What are people's views on the 180gr tsx's compared to the partions when used in the .30/06?
I need a back-up rifle for use on an upcoming camel hunt.

Any maker's bullets can fail, and eventually will.

Partitions have been known to "fail", that is, not provide terminal performance as expected; however this is a rare event and the failure rate is far under 1%.

Monometal bullets have a higher "failure" rate. Typically, this manifests itself in a failure to expand at all, thus acting like a solid. Monometal failure rates are undocumented, but are clearly significantly higher than that of the Partition.

It is also usually easier to get good accuracy from a Partition than from a monometal.

I would quite clearly pick the Partition over the monometal, but there are obviously those who disagree (and I'm sure you'll hear from them.)

If you're set on 180 grain bullets out of the '06, I'd go with the Partition. TSX's seem to do better at higher velocity. You may want to consider dropping down to a 150 grain TSX.

quote:

Originally posted by kjjm4:
If you're set on 180 grain bullets out of the '06, I'd go with the Partition. TSX's seem to do better at higher velocity. You may want to consider dropping down to a 150 grain TSX.

I too think that the tsx are better at the higher velocities and that the partions are more likely to reliably open up at the velocities that will be achieved in a .30/06.
I prefer to stay with the heavier weight bullets so as to keep the SD up. I dont like the idea of droping below a SD of .25 on big game.

Mono metal do require impact velocities of around 2,000fps or more to effectively expand so it turns the 30-06 into about a 400 yard rifle with the 180 grain TSX and a 500 yard rifle with the 165 grain GMX.

Mono metals offer superior weight retention, expansion and penetration as long as you respect their impact velocities. With virtually 100% weight retention, shooters can easily get away with lighter for caliber bullets than they are used to. Most of the problems guys complain about with mono metals can be traced back to the original X bullet. They've come a long ways since then. You couldn't give me a Partition over a TSX or GMX.

With the excellent weight retention of the X bullet, I'd look at something a little lighter, and thus a little faster, like the 160 or 168 grain TSX or TTSX.

I would, and do, use a lighter Barnes than when I used Partitions.

With a Partition, you can lose up to 40% of the weight, taking a 180gr bullet down to 108grs.

With a 150gr Barnes, you typically retain 100% weight, so no need to go to a heavier bullet.

I pulled my hair out when developing loads for the original X bullets, very, very finicky, but they hammered game so I put up with it. That was then, this is now. The TSX (and TTSX) are some of the easiest bullets to get accuracy out of that I have ever used.

The partition has been reliably killing stuff for a long time. I may be a luddite but I believe in not fixing what ain't broke.

I'm new to the .30/06 as l've used a .308 for a long time. I've achieved excellent results with both the tsx and the np in 165gr.

For normal use l will stick with either of these in the .30/06, however given the large size of camel, l'm leaning towards using the 180gr bullets. I will be limiting my shots to 250m.

As mentioned, this will be my backup. My main gun will be a 9.3x64 (if built in time) or a 9x57 (but this will be limited to 200m)

There is a lot of history in using higher sd projectiles when te size of the game gets to the larger size. I'm keen to hear about use of either of these on elk/moose.

quote:

Originally posted by gk1:
What are people's views on the 180gr tsx's compared to the partions when used in the .30/06?
I need a back-up rifle for use on an upcoming camel hunt.

Why limit yourself to just those two? Swift A-Frames are better than either one of those, and if I was in your neck of the woods, I'd be looking at Woodleigh PP's.

Swift's are not easily available and are ultra pricey here. To be honest, no local gunshops even had the barnes/np's.

I already have the 180gr wooldleighs PP's but l don't want to go to the range with only one type of bullet. If l get good accuracy with these, l'll stick with them, but both 150 and 180gr woodleighs were relativley inaccurate in my .308 steyr.

quote:

Originally posted by gk1:
Swift's are not easily available and are ultra pricey here. To be honest, no local gunshops even had the barnes/np's.

I already have the 180gr wooldleighs PP's but l don't want to go to the range with only one type of bullet. If l get good accuracy with these, l'll stick with them, but both 150 and 180gr woodleighs were relativley inaccurate in my .308 steyr.

I think you'll find accuracy in a .30-06 with Woodleighs to be exceptional, do you have access to Northforks where you are?

I do not believe you will have failures to expand with a mono-metal when thumping a camel with a 30-06. Of the two you offered, it would be the TSX for me. My pick would be the TTSX which do open a bit easier than the TSX.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Any maker's bullets can fail, and eventually will.

Partitions have been known to "fail", that is, not provide terminal performance as expected; however this is a rare event and the failure rate is far under 1%.

Monometal bullets have a higher "failure" rate. Typically, this manifests itself in a failure to expand at all, thus acting like a solid. Monometal failure rates are undocumented, but are clearly significantly higher than that of the Partition.

It is also usually easier to get good accuracy from a Partition than from a monometal.

I would quite clearly pick the Partition over the monometal, but there are obviously those who disagree (and I'm sure you'll hear from them.)

+1... and completely from personal experience on all counts.

quote:

Originally posted by gk1:
I'm new to the .30/06 as l've used a .308 for a long time. I've achieved excellent results with both the tsx and the np in 165gr.

For normal use l will stick with either of these in the .30/06, however given the large size of camel, l'm leaning towards using the 180gr bullets. I will be limiting my shots to 250m.

As mentioned, this will be my backup. My main gun will be a 9.3x64 (if built in time) or a 9x57 (but this will be limited to 200m)

There is a lot of history in using higher sd projectiles when te size of the game gets to the larger size. I'm keen to hear about use of either of these on elk/moose.

SD is a horribly outdated formula that became totally irrelevant the day we wrapped a copper jacket around a bullet. It means even less with mono metals.

I shoot 150gr TTSX in my 3006 at 3050fps.

I would not hessitate to use this on big eland.

I have experienced 100% bullet weight retention and straight line penetration with the TTSX bullets.

I would use them on camel as well but like all hunting shot placement is the key...

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:

SD is a horribly outdated formula that became totally irrelevant the day we wrapped a copper jacket around a bullet. It means even less with mono metals.

I understand that it's a little less important with mono metal bullets as they tend to not loose as much weight, but it's still important.

SD is not a theory like Taylor's formula, it is simple physics.There are lots of examples of medium velocity high sd projectiles penetrating deeper than higher velocity low sd projectiles. Why do you think that tanks use "long rod" penetrator rounds?

The 180 gr. Barnes is gonna take up quite a bit of case capacity in the '06. I use them in the 30 Magnums, 300 WM & 300 Witherbee where they perform superbly.

In the '06 my tried & true load over a long-g-g hunting career has always been the 165 gr. Nosler Partition but I'd bump the weight up to a 180 grainer with a critter the size of a Camel.

Have fun on your hunt.

Ah, I feel just slightly qualified to comment on shooting camels!

From what I can remember A 30 168gr cal barnes TSX launched at 3000 fps will completely penetrate a broadside bull camel, break big bones on angling shots and generally shoot through pigs at any angle. No worries on that front.

There were a variety of toys at the hunting camp I was lucky enough to share but what stood out was that bullet design was more important than calibre or weight. A mate had brought a .35 Sambar along with Speer 200 grain bullets and wasn't getting full penetration whereas another mate's 7x57 loaded with 173gr bullets was punching through each time.

I think you'll be fine with either but from the 06 I personally would be looking at a barnes 168 grain or something like a 200 grain partition or accubond. Just my own preferences in the calibre.

Gerry,
Thanks for reminding me about OAL.
The rifle in question is a brno zkk 600 and from memory it's a full m98 sized mag box.
I'll measure a few things up tomorrow.
George

quote:

Originally posted by gk1:
Gerry,
Thanks for reminding me about OAL.
The rifle in question is a brno zkk 600 and from memory it's a full m98 sized mag box.
I'll measure a few things up tomorrow.
George

The length of the magazine is less often the limiting factor for overall cartridge length than the depth of the chamber leade. In other words, your bullet ogive may jam into the lands before you run out of magazine space; so ultimately, a longer bullet (made of less dense metal) will invariably take up more powder space than a shorter, denser bullet.

I can understand using lead-substitute bullet materials in places like areas of California where lead is illegal, but I'm mystified by why anyone would choose to use a significantly less-dense bullet material given the choice. It's a apparently a triumph of advertising hype over physics.

quote:

Originally posted by gk1:

quote:

Originally posted by sheephunterab:

SD is a horribly outdated formula that became totally irrelevant the day we wrapped a copper jacket around a bullet. It means even less with mono metals.

I understand that it's a little less important with mono metal bullets as they tend to not loose as much weight, but it's still important.

SD is not a theory like Taylor's formula, it is simple physics.There are lots of examples of medium velocity high sd projectiles penetrating deeper than higher velocity low sd projectiles. Why do you think that tanks use "long rod" penetrator rounds?

For comparing bullets of identical construction perhaps but otherwise, it's useless. Penetration is not an issue with mono metals or bonded bullets for that matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Stonecreek:

quote:

Originally posted by gk1:
Gerry,
Thanks for reminding me about OAL.
The rifle in question is a brno zkk 600 and from memory it's a full m98 sized mag box.
I'll measure a few things up tomorrow.
George

The length of the magazine is less often the limiting factor for overall cartridge length than the depth of the chamber leade. In other words, your bullet ogive may jam into the lands before you run out of magazine space; so ultimately, a longer bullet (made of less dense metal) will invariably take up more powder space than a shorter, denser bullet.

I can understand using lead-substitute bullet materials in places like areas of California where lead is illegal, but I'm mystified by why anyone would choose to use a significantly less-dense bullet material given the choice. It's a apparently a triumph of advertising hype over physics.

I have never had OAL issues with mono metals and I shoot them in 8 different rifles. The thing you are missing is that you can easily get away with lighter for caliber bullets because of the 100% weight retention but even with heavier bullets I've never seen a problem. I use them because they hold together through a wide range of impact velocities, expand at least 2x and penetrate like no other expanding bullet. By your comments I'm guessing you've never used them but can guarantee you'd be impressed. Physics lives up to advertising.

Swifts and Barnes are readily available in Melbourne. Try O'Reilly's (now owned by Abela's) in Thornbury. No problem to [post projectiles to SA. If you like the monos the 165 TTSX should be plenty. Camels are bigger and heavier than NA elk.

Just had a brain flash ?!
Have you considered the 200gn Woodleigh. This has a slightly smaller meplat and a slightly different ogive as it was designed for 300 mag.

I have no personal experience with it in the 06 but have been told that it will expand nicely on Sambar out of an 06 (dunno what range)

You should could get an easy 2500 plus out of it in the 06 which would shoot plenty flat enough for the ranges you mentioned.

I was in contact with Abelas on Friday and l will order tommorow. I'll probably get both in the 180gr and see how they shoot although l'm leaning towards the tsx (barring any technical issues). If my 9.3x64 is not ready l'll take the .30/06 and my 9x57 carbine which shoots 250gr at 2350f/s. I don't want to set up the .30/06 with the real heavy stuff in case l need a bit more reach.

The 200 grain accubond shoot flatter at pretty much all distances than the 180 grain Partition mate.

Have you considered the Nosler E-tip ? I have no experience with it, but the nose cavity appears a little more sophisticated in design than some others. And of course a poly tip in any monometal is an advantage.
You seem pretty set on the 180, but actual users of these things in 30 cal seem to be unanimous in recommending something lighter, even on large animals - say 165 ???

I have used the 180 and 200 gr. Noslers in my 30-06s for many years and not a single failure or complaint..I have had Barnes X bullets fail to expand on 3 ocassions over the years. I know many who swear by the Barnes X bullets and they are as good a Cape Buffalo bullet as I have seen in big bores..Maybe the new ones are better?

I don't think Sectional Density is something to totally disregard. I believe you can drop down to the next heaviest bullet weight with monolithics such as 150 gr. as opposed to 180 gr in 30 caliber etc.....I have seen folks go to far and lose penetration with monolithics, like most things moderation is the key to picking a bullet...

Simple as it sounds the best thing to do is use what works for you, with me that has been Noslers, North Forks, Woodleighs and GS Customs ( a monolithic ) and I have had good results with Swift bullets but my experience with them is somewhat limited..The Siroccos really interest me, but I have not used them as yet. I like the Swifts on real bit stuff like buffalo but I'm not sold on them for light game, thus the Siracco came about based on customer suggestions, Kudos to Swift for listening.

I would use a 505 gibbs at the least. What if the camel charges?

After Barnes "tipped" the TSX (now TTSX), there's just no better bullet out there, and in virtually every caliber I've tried, it is the most accurate hunting bullet I've ever used. Here's the bottom line though: Pick the one your rifle likes best but all things being equal, the TTSX all the way.
jorge

When I shoot TSX bullets, I usually drop down in bullet weight. I would go with a 165 grain TSX instead of the 180. That's what I shoot is my 06 and 250 grain TSXs in one of my 9,3X62. With the monometals, you can use a bit lighter bullet with a flatter trajectory and still get plenty of penetration. They just don't shed much weight.

If the Cutting Edge Bullet is availabe in your area, that would be interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by kjjm4:
If you're set on 180 grain bullets out of the '06, I'd go with the Partition. TSX's seem to do better at higher velocity. You may want to consider dropping down to a 150 grain TSX.

Pretty close to my thoughts, but I'd baybe go to whatever Barnes has around 165's. The longer bullets don't shoot as well I don't think and the higher velocities make the copper bullets perform better.