufacturers who don't have the technical ability to make a decent bonded-core hunting bullet.
That deserves to be put up in flashing neon lights. --------------------------------------------- "Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder." | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, I guess I've been lucky for the last 20 years, I've been using Xs long before they where cool. I've taked game with them from 20 pound Alabama bobcats to elk, to muskox, to bison, to kudu..., I've used them in 4 different countries. In all those animals and years I've only recovered 3 bullets. ______________________ | |||
|
One of Us |
I too agree with this. I've shot a couple of 300-pound class BLACK bears at 40 and 200 yards respectively with 150-grain Nosler Partition bullets from a 20" barreled .270 Winchester, and the bullets were NOT FOUND inside the critters. I have never had a failure from a Nosler Partition bullet, but I can understand how one could lose both cores, if it struck something that turned it around, so that the the rear section acted like a big, flatnose soft point. Or if it turned sideways and the rear core was squeezed out due to its hitting a bone or some such while travelling sideways. "Bitte, trinks du nicht das Wasser. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen." | |||
|
| One of Us |
This is all very sad, as it seems we may all be struck using monolithic bullets in the near future due to the prohibitions on lead projectiles we see coming down the pike! "Bitte, trinks du nicht das Wasser. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen." | |||
|
| One of Us |
Sure, that's because the Nosler isn't a mono-metal. That means it's dense enough (lead core) that it isn't too long for caliber, and is stable enough in the target to penetrate well despite good expansion. The bullets that Montero posted above are textbook examples (specifically including the seemingly impossible lack of penetration) of what happens when one of these "expanding" monos fails. Because they lack density, they're too long for caliber, and if the hollow point plugs with hair and hide and fails to expand in the animal, one of two things happen. If they don't destabilize, they'll shoot through just about anything, and won't be recovered. If they do destabilize, the lack of penetration simply isn't believable, unless you see it for yourself. Examples of both have been covered numerous times, but Marc is absolutely right. Lots of folks want to believe in the latest snake oil, and choose to ignore the failures. --------------------------------------------- "Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder." | |||
|
Moderator |
A friend of mine almost had a hunt in RSA ruined by a bad batch of Nosler Partitions. He was shooting a 308 Winchester and the NP's were whistling through everything he shot without opening. He ended up losing a couple animals before he figured out what was going on, then had to approach the rest of the hunt as though he was shooting FMJs. No manufacturer is exempt from failures. Cheers, Chris | |||
|
one of us |
Is the rifle a custom rifle? Looks like only a 4 land/groove rifle. What I don't understand is how the rifling is apparent on the boat tail portion but ALF explains that the cut grooves in the shank are sub-caliber. Are they cut so deep that they wouldn't be exposed to the rifling but the boat tail is? This seems to be rather extraordinary to me. 3 bullets in a row, one of which is a finishing shot, yet none passed through? And all possibly tumbled? I'm not calling anyone a liar or trying to discredit anyone either but something else seems amiss here. If the rifle wears a custom barrel, I'd want to know about it's bore. I have a VERY DIFFICULT TIME believing there were 3 bullets fired at this close of a range and none passed through if indeed the loads were adequate. I have heard reports from Mark Thompson testing the standard X bullet and having them tumble on paper targets at 1000 yards. I would definitely email the pics to Barnes though. I think someone used the wrong powder. From what is reported so far, I'm doubtful that the bullets are traveling as fast as the shooter thinks they are. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yep. That's always the reaction to a description of this type of failure until you see it for yourself. I had a hard time crediting what I was seeing with my own eyes too. Had I not loaded the 9.3 ammo and chronograhed it myself.... ---------------------------------------------- "Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder." | |||
|
one of us |
Doc, I would expect the base to be slightly expanded because it will "slug up" a little under the 60,000 psi pressure. As far as the "limited penetration because they tumble" position, I find that a bit hard to swallow. Every x-bullet wound track I've ever explored shows signs of tumbling. The longest wound channel I've ever followed was 24" on an elk I hit diagonally under the spine with a 160 gr. X from a 7mag at 40 yards. 24" of penetration, tumbling and all. Someone chrono the rest of those rounds, please! JMO, Dutch. Life's too short to hunt with an ugly dog. | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, I sure hope I never see a bullet failure like this. You are correct. I wrote my position based on experience. And I've never experienced something like this. But, I'll keep on shooting the TSX until I have a profound reason not too.  I've never had a problem with their performance so far.Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| One of Us |
I agree with 500 Grains - Unless the bullet dove offcourse and tumbled, which would present the side profile and consequently the bullet would cease penetrating much sooner. Yet a bullet that tumbles inside the animal causes at least as much destruction as one that continues point-on and expands as it is supposed to. This tissue damage would be obvious, and also cause a devastating effect on the game. "Bitte, trinks du nicht das Wasser. Dahin haben die Kuhen gesheissen." | |||
|
| one of us |
how about a picture of the grizz. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
One of Us |
Where are the expansion strips on the bullets..appears there are none ? These bullets are annealed for correct hardness, maybe Barnes didn't do this batch. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I think you hit the nail on its head; this batch has most likely skipped the annealing process. Warrior | |||
|
One of Us |
I have a small wildcat that shoots 338 160 gr x bullets and just happend to find the bullet after it passed through a pig at 100 yds and smacked the side of the next pig. found the bullett laying in the dirt. this 160 x only leaves at 2400 and this one was 80% expanded passed all the way through. barnes claims 1800 will open 70% in this bullet. all the x and tsx I have recovered look just like the pictures from barnes. most of the time they wreck bone hide and organs and keep on going. recover very few. testing these in ballistic gell, water, through sheet rock, auto glass, hide ,bones, plywood never have seen anything like pencileing/ fail to expand. both tsx and x seem to work just fine. when I first read about falure I thought you meant they broke the pettals off. I have fired thousands of these and like them and they work as advertised. I sometimes see a problem with stability if bullet is too long. I find it best to drop to the next lower weight in any given caliber to shorten them up some and htey seem to hit like a much heavyer bullet anyway. this is either a defect in this batch of bullets or some load rifle combo problem. I dont think this is a failure of engineering of bullett. barnes has a no bs policy backing their product and would like to have these back and would replace them for sure. also they would probably like to have any unused ammo to test as well. VERITAS ODIUM PARIT | |||
|
One of Us |
No explanation from me?!?!?!? TSX usually expand well though. Funny though if it didn't expand why were they recovered? Usually the ney-sayers complain of pencilling in. These should have pencilled through and through and not have been recovered- WTF?!?!?!?!?! MRX ain't good shooters though. I was going to load some up for my NZ hunt, but they wouldn't shoot worth a shit. TSX work just fine in all animals- especially deer. Just shot a huge stag at 307 yards, went through and through. Same thing with a fallow at 296 yards. There are two types of people in the world: those that get things done and those who make excuses. There are no others. | |||
|
| one of us |
Interesting that over on the Big Bores forum there is a post showing what appears to be text book performance for a TSX 416! Peter. Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong; | |||
|
| one of us |
If you look a couple fo posts up in this thread you will find it said that it appears when you get to about .375 diameter the hole in the nose is large enough to give reliable expansion. But of course, right after that someone posted about a 9.3x62 that failed to open at 50 yards. There is no denying the fact that a high percentage of TSX's fail to open when compared to other bullets out there. All of these people have better things to do than make up lies about someone's sacred cow. SOme of us have really been burned by the bullet. I know of no other bullet that has so many horror stories | |||
|
| One of Us |
Affirmative. | |||
|
| Moderator |
I shot 7 plains game animals in 2005 with GSC HV bullets (similar construction/design to TSX, at least for the purposes of this discussion). A friend of mine also used my rifle to kill another impala. So a total of 8 animals. I only recovered one bullet (the rest penetrated completely) even though a few of those shots were lengthwise on some decent sized game. The one bullet I recovered was because the bullet failed to expand. It tumbled inside the waterbuck, veered from its path and was found sideways on the hide of a hind quarter. It was from my .375 H&H, loads chronied, etc.  My only point in putting this here, is that if it could happen with the GSC HV I am SURE it could happen with the TSX. I can appreciate why some might think that it would have to be a squib load, etc, but take my word for it, that is not the only explanation for recovering an unexpanded X-type bullet. Cheers, Canuck | |||
|
| One of Us |
Interesting. Good point, never thought of that. To go off on a tangent- would you think that in these type of bullet constructs, would the failure to expand be more likely to tumble or pencil through ie debunking the pencil theory? There are two types of people in the world: those that get things done and those who make excuses. There are no others. | |||
|
| one of us |
this is another recovered TSX. it was found stuck like an arrow in a buffalo's loin (back strap?). it had impacted completely perpendicular to the spine but was stopped by the muscle. it is a .416 bullet and it was an old wound. it had healed and the base, which would have been otherwise seen from the outside, had been covered (surrounded) by tissue, another failure? another squib load? maybe it was shot from too far and upon impact it had lost too much velocity and did not have enough energy to go any deeper. or maybe it had gone through another buffalo, maybe shot in a herd, and hit this buffalo standing behind. but in this case I would have expected it to be more expanded. Montero  | |||
|
| one of us |
400 Nitro Express, I take it that you are including GS Custom Bullets in the statement above. If not, I apologise and withdraw the comment below as not directed at you. Mono Metal expanding bullets, when subject to the correct quality control and when designed correctly, will expand at lower speeds and more reliably, than premium bonded core bullets. They will also return higher weight retention at higher speeds than bonded core premium bullets. In a word, the window of application is much wider. I can also assure you that making a good bonded core bullet is a breeze compared to a turned expanding bullet. As far as being a cheap excuse, you should look at the price of the machinery required to turn rather than swage. It is by far the more expensive route. Some advice: Using a 285gr mono in a 9.3x62 is a misapplication of the bullet. You are putting the blame of the failure on the bullet, where it is the choice of bullet that is at fault. Fifteen years ago we did not know any better and a lot of development has been done since. I can tell you with total confidence that, if you took that shot with a 230gr (or thereabouts) expanding mono, terminal performance would have amazed you. There is no doubt in my mind that GSC hollow points bring a measure of reliability to the table that cannot be equalled by a jacketed lead bullet. The important caveat is to use the bullet that is recommended by the manufacturer. Every complaint of bad terminal behaviour with monos I have handled in the last thirteen years, has been the result of a reloader who thought we were talking through our hats when we made recommendations. Every complaint we have had was rectified, the moment the reloader used the correct bullet for his application, or could have been if he would have been prepared to do so. In some instances, the reloader refuses to accept advice and that I can do nothing about. It is a pity that you had the bad experience but, to write off the entire mono bullet industry as snake oil salesmen, is simply illogical, given what we have seen and know today. | |||
|
| one of us |
At this point, I agree. I've been very pleased with the TSX bullets. In addition to several hunters I know that use the monometal bullets, and me, none of us have had any complaints, and collectively, we've taken deer, elk, boar, bear, moose, coyote, and antelope. I'm not sure what it takes to be classified as a "high rate of failure/non-expansion" but with a few hundred game animals between us, it hasn't happened yet.  Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| One of Us |
seems these failed bullets are recoverd from a lot of dead animals. so at what point in the death of the animal did the bullet fail? the penciling theory is not reality if it dosent open it tumbles inside and gets recovered? this is an argument that will never be solved to all peoples satisfaction. dont use them if you dont like them but I have seen nothing to make me drop them. VERITAS ODIUM PARIT | |||
|
one of us |
I have no problems believing that any bullet can fail to perform as designed including the TSXs that I've used successfully for years. The difficult part of these failure for me to understand is that all three bullets failed in the exact same manner when shot at 300Mag velocities, at short range. Frank "I don't know what there is about buffalo that frightens me so.....He looks like he hates you personally. He looks like you owe him money." - Robert Ruark, Horn of the Hunter, 1953 NRA Life, SAF Life, CRPA Life, DRSS lite | |||
|
| One of Us |
good point fjold it has to be a bad batch of bullets or a bad rifle bullet powdr twist combo or some of both. barnes did not build it to do that. I also dont think its what the shooter had in mind. send them back and let the mfg of the bullet see if they can tell you what went wrong. VERITAS ODIUM PARIT | |||
|
| One of Us |
My own blief on exit wounds is that it does not necessarily depend on bullet construction. Rather, it depends on what the bullet takes with it as it exits: no bone, "pencil" exit; bone in/out, big wound. I agree and have killed a bunch of game with them. Anybody want to buy some leftover (and inaccurate).308 caliber partitions, TB bear claws or MRXs? There are two types of people in the world: those that get things done and those who make excuses. There are no others. | |||
|
| one of us |
I have sent an email to Ty at Barnes, refering him to this post, the story and the pictures. I am not sure if he will pop into this thread... Reading all your opinions have changed my mind and I now think, according to Alf's theory that the hollow point was plugged, failed to open, and tumbled. That it happened three times in a row is strange but it did, the proof being in the pudding. You may shoot a thou animals with TSX and not have one fail. But then you may shoot three and have the three fail. I have shot my share of animals with GS HV bullet and they all performed flawlessly. Then you can see one failed to Canuck. I like the TSX, and I believe it to be one of the best bullets available, but I do not think they are infallible. An expanding or splintering monolitick is the closest we will ever get to perfection and we simply ask too much of a bullet, too many different conditions, too many variables, etc. Montero | |||
|
| One of Us |
Should have used a failsafe or the newer improved version XP3. I haven't heard of many failures relating to those bullets. | |||
|
| one of us |
What do you have in TBBCs and how much? ______________________ | |||
|
| one of us |
Hi Montero, There is always a reason why things happen. If at first there seems to be none, it is a matter of applying the mind and the right knowledge to solve what seems unexplainable. In the case of Canuck's 375, a good pointer was the fact that the nose of the bullet was bent and the coating was abraded, both at an angle that indicated that the bullet arrived at the target at an extreme angle of attack (yawing badly). There is not a bullet available that would perform normally under such circumstances. A jacketed lead bullet would break to abnormally high levels and may even not penetrate very far. The only chance of a reliable outcome with that particular 375, would have been with a shorter bullet. In fact, it would have been the solution to get the bullet to the target nose forward instead of travelling somewhat sideways as it did. Here is my take on that particular incident. | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, I guess I got lucky or the bullet I used still performed somehow. Maybe it's because the animal was a doe antelope. Anyway, I dumped her with an exteme quartering away angle using a 270 with 150 btips. Shot was 234 yards. Bullet entered behind last rib and exited out the front chest. She died right there. It's a medium to 'slow' load. 1 grain over minimum if I recall using 4831. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
| Moderator |
Gerard, Your explanation makes the most sense to me and I am inclined to beleive it. I dug through some of my old pictures and found an example of a soft point that did not perform well when shot at a high angle of incidence. This is an 8mm remington core-lokt that my Dad recovered from a bison that he shot in the neck at an angle...it did not penetrate far at all..  Feel free to use it as an example of your point. Cheers, Canuck | |||
|
| Moderator |
Doc, To be fair Gerard did say "perform normally", and it is possible that the expansion of your bullet was "abnormal" despite the fact that it exited. Under slightly different circumstances it might have behaved wildly differently. Our anecdotal examples are definitely not laboratory controlled experiments. I would expect that given the number of variables involved in every field shot that the range of outcomes will vary just as much. Or in other words, not every extreme angle shot will result in the exact same or even predictable bullet behaviour. My bullet failure population of 1 or 2 is no more statistically valid than all of the small populations of bullets that did not fail under what may have been similar circumstances. I think that it is probably safe to say though, that in extreme angle situations the likelihood of issues with bullet perforance goes up substantially. Cheers, Canuck | |||
|
| one of us |
I think that the most difficult part of the terminal ballistics event is getting the bullet to transition from air to tissue without destabilising. If the bullet can be made to penetrate the target, along the line of the flight path, without the bullet axis deflecting, for just one or two bullet lengths, the battle is won. Even if the angle of incidence is extreme, such as on the angled shot described by Doc, if the bullet transitions correctly, the result is good. With a bullet that is yawing with a low gyroscopic stability factor, there is little chance of a good transition. A high angle of attack on a bullet, combined with a high angle of incidence when it strikes, is guaranteed to spoil your day. In English I guess that means broadside with a yawing bullet might still work but quarter going away with a yawing bullet results in a tracking job. | |||
|
| Moderator |
A very quotable quote. Thanks for the clarification, Gerard.  Cheers, Canuck | |||
|
One of Us |
Angle of incidence: A fixed number in degrees of the angle between the wing's chord and the longitudinal axis of an aircraft. Angle of attack: The angle between the wing's chord and the relative airflow in flight. Explain how that translates into bullet performance as bullets have no wings. Angle of incidence I can sort of understand but AOA? I'm all ears. jorge USN (ret) DRSS Verney-Carron 450NE Cogswell & Harrison 375 Fl NE Sabatti Big Five 375 FL Magnum NE DSC Life Member NRA Life Member | |||
|
one of us |
Gerard's explainations make the most sense of anything I've ever heard to explain this. It drives me nuts when I hear people blaming failure to expand on the "point plugging with hair or tissue". We're shooting mammals... by definition they're covered with hair and made of tissue!!! If a bullet won't perform after it goes through hair and enters tissue we might as well stay home. Thanks Gerard. I've skinned around 1,500 medium and big game animals and can only remember two failures to expand. They from a Failsafe .44 pistol bullet and a RN Hornady SP from a .416 Rem. Occational failures just happen. I don't ever remember seeing an X or TSX that didn't expand. I remember one "light" X bullet going too fast from a .460 Wby that shed all four petals (but still quickly killed the animal). That's a fair track record in my book. Kyler | |||
|
| one of us |
Without any more information, I would have to call bullshit on the whole thing. I cannot see anymore than two groves on the bullets, so it is an old Springfield military rifle in 30-06? If it penciled in, you sure wouldn't have recovered the bullets in the lungs. They would have been gone forever. If the bullets tumbled, it sure would have caused considerable damage and no compaints would be heard. If two tumbled in the animal, were they shot out of a rifle with the correct twist rate? I think we need more information to come up with any conclusive conclusion. Aaron | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia