I have being shying away from the 338 Win. Mag. because the traditional 210 and 225 gr. bullets recoil so much. Its a fact, increasing bullet weight has the greatest effect on recoil in a given caliber.

I was studying the Barnes bullets and discounted the 160 gr. TTSX in .338 because it had such a low ballistic co-efficient and I pictured unstable flight.

Then I read the reviews of the bullet at Midway and it appears to be an exceptional bullet in flight. There must be something magical between the .338 caliber and the shape of this bullet:




Parker Brinson of Vancouver

Just returned from my second African hunting trip. This year, used the 160 TTX in my Kimber 84M .338 Federal. Took everything from Waterbuck down to Warthogs with the same load. No problems! Used my .375 Ruger with a Barnes TSX 270 grain for Eland, but believe the .338 would have worked fine also.

Tony Pennington of Artesia

I've spent years trying to work up various loads for my 338-378 Weatherby mag. The best I've been able to do are repeatable 1" groups at 100 yards. I reloaded the 160 gr tipped TSX 5 different ways and the worst group shot 1.5" at 100 yards. I have 3 different loads for this bullet and all shoot well under 0.3 inches at 100 yards and well under 0.5 MOA at 600 yards. The velocity in all loads is between 3600 and 3750 fps. I have never seen a bullet shoot like these. They are simply awesome. My factory 338 378 Weatherby mag should not be able to shoot groups like these. In fact I have 3 different factory Weatherby 338 378 Weatherby mags and they all shoot the bullet the same. Awesome product.

Robert Miser of Helena

This bullet, 338 Barnes TSX, tipped, 160 gr. was purchased for use in two rifles. The 338 Federal loved it, groups inside minute of angle were there from the first group, .69 inches at 100 yards. In the 338-06 they were also very accurate, but required a lot more finesse in the loads.1 1/2 inches at 100 yards. I will be using them this fall for hunting pronghorn thru moose.

Glen Jensen of Chester

I used these bullets for fall White-tail Deer hunting and the results were awesome !!! The two deer I took did not take a step. As with any bullet be careful of shot placement as these bullets will destroy some meat. Pre-fall range testing yielded sub-MOA groups behind AA 2230 as I wanted a mild load in the light rifle I am using. The 200 grain factory loads are just too much for my purposes. I plan on using the .30 cal 150 grain version for Elk hunting next year and would feel confident that the bullet would take care of business at any range.

J Lambert of Bland

I currently use this bullet in a custom 340 Weatherby that delivers impressive groups with this bullet. I have been able to produce repeatable sub-1" groups at 300 yards and sub-3" at 500 yards. Bullets recovered from deer have had greater than 95% weight retention. While I have only shot through 3 boxes of bullets, I would recommend these for someone looking for excellent penetration and performance.

JOHN HAYTER of CONROE

Took first hog with this bullet in Tikka T3 338 Fed, ran 10 yards then dropped dead. 1 inch MOA with first batch of hand loads. Great all around bullet.

Seems this bullet likes to be cranked out to the max in a magnum!!



http://www.gunsandhunting.com/Extraordinary.html

Look at this picture. At 3480 fps the TTSX literally flattens into a pancake yet retains a large percentage of its weight and is still most likely going to pile completely through a moose or elk if it weighed more. While I have no intention of buying a 338-378 Weatherby, I believe the 338 Win Mag. would be perfect for this bullet and shoot like a 7mm Remington Magnum concerning recoil because the bullet is so light. That is good news!

The main complaint of hunters shooting high speed bullets is explosion. While the TTSX doesn't exhibit the typical explosive qualities of lead, it will still distribute large amounts of shock if the animal is close. On a deer this will mean a bit larger hole but still will not explode and blow a saucer sized hole through the animal like lead does. On elk or moose close range, this will most likely mean an instant drop.

The real benefit of the TTSX is it is equally effective short range as well as long range. Increasing frontal area to a .338 will also ensure adequate hemmorage even at low velocity as shown in the 3rd picture. The last picture is the old TSX, the same bullet that tumbled above.

3200-3300 fps shooting 0.5 MOA would allow me to never consider the 300 magnum's again! 3200 fps out of a 338 Win. Mag. using this bullet is the closest sane recoil, 1 rifle battery I have been able to find. I hunt mainly mule deer and elk and need my weapon to excell at both.

Barnes TTSX 160 / 338 Win. Mag.

The Derek

"Here are a couple bullets I shot into milk jugs filled with water about about 30 yards. I shot them out of my 338 Tikka WM, loaded 70gr varget under them."

I guess I'm having difficulty with the premise ... that the .338 Win Mag has problematic recoil.

225-250 gr bullet loads in the .338 Win Mag perform wonderfully well on a wide variety of game from Whitetail to Eland (Though Eland can absorb a lot of hit and cover a lot of ground).

Lighter bullets driven faster damage more meat than heavier bullet moving more slowly. So the trade off may be a little bit of thump versus less unaffected meat in the freezer.

Understanding that recoil is highly subjective, a 338 WM pushing a 250 at 2660 in an 8.25 pound rifle is going to make something like 33-34 lb-ft of free recoil. 9,3x62 with 286s at 2400 calculates pretty close to that. My M70 SS Classic .375 H&H pushing a 300 gr TSX at 2600 fps is going to make 40-42 lb-ft of free recoil. The more common heavy African calibers make something between 50 and 70 lb-ft of free recoil.

Frankly, I don't remember feeling the recoil of the shots fired at any game I've hunted from Whitetails to Eland and Cape Buffalo.

So I don't see the huge advantage of the much greater velocity and its slightly lower recoil when it costs me meat that can go into the freezer.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Inasmuchas I share your enthusiasm for the 338 Winchester, I'm not really a light bullet fan. Having shot a pile of 200 ballistic tips, I long ago concluded that one is better off shooting a 30-06 unless limited to one rifle. Why carry the extra weight of a large calibre rifle if there isn't a larger animal on the menu? FWIW, it is one of my three favorite cartridges: 338 Winchester, 30-06 Sprg & 257 Roberts, and I would find it hard to imagine myself without one.

I always wondered how this bullet would penetrate on ELK sized animals. I'm concerned about the low sectional density (.200). I'd be inclined to use it in my 338 Federal at about 3,000 FPS. I'm just not sure it would penetrate on big animals. It would be terrific on deer BUT for deer I'd just use my 257 Roberts with a standard cup & core bullet.

Unless you already own a .338 I would just shoot the 160gr weight class from a 7mm or .30 cal rifle. To me the point of stepping up in calibre is to shoot a bigger bullet.

What about the TSX in 185gr?

I think this bullet was geared more towards the 338 federal over the 338 Winnie. It would be a good choice on mulies, but I would prefer heavier for bear and elk. But I would agree, the 338 would make a good one gun outfit for NA.

John

I've played w/ several 185gr Barnes designes & it is about as light as I feel comfortable w/ on larger game. They may be fine on deer size game & can make a one gun guy more comfortable in practice, but If I want to go lighter than 200gr in my 338s, I drop a cartridge size & go 280.

I always considered 200 gr. to be light in the 338 Win . . I never thot the 338 kicked much ..... It is pretty hard to beat a 225 gr bullet in .338 @ 2800 fps ... and a 250 gr - 300 gr bullets ruin less meat still .... I had a PoW load using the 200 gr X @ 2950 fps . I killed some deer with it . One very nice thing about the X bullet . it ruins less meat than cup and core bullets ..

I can't really see why you would want to shoot a 160 grain bullet from a .338 caliber rifle.
In my opinion if you want to shoot 160 grain bullet use a 7 mag. Or a .280 7X57, or a 30, cal with a 165 grain bullet.
I am sure the 160 grain .338 will work, but my .338 win mag squirts 225 grain tsxs into a little better than an inch at 100 yards and shoots plenty fast.
If you don't like the recoil of a .338 shoot somthing else...
...tj3006

Well, I can't necessarily agree with the premise. I use my .338 Win. mag. primarily with 225 gr. NorthForks. I load them to 2800 fps as gumboot suggests and my rifle is a Ruger stainless in a laminated stock. This is primarily my moose rifle and it's tough and it works. I don't normally shoot a box of NorthFoks at the range - quite expensive for that. However, if I want to play with it I'll use a 225 gr Hornady loaded to the same velocity. Whenever I'm planning on a range session with it, I always wear a PAST recoil pad and it is very easy to shoot a box of cartridges in an afternoon. In the field shooting at game, I've never "felt" the recoil from it - the adrenalin thing. The .338 shines with 225 gr. bullets and up and to use lighter bullets in that rifle is pointless IMHO. If you need something lighter, go to a smaller caliber.
There are numerous premium bullets on the market for the .338 and I choose NorthForks. I have a .338 NF on my desk right now that originally weighed 225 grs. This was taken from a moose I took about 3 years ago and it weighs either 218 or 217 grs. (I forget offhand). It's a perfect mushroom as corey's photos of the Barnes. Don't think I need to write more.
If you want a .338, get one, use a PAST recoil pad & have fun.
Bear in Fairbanks

I don't supose there is anything wrong with using a pad, But good recoil pad on the rifle is all I need.
Anothr great cartridge from the same catigory is the 35 Whelen.
But for 9 out of 10 shots, ( maybe more) The 06 will do anything the .338 win and if you are worried about recoil , a 180 grain partition or a 168 grain TSX will kill most anything you will find in North america quite well.
And again if you want to shoot a bigger bullet consider a 35 whelen.
...tj3006

All you naval gazers who haven't used the .338/160gr read the reviews above by people who have in the original post..
Typical postings seen on forums these days..

Low wall ; what are you carrying on about ???? .. What most have been saying is they have had perfect sucess with the 338 Win mag . after alot or use .. I only have used them for around 12 years , but I,ve shot alot of stuff in that time with them and hid behind a couple of them several times also ....... I almost exclusively shot Rugers with the 1 in 10 twist and they ALL were most accurate with 250 - 300 gr bullets .. The 200 gr X was about 1 1/2 " groups @ 100 yards , but around 2 " @ 200 yrds . The 185 gr was not that accurate so I blasted them off after I found that out .... Most 225 gr Factory loads were 1 1/2" or better .. The 160 TSX Tipped bullet hadn,t been invented yet .......If I found a good deal on a Ruger 338 I would snap it up in a sec , if I was in the bucks . I would prolly shoot the 225 gr Tipped TSX @ 2800 fps for anything I wanted to shoot with it .... having made 2 . 1 shot on purpose kills with the 338 Win @ over 400 yards on Sitka Black Tail deer . I don,t see any reason to change ... If I want a much lighter bullet I can shoot my 243 or 223 . And hopefully before the next year is out I will have a 6.5mm of some sort it I want a little more medium of a small bore ........
. Considering the integrity of a mono metal expanding bullet I imagine the 160 gr .338 TSX will kill amazingly well ...... But I don,t think any better than a 225 gr .338 bullet .. get a box , load them up and try them ... But for me , and Bear in Fbks , et al we Know what we will shoot in the 338 and how it shoots and where it hits ,and how it bucks the wind ,ect.ect.ect.

I have shot 160 gr and up to 250 gr bullets from my 338 wm. I didn't notice the difference in recoil. I don't think the recoil is near as bad as many make it out to be. Yes it will shove you back, but nothing scary. At least not in my experience.

If the Barnes bullets work in your gun, then go for it. They have a lot of fans. I have not had much success with them.

quote:

Originally posted by Low Wall:
All you naval gazers who haven't used the .338/160gr read the reviews above by people who have in the original post..
Typical postings seen on forums these days..

Are you saying that the opinion of those that use the 160 grain 338 bullets trumps the experience/opinion of those that prefer a heavier bullet in the 338 win?

Too many good choices to shoot a 160 grain bullet (308 or 7mag) or shoot 225 grain plus out of a 338 Win.

Recoil is not bad. This is all 125 pounds of my wife shooting my 338 Win with 225 grain TSX. She was an honorary entry in the Selous camp staff shooting contest (and won)

160gr. 338, umm, sounds like the answer to a question no one asked...

Now it may work well in the 338 Federal, ooh, umm, that was the last answer to a question no one asked...

I used 200 grain bullets bear hunting several years ago and found that I did not get full penetration (because of low sectional density). I will still use 200's for deer hunting but now use 250's for everything else with much better results. Little difference in recoil between the 2 weights.

Hey Guys.

-I think the .338 160 grains Barnes XTS with a tip on it, just ADDS yet another
wonderfull aspect to the vesatility of the .338 Win. Mag.!

-It can be fired at a high velocity, has a fair BC value, and being an "X"
bullet, will perform fantastic,- and with good penetration, when it hits the game.

Of course it is not MEANT to be used on big game..

-Barnes XTS Tipped,- 160 grains in the .338, -FINE !

Chr.

I shoot those accubond bullets in my 338 RUM
and I don't notice any recoil. I shoot them using sticks.

quote:

Originally posted by HunterMontana:
160gr. 338, umm, sounds like the answer to a question no one asked...

Now it may work well in the 338 Federal, ooh, umm, that was the last answer to a question no one asked...

I knew we couldn't get through this thread without someone bagging on the 338 Federal.

I do have a question about sectional density with regards to TSX. If I shoot a 200gr Accubond out of my 338 Federal and get 80% weight retention, I'm left with a 160 grain projectile to penetrate.

If I use a 160 TSX and get 100% weight retention, I have a 160 grain projectile to penetrate.

Now I can drive the 160 TSX much faster so in theory, the 160 TSX will out penetrate the 200 grain Accubond. Does this sound right? or is my thinking flawed?

Now why is it people will sing the high praises day and night on and on and on about how the 7mm and 30 cals are so great BECAUSE they have bullet weights that range from extremely light for caliber with horribly low SD to big heavy weights....yet they say this is a useless bullet? They say if you want a 160gr, step down to a 30 cal. Well if you have a 30 cal and want to shoot 150's, by that line of reasoning you should just step down to a 7mm. If you have a 7mm and want to shoot 120's, then you should just step down to a .257. If you want to shoot any lighter then that well you should just step down to a 243. If you want to shoot lighter then 100gr well then step down to a 22 Hornet. With that type of limiting opinion on caliber/weight, then rifles should be built and loaded with ONE specific bullet weight, and if you want something else just get another rifle because variety and flexibility are a moot point :P

Please, tell me why, its just the grandest thing ever that a 30-06 can shoot 110-220gr bullets, but a 338-06 being able to shoot 160-300gr bullets is "an answer to a question no one asked" BTW, and this isn't a personal shot on Montana there, I just get really tired of hearing that term. Its so grossly overused now, that its beyond cliche. In that respect, the 30-06 was an answer without a question, cause the 7x57 was doing the same thing long before it did (and we're talking about being created as a military rifle to kill soldiers, which is what the 06 was solely designed to do when it was created)

Scott,

On paper, with standard bullets, your theory would be flawed, as the lower SD would have less momentum to keep driving that lighter projectile. Again, thats on paper, and in theory. Seems people are using lighter and lighter bullets more often, especially these mono metals, and proving they get the same performance from lighter bullets. But, for the mass majority of hunting done here in the US, premiums just aren't really needed.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
I do have a question about sectional density with regards to TSX. If I shoot a 200gr Accubond out of my 338 Federal and get 80% weight retention, I'm left with a 160 grain projectile to penetrate.

If I use a 160 TSX and get 100% weight retention, I have a 160 grain projectile to penetrate.

Now I can drive the 160 TSX much faster so in theory, the 160 TSX will out penetrate the 200 grain Accubond. Does this sound right? or is my thinking flawed?

A bit flawed. It's not the wt itself but the length of the bullet. The 160gr is alraedy short, as it expands it gets shorter & SD is reduced further. Again, I just don't see the point of 160gr in a 338, but then again, I haven't really tried them, stopped @ 185gr & they seem awful short.

quote:

Originally posted by kayaker:
Unless you already own a .338 I would just shoot the 160gr weight class from a 7mm or .30 cal rifle. To me the point of stepping up in calibre is to shoot a bigger bullet.

What about the TSX in 185gr?

You are probably right.

My main concern is recoil having never owned a 338 Win. Mag before. I am used to 30-06 type recoil from the rifle's I have owned in the past.

My experience is adding 15 grains of bullet weight makes a noticable increase in recoil. The 185 TSX weighs 25 gr's more than the 160 TTSX. I would very much like to be around the 25 ft./lbs recoil level after I load the rifle down with sand for weight. Basically shoot a 9.5 pound 300 magnum. with .338 frontal area. yet have the reach to hit a mule deer in the southern Saskatchewan sandhills.

About the only thing I can do is buy the gun and shoot both the 160 TTSX and the 185's. If I find the 185's acceptable then I will switch to the 185 MR-X after having developed an accurate load with the 185 TSX. They should be close. I would then shoot the 185 MR-X on everything.

quote:

Originally posted by gumboot458:

One very nice thing about the X bullet . it ruins less meat than cup and core bullets ..

Yes, a lot less.

Also I would be very surprised if lead bullets are not completely outlawed in the next 5 years. I would be shocked if lead was still being sold in 10 years.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Jones:
I can't really see why you would want to shoot a 160 grain bullet from a .338 caliber rifle.

Can't afford a 338 for elk or moose and a 300 magnum to use on mule deer. 1 gun has to do both for me.

The mule deer I hunt in southern Saskatchewan are located in desert sandhills. You are guaranteed to have 20 shots at an animal each day if you have a long range rig. The deer feel content to bounce a few hills over then stop and stare all day long. They are used to the cattle ranchers checking the cows.(community pasture during summer)

A range finder, a bipod, a ballistic reticle, a good trigger and an accurate rifle are almost guaranteed bag meat in those hills.

quote:

Originally posted by gumboot458:

Considering the integrity of a mono metal expanding bullet I imagine the 160 gr .338 TSX will kill amazingly well ...... But I don,t think any better than a 225 gr .338 bullet .. get a box , load them up and try them ...

The 225 gr. weighs 65 gr. more than the 160.

Definately going to recoil more and I know I wouldn't tolerate it.

quote:

Originally posted by scottfromdallas:
I do have a question about sectional density with regards to TSX. If I shoot a 200gr Accubond out of my 338 Federal and get 80% weight retention, I'm left with a 160 grain projectile to penetrate.

If I use a 160 TSX and get 100% weight retention, I have a 160 grain projectile to penetrate.

Now I can drive the 160 TSX much faster so in theory, the 160 TSX will out penetrate the 200 grain Accubond. Does this sound right? or is my thinking flawed?

I have never regarded sectional density as important in .30 caliber and up.

If you have a 270 or 7 X 57 and want to go moose hunting, then sectional density can become a factor in bullet selection. 30-06 and up it makes little difference.

High energy caliber's as a 300 mag. or 338 is most always a complete pass through on a broadside shot.

The TTSX 160 is most always going to blow completely through the boiler room and so is the 200 gr. Accubond close range.

quote:

Originally posted by MileHighShooter:
Now why is it people will sing the high praises day and night on and on and on about how the 7mm and 30 cals are so great BECAUSE they have bullet weights that range from extremely light for caliber with horribly low SD to big heavy weights....yet they say this is a useless bullet? They say if you want a 160gr, step down to a 30 cal. Well if you have a 30 cal and want to shoot 150's, by that line of reasoning you should just step down to a 7mm.

Ya.

For me, its all about the frontal area now that we can shoot 100% weight retaining bullets.

A 160 gr. .338 moving at 3200 fps is going to unleash havoc on a moose' lungs and most likely blow right through.

My main concern is long range stability. I guess I will just have to buy them and do some shooting.

If the 185 MR-X does better than the 160 long range then I will shoot that. The recoil really shouldn't be much more.

Who knows, maybe after I finish dumping a pound of sand in the pistol grip, I might end up shooting the 210 TTSX. Now that would be nice and would certainly carry more accurately long range.

Corey, yes the light Barnes will work at light recoil. Don't discount cheaper standard bullets at reduced loads. I have a load with IMR 4064 and 200 grain hornady's that shoots great, at light recoil. Trajectory is fine on the 300 yard range, and it killed a buck just fine.

I have often gotten good accuracy at reduced recoil by using faster powders, whose max load is lighter than the usual powders.

I never really knocked the 160 grain bullet in a .338.
It aperently works fine.
I just seldom shoot light for caliber bullets anyway.
It, is all in your prospective.
I have a lot of rifles. If all I had were a .338 still would probably not go below about 200 grains.
I just don't see anything gained. To me the .338 win mag is best with 200 to 250 grains.
The 30s are best with bullets of 150 on up.
The 7mms 140s. in the .270 I prety much stick with 130s cause I use bigger bores for bigger animals than deer.
But shoot what you like I don't claim to have all the answers.
those groups mentioned in the reviews are outstanding for sure.
But for big game hunting, in my rifles if I get an inch at 100 thats plenty good enough.

...tj3006

I've had my 338 for over 15 years now. When I first bought it, it was my intention to use it for my "only" big game rifle. I first used it on an elk hunt with Nosler 210's, and it's performance was awesome. The only other elk I had shot before that with a center fire rifle was one with a 30-06 (I had killed one with a muzzleloader also). The difference between those 2 kills was like night and day. Needless to say I was sold on the 338.

I then tried to find a "deer" bullet that wouldn't just pencil through a small deer (our deer out here are pretty small-well whitetail anyway).

I tried the Barnes bullets, first a 175gr X bullet, which shot terrible for me, in my rifle. I even called Barnes and worked with them on seating depth and various powder suggestions, still shot like crap for me in my rifle.

Then I tried the Barnes 160gr X bullet. It actually shot very well for me, accuracy wise. I used that bullet to shoot a mule deer once. It was a standing broadside shot and I destroyed the rib cage. Luckily I didn't have to go through a shoulder because I'm sure it would have destroyed the shoulder if I had. You could literally stick your fist through the entrance hole, and out through the exit hole on the deer. If you're a meat hunter (I am) then this will NOT be your bullet.

I have several "deer" rifles now, and still use the 338 for elk and bear. I now load it with 225 Partitions.

I also have several rifles that won't shoot Barnes bullets at all. Or, they won't shoot a particular weight of Barnes bullet at all. If you're going to buy this new rifle in 338 Win just to shoot one specific bullet out of it, what are you going to do if it won't shoot that bullet accurately? Each rifle is an individual, and this would wreck your "one rifle" plans with the 338.

Just food for thought, and my 2 cents' worth of opinion that you probably didn't ask for...

quote:

Originally posted by Slowpoke Slim:

Then I tried the Barnes 160gr X bullet. It actually shot very well for me, accuracy wise. I used that bullet to shoot a mule deer once. It was a standing broadside shot and I destroyed the rib cage. Luckily I didn't have to go through a shoulder because I'm sure it would have destroyed the shoulder if I had. You could literally stick your fist through the entrance hole, and out through the exit hole on the deer. If you're a meat hunter (I am) then this will NOT be your bullet.

The solution would be to carry around 210 TTSX in rifle and shoot any deer under 300 yards with that. Then if a mulie pops up at 400 yards pop in a 160 TTSX. Nice thought on paper.

I could never figure out the recoil thing and calibers of 338wm and less. I am a little larger than average at 6'-2" and around 230lbs so recoil is harder on me from the bench (at least thats the way it was explained to me) than people who are smaller than I. I have shot countless 1000s of heavy recoiling Foster and sabot slugs, and aproaching 3000 magnum ML rounds and quite honestly the only load I ever shot that had me calling it quits after a few was 12ga 3.5" magnum 1.75oz turkey loads.

What surprised both myself and my friends was the fact their 300wm shooting 200grn bullets kicked sharper and harder than my 338wm shooting 225grn bullets. They both bought 300wm over a 338wm because they felt 300wm kicked less.

I still strongly feel with a good recoil pad and some proper instruction, anyone can learn to handel a 338wm recoil quite easly. Its just not that much IMHO. Like most things in life I feel recoil is more a battle of the mind than anything else.

Art,

I found the exact same thing with 300 win mag vs. 338 win mag. I had a buddy with a mod 70 (like mine) in 300 win mag. We compared the recoil, each shooting ours and the others rifles, and we both came away convinced that my 338 win kicked less than his 300. This was AFTER I had the BOSS cut off of mine, and both our rifles were unbraked. Both rifles were wood stocked, new (then) "pre-64 classics", they both weighed within a half pound of each other.

Sort of a trick to handling recoil is to shoot a rifle that recoils substantially more and then go back to your prime rifle.
I would offer anyone locally to shoot my 8 lb 458 win mag with my 500 gr 2200 fps loads a few shots then go back to your 338. It will feel like a pussy cat!
Works for me!