quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
I've got a deer cull coming up with various bullets including TTSX, Accubonds and Scirocos, and boring NBTs to compare them to. All will get all the speed that anyone could ever ask for. Anyone care to make their predictions or place their bets on what hits the ground fastest or runs the farthest?

cant wait to hear your feedback.

im pretty sure that even ttsx will work.

sirocco can be devastating ...

This will be interesting. At .257 Weatherby speeds, everything should expand wildly, produce signficant hydraulic/hydrostatic shock and be spectacular killers of deer sized animals. I just finished a cull hunt of larger animals and ranked the Scirocco, A-frame, Partition, Norma, Woodleigh, Sierra, Speer and TTSX.

Yeah, I'll let you know; I'm aware of your interest in such things.

One item to remember in comparison is bullet weight.

with same weight bullets the monolithic usually give deeper penetration, something of special benefit for larger animals and quartering away shots.

For same-sized animals I usually go down 10-15% in bullet weight with a monolithic, with a corresponding increase in velocity.

For example, last fall my wife used a 110gnTTSX .277" on a southern Calif mule deer, a species quite a bit smaller than its Montana cousins. 208yards, lights out, DRT.
But that can probably be charged to bullet placement rather than bullet character. Nevertheless, that bullet took off at 3325-3350 fps, a speed noted for impressive results. For an elk-sized animal she might back off to a 3125fps 129gn mono.

My son and I just returned from our first trip to Africa.

We both were shooting Barnes TSX's. 225 gr out of my 338 win mag and 160 gr out of his 7mm Rem Mag. Between the 2 of us, We shot 2 Eland, 2 waterbuck, 2 Gemsbok, 2 kudu, 2 impala, 1 warthog and 1 zebra.

Other than one of the eland being lost, every shot was a pass through and each animal went some distance before falling over dead. I have always wished that they made a bigger blood trail to follow. Thank goodness that our PH and trackers were able to find small drops of blood for those animals that did run a little farther than others.

I'd have to say the TSX's did their job. BTW, I have never been able to get TTSx's to shoot well in any gun I've tried. I was shooting Barnes' Vortex line of ammo with the TTSX's.

On a side note, the vast majority of Americans where we hunted were using Accubonds.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
I've got a deer cull coming up with various bullets including TTSX, Accubonds and Scirocos, and boring NBTs to compare them to. All will get all the speed that anyone could ever ask for. Anyone care to make their predictions or place their bets on what hits the ground fastest or runs the farthest?

The primary factor would be bullet placement and of course impact velocity but I'd make an educated guess that the more frangible bullets will on average, all shots being equal in soft tissue, drop the animals more quickly but I'd also guess that all will end up equally dead regardless of bullet used.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
One item to remember in comparison is bullet weight.

with same weight bullets the monolithic usually give deeper penetration, something of special benefit for larger animals and quartering away shots.

For same-sized animals I usually go down 10-15% in bullet weight with a monolithic, with a corresponding increase in velocity.

For example, last fall my wife used a 110gnTTSX .277" on a southern Calif mule deer, a species quite a bit smaller than its Montana cousins. 208yards, lights out, DRT.
But that can probably be charged to bullet placement rather than bullet character. Nevertheless, that bullet took off at 3325-3350 fps, a speed noted for impressive results. For an elk-sized animal she might back off to a 3125fps 129gn mono.

The TTSX load I'll be using is the 80 grain, which clocks out at 3950 fps in my rifle. Lack of speed won't be a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Barnes bullets are outstanding when they work but very very bad when they fail, but that's a pretty broad statement..

If you didn't recover the deer, you really don't know what happened. but with any bullet an animal can run 200 yards or better on occasions..I can name half a dozen times when an animal ran between 200 yards and half a mile shot well with a big rifle..An impala ran a half mile shot with a 416 soft..It just happens, a good reason to use a bullet such as a Rem corelokt or WW power point on deer size animals. Super premium bullets in many cases are just too tough for light animals.

Amen, super premium bullets are a poor choice for deer.
Be very careful which expert you choose to accept advice from. Some internet posters actually have very little actual hunting experience. Atkinson is not one of those. He's been there, done that. I have considerable experience (well over a hundred kills), but Atkinson has well over that, I'm sure.

I have well over a hundred kills also on deer/pigs/elk since I started using Barnes bullets, and they have worked for me everytime.

quote:

Super premium bullets in many cases are just too tough for light animals.

But not in ALL cases!

Maybe it is a case of individual expectations?

In my case, if I take a shot, hit the animal and the animal dies then there was no bullet failure.

The weak link in any shot taken at paper or hair is the person pulling the trigger.

It all boils down to personal preference. The part about that, that I cannot keep from thinking about in discussions like this one involves the concept of HOW that Personal Preference was developed. Was it via Actual field experience or based on the Personal Experiences/Beliefs of another individual.

I've been using Barnes X's since the early '90's (prior to the now...much improved bullets). The "ONLY" time a second shot was required, was when the shooter "failed"! I hunt with "only" one rifle... a caliber that many consider "too" large for "small" big game and the to compound my "BAD" choice I use a Barnes. The Barnes, which as we all know is unreliable on "small" big game, has clean!y taken critters, from coyote (don't know if it expanded....didn't recover bullets) up to moose! So.... I'll just stay with what I'm doing. It seems to work! And, my wife with her "little" .338WM using Barnes 225 (X's/TX's/TTSX's) has "mirrored" my results. Only, she makes fewer "poor" shots! memtb

Haters Gonna Hate! That is just a fact in the modern world.

One thing I have found when discussing bullets/scopes/calibers etc. etc., lots of folks pass judgement over one experience.

Too many humans, which carries over into the ranks of hunters, find it easier to place blame on a bullet/a scope etc., than to analyze their own role in the equation.

We try something new because of the hype and if it works, it is the greatest thing since sliced white bread. But, if like the Barnes Bullets where people either like them or basically loathe them, someone trying them for the first time will all too often base their future opinion of the Barnes Bullets on that one experience.

Mine was positive, and I am still happy with the performance I get from them.

These types of questions always make for a lively discussion, but the answer can be simplified quite easily.

Put a good bullet in the proper place, animals die, period.

Put an arrow in the right place and they die too.

quote:

Put a good bullet in the proper place, animals die, period.

And it has been that way since the first firearm was fired at a critter.

For some pictures and discussion on TSX and TTSX bullets at muzzle speeds of 2650-2825 and distances from 72 to 275 yards,
see the thread "long range shooting ... 416 rem mag":
http://forums.accuratereloadin...611012332#3611012332

Bullets worked just fine, .416". They probably illustrate something of what happens in smaller diameters, though the TTSX may be different, seemingly more able to keep their petals.

On second thought, it is easier to just paste that post with pictures here:

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

350 gr. TSX in 416 Rigby ... 2650fps. Too fast for buffalo because the bullets failed. He wasn't getting the needed penetration. He made good shots but it took 9 shots to close the deal.

2650fps is not too fast. Other explanations are more likely to be true. Buffalo don't have their ornery reputation for nothing. Sometimes they just need a lot of attention.

Here are two bullets, 350gnTSX from a 416Rigby, probably older loads around 2675-2700fps:


The mushroomed bullet on the left was taken from a buffalo shot at 110 yards that ran 300 yards and fell dead under a tree. The bullet went through both lungs and was found as a lump pushing out of the skin on the off-side.
The bullet on the right was a lengthwise finishing shot on a hartebeest that got up and started to run away. Penetration was excellent and dumped the hartebeest on the ground but you can see that it lost its petals. I do not consider petal-blowing to be a failure but an advantage. Penetration is great with flat-nose terminal damage, which is good, and the petals do expansive damage for a foot or more.
PS: the flat-nose on the right still weighed 249.2 grains, or 71%, not so different from some NP's I've used in the old days.
The TTSX's may be a little different. So far we've only recovered two and neither have lost their petals, despite a 2825fps muzzle velocity.
-

Here are two more bullets in the next picture, above the former two:


The bullet on the top left, from a different hunt, was a second shot on a buffalo across 275 yards of open flat land and shows decent but limited expansion at about 2050fps.

So you don't really want to send those 350gnTSX's out much slower than 2650fps if you want to use them out to 300 yards.

Finally, here is a picture of what can happen when you speed it up, which I think is even better:



The 350gnTSX was launched at around 2825fps and hit a buffalo in the face at 72 yards. It blew its petals and started a secondary flat-nose expansion. Penetration was fine, continuing on along the side of the neck to the start of the chest. Buffalo dropped where he stood but needed a finisher because the bullet went under the eyes and missed the brain and the spine. The case is pictured with a comfortable primer despite the 2825fps, 6175ft# loading. (It goes without saying that a face shot should only be done with a well-sighted in gun from a solid rest. I had a fairly sturdy tree, branched about right for a steady kneeling shot.)

Again, if the rifle will let you shoot at 2650fps I wouldn't send the 350TSX or 350TTSX out any slower.

I use the TSX, TTSX, and LRX in 243, 6.5, 30-06, 300H&H, 375 H&H, 416, and 458.

I have had better luck and terminal performance with these bullets than any other.

I tried the older Barnes bullets back in the 90s and did not like them. I gave the TSX another chance early this century when it was apparent that my state was going non-lead, and I liked it a great deal better. Then, when the tipped versions came to market, I was an absolute convert.

I shoulder shoot everything when the shot presents itself, and Barnes has always performed when I do my part.

Times have definitely changed. 15 years ago, none of the PH/guides I hunted with recommended Barnes. Today, almost all of the PHs/Guides I ask recommend Barnes. That is very telling to me. Conversely, I have had 3 guides over the last 2 years tell me NOT to bring VLDs.

Stuff like this is OK to discuss, but when one gets avid on the subject, its usually just internet BS..

I try all the bullets, that's part of the game with me, its my interest, if I get a failure or two then I have little to no forgiveness, I simply don't use that bullet unless they make changes, then I may try them again..I only use bullets that have worked for me..I like to discuss bullet behavior, but Im not inclined to have someone else change what works for me..

I have to agree with P-Dog, you missed, im gonna bet the area was thick with branches and stuff, all it takes is one twig. Couple of years ago i was still hunting, just finished taking a piss, i look up hill and theres a nice eight point whitetail buck. I bring up my Marlin 336 big loop, and fire, i see a branch fly and the buck doesnt move, cycle, fire agian, another branch flies and the buck is still standing there, repeat and see him hunch up and run, 25yds and dead with a 160gr leverevolution planted perfectly. Thats why they call lever guns brush guns, not to shoot through brush but to shoot quickly when you dont connect, i'll bet all three shots were under three seconds. With that said i have used both TSX and TTSX and deer will run further than when shot with conventional cup and core. I use a 139gr Hornady flat base S.P. in my 7mm SAUM it always penetrates completly and it just takes the wind right out of their sails.....

Well as promised, I have the deer cull results. The short, sweet summary goes like this. (The short and sweet are both sarcasm. ) Feel free to take it or leave it.

Two shooters, 7 days and 500 animals. The breakdown on the deer is about 2 to 1 fallows to reds with a dozen or so incidentals. The Red hinds vary in size from a good sized northern whitetail to a few that would give a cow elk a run for their money. The Fallows are more like pronghorn. Calibers used were .300 Win with 190 LR Accubonds and 210 Bergers, .257 Weatherby with 115 NBTs, 110 Accobonds, 100 grain Swift Sciroccos and 80 Grain TTSXs. My friend used only a 7mm WSM with only 120 NBTS at well over 3500 fps. Ranges varied from zero to 700 plus with the vast majority between 250 and 500 yards. We took our shots as they came, as a hunter does. Almost all of it was done in the daylight.

There's not much to say about the .300 Win, both the 190 LR and 210 Berger VLD Hunting are fast opening and destructive bullets that left little doubt of the outcome. On the fallows they both actually could have been a little softer, but that might be splitting hairs. Reds got clobbered. My home load for that rifle is the 190, but camp loading/shooting results indicated that 700 was a good place to quit. Probably is anyway; although I sometimes shoot F-Class with that rifle.


As predicted the 115 was the fastest opening and fastest killing of light deer like the fallows. It was certainly plenty good enough for the reds as well, and exits were the norm. This was the bullet that did most of the longest shots, because it was the favored load that was flown over intact. If I was shooting fallows and only fallows I'd go with the 100.

There was surprisingly little difference between the 110 Accubond and the 115 NBT. That's not so much a problem with the Accubond as testimony that heavy for caliber NBTs are tougher than some think. In this imperfect world we live in the Accubond loads started developing pressure on the camp assembled loads when a new "tube" of powder was opened, so the backed off loads were limited somewhat for maximum range.

The 100 grain Swift Scirroco are a tough bullet, and it showed in somewhat delayed kills on lung hit fallows compared to the NBTs. They came into their own on the reds, and killing the deer behind the first was a real probability/option. I started doing it on purpose after a while. 5 times in fact. For someone who likes penetration and chunky deer /elk it is a real contender.


Things went downhill fast with the TTSXs. Pathetic junk as in 1/4 mile runs, long searches, get the dogs, shoot through the shoulder, drop and get back up (LSGTD}, animals with little to no indication of hits, and difficulty to impossibility of hearing hits. Perhaps the comments from the others involved are more telling. They are long on honesty and terminally short of sugar coating. Some are so hardened from the death business that a cat couldn't climb them.

"Why do you feel like you should prove something we already know? You already know they are junk" Friend who is known for his complete lack of sugar coating.

"Why foook with those? I'm going to get in trouble here, throw those away" Guide 1 and outfitter. We have a hunting history together and are friends.

" I had my doubts, but can see what you're talking about now. They shouldn't be allowed to sell those, might as well use FMJs in a .223". Guide 2, witness and light holder on the tiny bit of non daylight activity. Certified gun nut.

" Well that's no Fing good, have you tried Corelocks in a .300?" Neighbouring property owner, guide,taxidermist, gate opener and experienced international hunter.

The 7mm WSM and 120 NBTs worked well for my friend with parallizing effect on light game as you would expect, and quick kills on Reds with various rib an shoulder hits.Exits were rare on Reds and far from a sure thing on fallows. He freely admits that it wouldn't have been his first choice if he had know that Reds were going to be on the table to this extent, but has already purchased hundreds more to do it again. Hard to argue with success.

quote:

Two shooters, 7 days and 500 animals. The breakdown on the deer is about 2 to 1 fallows to reds with a dozen or so incidentals. The Red hinds vary in size from a good sized northern whitetail to a few that would give a cow elk a run for their money. The Fallows are more like pronghorn. Calibers used were .300 Win with 190 LR Accubonds and 210 Bergers, .257 Weatherby with 115 NBTs, 110 Accobonds, 100 grain Swift Sciroccos and 80 Grain TTSXs. My friend used only a 7mm WSM with only 120 NBTS at well over 3500 fps. Ranges varied from zero to 700 plus with the vast majority between 250 and 500 yards. We took our shots as they came, as a hunter does. Almost all of it was done in the daylight.

What kind of "FAIR" comparison was that supposed to be and what the HELL did it prove??????????????

That is pure !!!!!!

Why didn't anyone break out comparable grain weight TSX's or TTSX, say 165 gr. or 168 gr. in the .300 and 117 gr. in the .257.

All you proved is that if you put a bullet, any bullet as that kind of disadvantage, it is not going to give good results.

Do you honestly believe that your "Test" was anywhere close to a "REASONABLE COMPARISON"???????

I think 500 animals in 7 days gives a pretty good indication of bullet performance. There are not many people out there that have that kind of experience.

I am a little surprised that the NBT did not overexpand at high velocity and pleased to hear that they are a little more heavily constructed than the public generally gives them credit for. I think the distance involved(250-500 yards) gives them time to slow down and work better.

Your experience with the Sciroccos mimics mine. The Swifts work really well with some resistance and more mass to penetrate. They worked incredibly well with 500+ lb wildes, large gemsbok, zebras and kudu.

I am not a Barnes fan and my cull testing of same did not pan out with similar weight TTSX vs others. This also is true of my considerable experience with whitetails. While I do use a light for caliber TTSX for whitetail culls, I only use them in the 100 yardish range where the velocity is still in the 3000-3300 fps and great expansion still occurs(most of the time). Maybe by the time the little 80 grainers got to 500 yards they were out of gas and acted like a Barnes bullet and did not expand.

Overall, thanks for the bullet performance report.

I have no idea about deer hunting, but all the moose I have killed with the .338WM Barnes 225-grain 3-X, have dropped the moose quite fast. For that reason I have settled on the 225-grain tipped X.

I would think that small animals such as deer what you want is a bullet that's relatively soft compared to a Barnes X, or even a TBBC. But that's my opinion (I am not a ballistics expert).

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Two shooters, 7 days and 500 animals. The breakdown on the deer is about 2 to 1 fallows to reds with a dozen or so incidentals. The Red hinds vary in size from a good sized northern whitetail to a few that would give a cow elk a run for their money. The Fallows are more like pronghorn. Calibers used were .300 Win with 190 LR Accubonds and 210 Bergers, .257 Weatherby with 115 NBTs, 110 Accobonds, 100 grain Swift Sciroccos and 80 Grain TTSXs. My friend used only a 7mm WSM with only 120 NBTS at well over 3500 fps. Ranges varied from zero to 700 plus with the vast majority between 250 and 500 yards. We took our shots as they came, as a hunter does. Almost all of it was done in the daylight.

What kind of "FAIR" comparison was that supposed to be and what the HELL did it prove??????????????

That is pure !!!!!!

Why didn't anyone break out comparable grain weight TSX's or TTSX, say 165 gr. or 168 gr. in the .300 and 117 gr. in the .257.

All you proved is that if you put a bullet, any bullet as that kind of disadvantage, it is not going to give good results.

Do you honestly believe that your "Test" was anywhere close to a "REASONABLE COMPARISON"???????

It proves that you cannot drive a copper bullet fast enough to equal a lead bullet. I wrote off the 100 grain TSX a long time ago, but left open the possibility that given an extra 450 fps it might wake up. If it doesn't work at 3950 MV it isn't going to work. If you've got a way to make a TSX go faster than I did go ahead.

Perhaps you should be the one to step up and test 168 grain .30 cal on several hundred various sized animals a week, comparing the results directly to the bullets of your choice. I've already done it multiple times. I'll probably never use a TSX on anything smaller than a buffalo again.

Ironic that your results perfectly match your hypothesis.

Sorry man, I'm calling BS on this story.

Luckily, I don't care what you think.

quote:

It proves that you cannot drive a copper bullet fast enough to equal a lead bullet.

Try using a copper bullet EQUAL to the weight of the Lead Bullet/Cup & Core bullet being used.

No, an 80 grain bullet of ANY kind is NOT going to give the same results as a bullet 20 to 35 grains heavier.

Also you did not even TRY either a TSX or TTSX on the .30 caliber rifle used.

Anyone can setup a so-called "Test" and stack everything in favor of the results THEY WANT, and that is why your "Findings" are meaningless.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

It proves that you cannot drive a copper bullet fast enough to equal a lead bullet.

Try using a copper bullet EQUAL to the weight of the Lead Bullet/Cup & Core bullet being used.



No, an 80 grain bullet of ANY kind is NOT going to give the same results as a bullet 20 to 35 grains heavier.

Also you did not even TRY either a TSX or TTSX on the .30 caliber rifle used.

Anyone can setup a so-called "Test" and stack everything in favor of the results THEY WANT, and that is why your "Findings" are meaningless.

I've already done the 30 caliber work with different rifles, no need to do it again. What I was doing this time with the 30 cal was to compare two long range hunting bullets on game. A purpose for which the TSX is useless.

It is widely known that dropping weight and upping the speed makes a mono work better. Take it up with Randy Brooks if you don't believe me.

I don't have to take it up with Randy Brooks, I have been using Barnes since 1995 and have not had any of the problems others on here claim to have had.

I have had "Advertising Picture Expansion" from a 50 grain .224 Barnes "X" Flat Base, on a Javelina at 90+ yards out of a .22 Hornet.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind about using/not using TSX or TTSX bullets, but if some says they are doing a "Test" they need to keep things on an equal basis.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I don't have to take it up with Randy Brooks, I have been using Barnes since 1995 and have not had any of the problems others on here claim to have had.

I have had "Advertising Picture Expansion" from a 50 grain .224 Barnes "X" Flat Base, on a Javelina at 90+ yards out of a .22 Hornet.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind about using/not using TSX or TTSX bullets, but if some says they are doing a "Test" they need to keep things on an equal basis.

If you want to name the terms of a test, feel free to pay for it. However, I did do exactly what you feel is necessary with 30 cals; with 168 grain TSXs head to head against a common 165 C&C that comes in a red box and a bonded bullet. Three hunts, three bullets, approaching 600 animals and the TSX got its ass kicked. Badly.

You have had your experiences, I have had mine.

It still boils down to personal preferences.

Some folks like the performance they get from Barnes Bullets, some folks don't!

Me and you arguing about it is not going to change that.

Dogleg and Crazy both have some valid points.

It is true that Barnes bullets, as well as GSCustom, recommend going lighter with a monometal bullet and then increasing velocity. So a mono-metal 270 130grain bullet, at 3100fps, might be used in place of a 150grain cup-and-core bullet at 2900fps for the same sized game as the 150 grain bullet. In 30 caliber that means using a 165TTSX or 168TTSX in situations where someone wanted a 180grain lead-core bullet.

However, having said that, one may add that Barnes uses 80grain for their .243". 80 grains starts to get a little light as the caliber widens. Barnes .257" 100gnTTSX would have been a better choice for 25 caliber, its .357 BC is a 12% increase over the 80gn .257, and it would still travel faster than the 115grain .257".

This also plays out at the ranges mentioned in the "test", typically 250-500 yards. Those small caliber light bullets have low BC's. The 80gn .257" TTSX only has a .316BC, which is not very good out at 300-500yards. Much of the energy has already dissipated to the air resistance. Plus, at those ranges the wind will start to push the low BC bullet several more inches sideways. That low BC results in lower impact velocities, lower impact energies, and most importantly, more marginal hits, moving off to the edges of the target 'heart-lung' areas.

416Tanzan;
There's a few things I can point out; the first is that I've already written off the 100 grain .257 TSXs years ago. We had a few years of CWD hunting where we literally shot truckloads of whitetail and muledeer with whatever we wanted. Since I was hunting with my young son with his .257; I followed suit with another. Results were dismal then, and despite the higher velocity of the 80s it never got better. Another thing is penetration with the 80s was always through and through. Not a lot to gained by more penetration from a heavier bullet at that point.


The other thing (which I guess you had no way of knowing)is the shooting done on this trip with the TTSXs was held to short distances. I figure that if they don't work at short range there is little use in stretching it. I also used them in the only night portion of the hunt, where range was either short or nothing. Sure thing or hold your fire. It was especially interesting because this is where we brought the extra witnesses along.

Dogleg,
Another question arises on the conditions of the hunt. 500 animals is a lot of animals to take out in one week. The area sounds rich and overrun and non-NA. What does a non-resident, non-citizen tag cost?

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
Dogleg,
Another question arises on the conditions of the hunt. 500 animals is a lot of animals to take out in one week. The area sounds rich and overrun and non-NA. What does a non-resident, non-citizen tag cost?

Rich, over run, Non-Na, yep. As mentioned earlier it took place in South Australia. Its in the limbo between trophy hunting being a business, nightly commercial hunting to the tune of 7000 a year a matter of course, and heli-gunning being a glum topic of discussion. There are no tags. If there was even a licence involved I never saw it, but its not that unusual to not see a licence on international hunts. Plenty of gun licences though.

Unfortunately, none of that translates into a free-for-all.

Now, I'm off to a black-powder shoot.

Thanks for that info. I have a love/hate relationship with the monometal bullets. My hunting partner and I have discussed recently why we ever went away from Partitions.

quote:

Originally posted by Chuck Nelson:
Thanks for that info. I have a love/hate relationship with the monometal bullets. My hunting partner and I have discussed recently why we ever went away from Partitions.

Interesting old question.
You may have forgotten all of the partitions that 'blew their nose' and pressed the remaining copper peels back along the shank leaving a rather small, light-weight, frontal area. That is what both the Swift A-Frames and the Barnes-X came to fix.

Hey, the partitions penetrated well. They were my favorite in the 80's. They were guaranteed not to disintegrate on a shoulder.
But without the nose weight they did not penetrate quite as well as the Swifts or Barnes. The NP's were still great bullets. And I remember people complaining about animals 'running farther' with partitions than 'good ole cup and core' Corelokts, PowerPoints, Hornadys, Sierras and Speers.

But guaranteed penetration is a highly desirable quality, so there will always be folk who gravitate to the Partitions and TTSX's. Penetration is probably the second most important characteristic of a bullet after accuracy. First a bullet much reach its target. Then it must penetrate under potentially adverse conditions and presentations. A compromise for the NP would be the Swift AFrame with its 'bonded nose'. And for long distance there is growing support of Accubonds.

But guaranteed penetration is still the mantra when one walks in a forest with cape buffalo around.

quote:

recommend going lighter with a monometal bullet and then increasing velocity.

I don't remember seeing that in my Barnes Loading manuals, and I definitely don't load that "Hot" in any of my rifles.

I start out at the low end of the loading chart and work my way up until I get the accuracy I want, and have never had a problem with expansion or penetration.

I normally use the same grain weight Barnes bullet as I did or would a Remington Core Loct or Speer/Hornady/Sierra.

Everyone expects or wants a different level of performance from the bullets they use, just personal preference.

quote:

I don't remember seeing that in my Barnes Loading manuals,

It was in Version 1 because that is the one I have. Maybe you did not remember it because if I remember right, it says "You can take advantage of the long for weight Barnes bullets to drop a weight class, and enjoy the faster velocity and not suffer a loss of BC or SD..." something like that. Then every one who ever wrote about Barnes bullets since mentions it as well. I can also tell you that in Version 1, the loads were "hot" compared to other mfg's manuals. I remember writing to Ross Seyfreid about my 35 Whelen shooting the Barnes 225 X and him saying about the book load I was using; "Barnes loads are often over the traditional PSI for the calibers compared..." and that he didn't really mind that because it gave he and other scribes some room for liability reasons in their writings but "the quoted load for the Whelen was undoubtedly 65K psi area" sort of thing. That was a 225 X at 2800 Fps out of the Whelen so we know that today, that was a fair guess on his part about PSI. I am quite certain that Barnes and his customers understood that it takes velocity to make the X work as intended, and that his loads reflected that more velocity was a good thing. I don't think that can be in question for most folks.
I loved the 180 X in 30 Caliber and the 225 X in 35 caliber. The 225 X Killed like the hammer of Thor in the Whelen and the 180 X perfectly in the 30-06. Both loads from the book were "hot" and neither failed to open from Muzzle to 425 yards with that being the furthermost I shot one. Now the 165 XBT was a different story. Several fail to opens were experienced so I stopped use of them. I still have some of the 180's loaded and would not hesitate to poke an elk with one from Muzzle to as far as I want to shoot. But I have went back to Lead, lead and copper Jacket, and Lead - Copper jacket with Partition for my Hunting at the different level of performance I want from each. Just personal preference as you suggest. I save some money by shooting the same bullets for practice as I hunt with and the deer still die. I hope to see if the Elk still do this fall. It will be the first time in a long time I have hunted them.

Like I say, I did not remember that, I have the first, second and third editions of the Barnes manuals, and still load and shoot 225 grain Barnes in my .35 Whelen.

I just have never had the problems others claim to have had and I have been using Barnes bullets almost exclusively since 1995. The only rifle I use something different in is Lora's .257 Roberts, Model 77 Ruger Ultra-Lite, because it shoots 117 grain Remington Round Nose Core-Locts better.

I just have confidence in Barnes Bullets and they have done the job I want done for 20 years plus years, I see no reason changing.