Chuck 375, I had a TTSX last year that "failed" on an elk. It was a 150 TTSX, 308 Win, 1-12" twist, MV 2,880, range 170 yards. Bullet didn't open, but rather the tip bent/pinched closed at impact and tumbled, being found on the offside facing backwards.



I know the TTSX was supposed to overcome similar failings sometimes seen in the TSX, but my "sample of one" was a miserable failure.

IMO, the "expanding monolithic" idea of the TSX, e-tip, etc., is good in theory, but I also believe they're more prone to failure than other simple cup and core, premium and non-premium bullets. The reason is likely that they're relying on a small air pocket/hollow point to initiate expansion.

if you shoot varmints enough with hollow points you'll see the same issues.

I believe the expanding solids are here to stay and will likely be perfected over time, but I don't think we're there yet.

My .02

I assume that TTSX was recovered from a dead Elk?

Thank you for the pictures and data. Using your data we can assume that impact was around 2500fps. There shouldn't be any problem opening up and in fact your picture suggests that it started to open up, but in a very unorthodox way. This leads to some helpful follow up observations and questions.

for example, your bullet, 150 grain TTSX, 1.3", in 308 1 in 12" twist only has a miller-gyro-stability factor of 1.29. (See http://www.jbmballistics.com/ under calculations, then, stability.) 1.29 is only marginally stable. If your bullet hit anything, from a leaf to a piece of grass, it may have impacted your animal somewhat 'keyholed', perhaps like an end over end football. The plastic tip apparently blew out sideways, ripping one petal open which would corroborate this 'reading' of the data, however the instability started. (I had a Nosler partition do that once in the 80s, not only losing its front end but with half its back end hanging out like a tuckered out dog. NP are great bullets, but if they tumble, all bets are off. And it did drop the Uganda cob.)

The mono-metal bullets are playing by different rules. Accuracy, for instance, is often best 0.05-0.8" off the lands. they seem to prefer a 'running start'. And for stability, one needs to use a bullet 1 or 2 notches lighter in any one calibre. If I had a 308 in 1 to 12" twist I would use the 130 grain TTSX with its shorter 1.15" length and 1.60 stability factor. Plus one would get 2950-3000 fps for better trajectory. That would give me more confidence and the bullet would still probably exit from an elk. Do the math, If a 150 grain lead+core bullet retained 70% of its weight, then it is only penetrating with 105 grains. And a 50% or 30% retention would be that much less. A 130grain TTSX is going to have 105 grains IF it blows off its petals, and close to 130 in other scenarios not to mention higher velocity (=more momentum in this case), producing penetration that would be more than the 150 grainers. [By the way, relating to an earlier comment, a mono-metal losing its petals cannot be compared to a lead bullet that blows up and stops on a shoulder. The mono-metal without petals will continue to penetrate through a shoulder and into the vitals.]

I'm currently using a 225 TTSX in 338WM, but happily with a 1.97 stability factor in a 1by10" twist. I was concerned and did some checking before purchase because a 'plains-gun' can come up against some interesting situations and should have a little something up its sleeve when push comes to shove.

In my 416 I deliberately chose a 350 TSX rather than a 400 in order to benefit from increased stability. These are real issues that don't get enough discussion when comparing lead-core bullets. Of course, if my bullet hits a twig and tumbles into a buffalo, then it tumbles. and might produce a keyholed wound channel. I would prefer maintaining control of the bullet path, but would also expect a keyholing TSX to wreck fatal damage. And hitting (or avoiding) something on the way to the target is the responsibility of the shooter, not the bullet. But it happens in hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
Thank you for the pictures and data. Using your data we can assume that impact was around 2500fps. There shouldn't be any problem opening up and in fact your picture suggests that it started to open up, but in a very unorthodox way. This leads to some helpful follow up observations and questions.

for example, your bullet, 150 grain TTSX, 1.3", in 308 1 in 12" twist only has a miller-gyro-stability factor of 1.29. (See http://www.jbmballistics.com/ under calculations, then, stability.) 1.29 is only marginally stable. If your bullet hit anything, from a leaf to a piece of grass, it may have impacted your animal somewhat 'keyholed', perhaps like an end over end football. The plastic tip apparently blew out sideways, ripping one petal open which would corroborate this 'reading' of the data, however the instability started. (I had a Nosler partition do that once in the 80s, not only losing its front end but with half its back end hanging out like a tuckered out dog. NP are great bullets, but if they tumble, all bets are off. And it did drop the Uganda cob.)

The mono-metal bullets are playing by different rules. Accuracy, for instance, is often best 0.05-0.8" off the lands. they seem to prefer a 'running start'. And for stability, one needs to use a bullet 1 or 2 notches lighter in any one calibre. If I had a 308 in 1 to 12" twist I would use the 130 grain TTSX with its shorter 1.15" length and 1.60 stability factor. Plus one would get 2950-3000 fps for better trajectory. That would give me more confidence and the bullet would still probably exit from an elk. Do the math, If a 150 grain lead+core bullet retained 70% of its weight, then it is only penetrating with 105 grains. And a 50% or 30% retention would be that much less. A 130grain TTSX is going to have 105 grains IF it blows off its petals, and close to 130 in other scenarios not to mention higher velocity (=more momentum in this case), producing penetration that would be more than the 150 grainers. [By the way, relating to an earlier comment, a mono-metal losing its petals cannot be compared to a lead bullet that blows up and stops on a shoulder. The mono-metal without petals will continue to penetrate through a shoulder and into the vitals.]

I'm currently using a 225 TTSX in 338WM, but happily with a 1.97 stability factor in a 1by10" twist. I was concerned and did some checking before purchase because a 'plains-gun' can come up against some interesting situations and should have a little something up its sleeve when push comes to shove.

In my 416 I deliberately chose a 350 TSX rather than a 400 in order to benefit from increased stability. These are real issues that don't get enough discussion when comparing lead-core bullets. Of course, if my bullet hits a twig and tumbles into a buffalo, then it tumbles. and might produce a keyholed would channel. I would prefer maintaining control of the bullet path, but would also expect a keyholing TSX to wreck fatal damage. And hitting (or avoiding) something on the way to the target is the responsibility of the shooter, not the bullet. But it happens in hunting.

spot on....

Sorry fellas, armchair theorizing and ballistic minutia/gack aside, I actually tested the 150 TTSX all fall, shooting out to 525 yards. There was never any evidence of instability or key-holing and I had exceptional accuracy all the way out to 525 yds.

Of course, the 150 TTSX is about the same length as most 165/68's and the 1-12" twist is optimal for that length bullet, so of course it worked well in a good barrel.

To add to Mike Dettorre's list of things learned on AR:

.11) A TSX that failed didn't actually fail.

Brad,

I am honored...LoL

Mike, it seemed like such an obvious fit to such an excellent list!

Brad, your picture is good and welcomed data, but data needs interpretation. I'm not sure that your answer (I tested to 525 yards) addressed the issues.

Here is a sightin picture from last month:

That was my first picture upload, hope it works.
The sideways hole was the very first 416 shot across a field that had some grass and branches trampled down on the way to the target.
Needless to say I was surprised. But I also knew that my 416 load was stable and I did not immediately conclude that something was wrong with my load. I carefully retrampled the path to the target and shot a full group. That is the three shots that show up about 1" right and 2" high from the orange center flanked by thin masking tape. The group was usuable for reference. From there I 'click' the scope left for 1" and I'm ready for buffalo. (Yes, I pound the butt on the ground a couple of times to similuate recoil and then reshoot to make sure that everything is 'just right'. The four other little holes in the picture were two, two-round sight-ins of my 338. The first was low for hunting so I clicked up four times and re-shot two rounds. The scope was tracking nice and only needed 1/2" left.

But back to our TTSX questions. Data often has more than one interpretation, more than 'black' or 'white'.
How does one explain the bent shape of your bullet?
How do you explain that it ended up 'bass ackwards'?
And physics is physics. The reason that people do stability testing is not only about whether whether a bullet will fly through air but about whether it will restabilize with minor pertubations. A stability factor of 1.29 is marvelously stable in air all the way out to where it approaches the sound barrier, surely well beyond your 525 yards. But it is less stable if it hits a leaf, some grass or some pine needles. A 1.6 stability factor will recover more often in these conditions. A 2.0 will recover even easier. 3.0 even more. (Yes, some bullets have 3.0.)
When investigating the scene of a crime, one does not jump to an answer or even a first answer but looks for something that will pull all of the clues together, and even then may still end up with more than one viable theory.
Since we assume that your shot was not a hangfire load and that your bullet arrived at 2500fps, (unverified but probable, given its arrival on target), we must say that it is not likely to have opened up one petal and crushed the others if it arrived perpendicular and stable. 2500fps is quite sufficient to pop open a cavity. By your words this was a Tipped TSX, guaranteeing an open copper nose and not a TSX with a potential contamination of copper in the nose (one thing mentioned in this thread).
Just like my 416 pictured above, one must ask if it was possible that the bullet struck something on the way to the impact and if it perhaps impacted at about 0-45 degrees (from flat to 1/2 toward perpendicular)? That could explain the clear opening of one petal, but no others. We need to explain that one petal. It could also explain the obvious bend in the bullet. That bend was caused by a lot of inertia, copper doesn't self-form that way in air. Of course, the bend could be explained by impacting a bone. I don't believe your data answered that, though you may remember.
Some articles on testing of solids have shown that a lot of roundnose solids were flying crooked inside target media. Current manufacturers are shifting to flatnose solids because they tend to penetrate straight. But both are capable of tumbling in the right (=wrong) conditions.

To some up with three one-liner questions:
1. How do we know that your bullet didn't tumble?
(Actually, we know that it did, ending up butt first. If we call them as we see them, then this is an example of a tumble.)

2. How do we know that the tumbling only started inside the animal?
(a picture of a clean entry hole would have helped. my picture of the 416, [a much more massive and stable [[2.11 s.f.]] bullet than the 150gr 30 cal] shows what could potentially impact an animal from something 'invisible' to the shooter)

3. How can a potentially tumbling bullet be evidence of what a bullet does on normal impact?

I am very grateful for your picture and as much data as you have provided, because it helps us reconstruct what is going on with our bullets. And hunting has enough uncontrollables that we can try to find something that will work outside of normal. These are important questions because I might have to face a lion with my load or you might have to face a grizzly. Consequently, I value guaranteed, straight,deep penetration quite highly. But I also value expansion, so I don't normally use flatnose solids for first shots. So far, the TTSX appears the best compromise, including your evidence, though I would also feel reasonably safe shooting Swift A-frames and Nosler partitions. And sometimes the cup+lead bullets penertrate nicely, though on average, not as much. And with lions and buffalo around I don't trust 'on average, not as much'. My hunting is unguided, without a big backup unless someone is holding my 416 nearby.
PS: since I put myself out out in the thick where 'anything can happen', views like mine are more than 'armchair theorizing'.

Posted on 24 hour Campfire

quote:

JJHACK
Campfire Guide

Registered: 01/30/01
Posts: 4720
Loc: Touchet Wa. & Ellisras South ... I've seen a number of 270's recovered from larger African antelopes at great distance. I've posted dozens of the photo's on this site over the years.

This bullet is identical to the 270 grain bullets we have removed from Eland, black wildebeest and Zebra shot at 350-400 yards or further in the Draknesburg mountains.

Based on my experience with the visual look of the TSX's and the velocities this one looks like a very slow impact speed. From the look the bullet it still has near 100% weight retention, nothing missing, or broken off. This point is critical>>>>>> the light weight bullet is designed to shoot from a 375HH at well over 3000fps even if your going 2400fps this is a hard bullet for much faster intended impacts.

I hated the "X" bullets for many years. However any bullet made can struggle when shot into enough game under a zillion different conditions. The TSX has proven to be the most consistent performer under all conditions, at all the game, with any weather, and any distance.

Sure you can have a odd one now and then. .... But what brand has no history of unusual issues? .......Which brand has less "failure" then the TSX?

When you think about failure, you have to think about what failure would you prefer? Do you prefer disintegration? Jacket core separation? unacceptable accuracy? wild flyers at random? Lack of penetration? Lack of frequent exits?

With the TSX either your rifle shoots them or it doesn't . When it does it's quite likely the most accurate bullet that rifle will shoot. Tinkering with the depth and other loading will more then likely solve the problems. Regardless it will be off the table as a problem when you hunt. They either shoot flawless, or like crap. But it's gonna be consistent.

As far as failures go........ if there is a TSX failure it will fail to a solid. That means if your aim was true the bullet still drives straight through the point you aimed at. It does not crumple, disintegrate, or shed a jacket. It does not over expand and fall short of your penetration needs. It will drive straight path and bore a hole exactly at what you aimed at. Very likely exiting the opposite side if in fact it failed to open. Compare this to other types of failures and the lethal performance that they may default to.

Then consider how many serious hunters are now using the TSX VS all other premium hunting bullets.The resolution and the so called failures will be more frequent with the bullets used in greater numbers. However by percentage they might only be a fraction of the others used. I can use any bullets made. And I can suggest any bullet to the hunters I want to. Since about 2006 I have seen at least 1000 big game animals shot with premium bullets, The majority being the TSX. I've yet to see any reason to change my preference after all this time!
_________________________
South Africa hunting and park tours
www.huntingadventures.net

jjhack@huntingadventures.net

The best things in life are not "things"



Top

Thank you JWP475, that was very helpful, 1000 animals is more experience than I have in a lifetime. I still need to chose what to load for this year so data and anecdote will both help. (I get one shot at it, them I'm stuck until in a country that lets one reload.)

One point I would add for clarification: Brad's picture showed a bullet that would have impacted at 2500fps! This is not a slow bullet, unless it was some kind of 'hangfire'. So other explanations need to explain the single petal and the bent torso.

Gerrad from GS Custom has pted numerous times that a mono metal bullet that is marginaly stabilized when impacting an animal at an angle may bend the tip over and that will inhibit expansion

I've read his website with recommendations for stability factors of 1.6 for general hunting and 2.0 for dangerous game.

Does a stability factor of 2.0 stabilize a bullet making an angled shot?

Maybe one should go for 3.0?
This would have quite an influence on bullet choice for shooting a buffalo on the near shoulder leg/angled toward shooter, not to mention the quartering away shot.

The stability factors that GS Custom shows are plenty

quote:

Originally posted by phurley5:
The next day cutting up the Bull for transport down the mountain, we found two blue petals of the bullets at each exit hole. My hunting buddy said, WOW the bullet failed, the petals came off. My son and I were of the opinion that the bullets did their job perfectly, ripping and spinning hot projectiles going through the animal making a huge wound channel then still having enough force to make an exit hole and provide more bleeding.

Someone here said they were disappointed in the petals missing on the middle bullet, to me that is not evidence of bullet failure, but good performance. Think of the damage done by the hot spinning bullet before the petals were ripped off the bullet.

Agreed.

The expansion of the petals can also be deceiving. When you look at the picture Bobby posted beside the Accubond mushroomed the TTSX doesn't look as impressive.

However, when you look at the same bullets directly from above facing the tops you can see the TTSX has nearly the same expansion diameter.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
for example, your bullet, 150 grain TTSX, 1.3", in 308 1 in 12" twist only has a miller-gyro-stability factor of 1.29. (See http://www.jbmballistics.com/ under calculations, then, stability.) 1.29 is only marginally stable.

And for stability, one needs to use a bullet 1 or 2 notches lighter in any one calibre. If I had a 308 in 1 to 12" twist I would use the 130 grain TTSX with its shorter 1.15" length and 1.60 stability factor. [By the way, relating to an earlier comment, a mono-metal losing its petals cannot be compared to a lead bullet that blows up and stops on a shoulder. The mono-metal without petals will continue to penetrate through a shoulder and into the vitals.]

In my 416 I deliberately chose a 350 TSX rather than a 400 in order to benefit from increased stability. These are real issues that don't get enough discussion when comparing lead-core bullets.

+1

308 Winchester 1 in 12" is not the best twist for Barnes TTSX.

I would go 1 in 10" with any custom built gun and even 1 in 9" if wanting to shoot 180/.308 caliber.

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
for example, your bullet, 150 grain TTSX, 1.3", in 308 1 in 12" twist only has a miller-gyro-stability factor of 1.29. (See http://www.jbmballistics.com/ under calculations, then, stability.) 1.29 is only marginally stable.

And for stability, one needs to use a bullet 1 or 2 notches lighter in any one calibre. If I had a 308 in 1 to 12" twist I would use the 130 grain TTSX with its shorter 1.15" length and 1.60 stability factor. [By the way, relating to an earlier comment, a mono-metal losing its petals cannot be compared to a lead bullet that blows up and stops on a shoulder. The mono-metal without petals will continue to penetrate through a shoulder and into the vitals.]

In my 416 I deliberately chose a 350 TSX rather than a 400 in order to benefit from increased stability. These are real issues that don't get enough discussion when comparing lead-core bullets.

+1

308 Winchester 1 in 12" is not the best twist for Barnes TTSX.

I would go 1 in 10" with any custom built gun and even 1 in 9" if wanting to shoot 180/.308 caliber.

The TSX will work well in a 12 twist 308 as long as don't use a heavy bullet stay with the 150's

Those are the two recovered 225g Barnes TSX bullets I dug out of this stuff

(decaying rock turning into dirt and gravel) which is located behind the target frame where I was sighting in the scope I just replaced. They were two of my first three sighters to adjust my scope from bore sighting it. I could not locate the third.

They were fired from a Model 70 338WinMag (69g of AA3110) at a distance of 50yards to the target and then approximately 5 yards to the gravel. I am not sure of the velocity as I never chrono’d these loads, I was looking for accuracy. Since most of my shots are well within 250yards where I hunt, it is a moot point.

Both of these penetrated about 14” into the packed gravel past the target frame. The more fragmented bullet hit a rock the size of a grapefruit (about 12” below the surface) and then traveled about 18” more through the gravel and was laying on the ground about 20” to the right of where it exited the mound.

The longer (top) bullet measures between .525” and .610” in diameter. It weighs approx. 220g. The more mushroomed bullet (bottom) measures between .520” and .635” diameter (the “petal” fragment was lying beside the second bullet!) and weighs 188g (with the fragment added).
I did not worry about getting the “exact” measurements on weight, as there was gravel inbedded in them both.

Several years ago when I was doing load development for this gun, I fired many different bullet brands and weights including Sierra and Hornady 250g bullets into a clay embankment past targets at 100 yards. It was an additional 50 or so yards to the dirt beyond the target frames.

I recovered several cup and core and bonded core bullets from this clay (I can’t find them and may have pitched them into my lead recycle) and ALL of them had substantially more fragmentation than either of these. And although I never weighed them, I am positive none of them (100 or so bullets fired, found 20 or 25) did not retain more than 190g of their weight and some a lot less…
I also have some TSX bullets that I recovered from the load developement. I will see if I can find them.
Also the TSX bullets were as accurate or more accurate than ALL the other bullets I tested.

flippy wrote:

quote:

I recovered several cup and core and bonded core bullets from this clay (I can’t find them and may have pitched them into my lead recycle) and ALL of them had substantially more fragmentation than either of these. And although I never weighed them, I am positive none of them (100 or so bullets fired, found 20 or 25) did not retain more than 190g of their weight and some a lot less…

While it is certainly interesting to compare bullets fired into such a medium, for those reading this, keep in mind that a clay embankment -- particularly one with rocks sprinkled liberally about -- gives absolutely no indication of how a bullet will perform on game.

In fact, a dirt or sand embankment will often cause the nose of some sub-.30 caliber TSXs to plug and behave as a fully-jacketed projectile.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Maybe this elk was not really an elk...may be it was a blue wildebeest because we know hide, muscle, bone, and organs are much tougher in Africa than in North America.

Is this number 11?

quote:

Originally posted by Bobby Tomek:
flippy wrote:

quote:

I recovered several cup and core and bonded core bullets from this clay (I can’t find them and may have pitched them into my lead recycle) and ALL of them had substantially more fragmentation than either of these. And although I never weighed them, I am positive none of them (100 or so bullets fired, found 20 or 25) did not retain more than 190g of their weight and some a lot less…

While it is certainly interesting to compare bullets fired into such a medium, for those reading this, keep in mind that a clay embankment -- particularly one with rocks sprinkled liberally about -- gives absolutely no indication of how a bullet will perform on game.
In fact, a dirt or sand embankment will often cause the nose of some sub-.30 caliber TSXs to plug and behave as a fully-jacketed projectile.

Bobby, I hope I did not imply that I came to that conclusion. This was just a "grins and giggles" report, and also to show what these bullets will do when they hit something really tough. I feel gravel is pretty tough.

quote:

JJHACK
Campfire Guide
Registered: 01/30/01
Posts: 4720
As far as failures go........ if there is a TSX failure it will fail to a solid. That means if your aim was true the bullet still drives straight through the point you aimed at. It does not crumple, disintegrate, or shed a jacket. It does not over expand and fall short of your penetration needs. It will drive straight path and bore a hole exactly at what you aimed at. Very likely exiting the opposite side if in fact it failed to open. Compare this to other types of failures and the lethal performance that they may default to.

Not to disparage your excellent data, but I too have fired lots of different types of bullets into wet newsprint medium (at different ranges) to see what they would do and have had all kinds of weird things happen. Including “bent” bullets (much like the TTSX at the top of this page), mushroomed FMJ’s and penciled hollow points. I never trusted wet newsprint after that for determining the field behavior of fired projectiles and use water for expansion data now. Even water can in no way replicate actual field experience because water ain’t muscle and bone!

quote:

Originally posted by 30378:
I've shot quite a few elk with partitions. They may lose the lead part of the front end which is quite soft but I have never seen a partition shed its petals thus allowing a bigger wound channel. I am also wondering why the middle one in losing the petals did not blow on through? The one on the right looks great but of those 3 bullets, I would prefer more consistency in expansion.

Maybe the TSX hit something that RIPPED the petals off? Bone, ???

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by ar corey:

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
for example, your bullet, 150 grain TTSX, 1.3", in 308 1 in 12" twist only has a miller-gyro-stability factor of 1.29. (See http://www.jbmballistics.com/ under calculations, then, stability.) 1.29 is only marginally stable.

And for stability, one needs to use a bullet 1 or 2 notches lighter in any one calibre. If I had a 308 in 1 to 12" twist I would use the 130 grain TTSX with its shorter 1.15" length and 1.60 stability factor. [By the way, relating to an earlier comment, a mono-metal losing its petals cannot be compared to a lead bullet that blows up and stops on a shoulder. The mono-metal without petals will continue to penetrate through a shoulder and into the vitals.]

In my 416 I deliberately chose a 350 TSX rather than a 400 in order to benefit from increased stability. These are real issues that don't get enough discussion when comparing lead-core bullets.

+1

308 Winchester 1 in 12" is not the best twist for Barnes TTSX.

I would go 1 in 10" with any custom built gun and even 1 in 9" if wanting to shoot 180/.308 caliber.

The TSX will work well in a 12 twist 308 as long as don't use a heavy bullet stay with the 150's

If buying a custom barrel, I would go 1 in 10"

This gives the option to shoot the 168 TTSX better.

1 in 12" limits choice to 150 in the mono-metal TTSX.

The 1 in 10" give you a 1.67 stability factor for the 168 grain TTSX bullet.

That is what you want.

The 180 TTSX would work, too, in 10" twist, giving 1.47 stabilty factor. Just make sure you have a 1 in 10" twist.