Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
one of us |
I have shot Federal Premium 160 Grain NP for years in my rifle. I am considering switching to the Barnes 140 Grain TSX. I am curious what the general opinion is on the adequacey of this bullet for elk and moose when compared to the 160 Grain NP. As always I look forward to the varying opinions and replies on topics I post. | ||
|
one of us |
My question is, why change? Have the Partitions ever let you down? I personally wouldn't shoot anything lighter than 160's out of a 7mm for elk and moose, but there's probably guys who do it..... | |||
|
one of us |
I shoot it in my 7 mag, my wife shoots it in her 280 (or the XLC). We keep shooting through elk, and they inevitably end up in the freezer shortly thereafter. The reason I use it instead of, say the Partition, is simply that it creates much less bloodshot meat. The 140 TSX is fully the equal, if not the superior of the 160 partition, as far as penetration. It doesn't hurt the external ballistics are a little bit better, too. JMO, Dutch. Life's too short to hunt with an ugly dog. | |||
|
one of us |
I don't know how they perform on Elk or Moose but the 140 grain TSX is great on deer/antelope sixed game. It does have a high SD for it's weight and Barnes bullets usually don't have a problem breaking bone. It's the only bullet that I found with acceptable accuracy (3 shots @ MOA) in my 7 Mag. Frank "I don't know what there is about buffalo that frightens me so.....He looks like he hates you personally. He looks like you owe him money." - Robert Ruark, Horn of the Hunter, 1953 NRA Life, SAF Life, CRPA Life, DRSS lite | |||
|
one of us |
Your choices for TSX in 7mm for elk size game, IMO, are the 150 boat tail TSX, and 160 FB TSX. The 140 obviously works but it would not be my first weight choice. For me, it would be the 150 boat tail or is it the 160? I keep going back and forth. These bullets are exceptionally accurate. In terms of penetration, John Burns tested these (150's) at 700 yards into wet paper and they still penetrated 30". I cannot comment on how elk react to energy, but from all the posts I've read in the past, they do not seem to be very reactive to energy alone. So, with that, I do not see bullet weight as great a factor, so long as it is still in the midweight range. (ie. I wouldn't shoot a 120 TSX in 7 mag at an elk as a first choice). What I like about the TSX is that they are long per caliber, having no lead core. And there penetrating design is undeniable. I did draw a mulie tag for CO this year and I've been contemplating purchasing an elk tag OTC. I've been so curious about bullet performance from my 7mm Rem Mag, that I've decided on the TSX (obviously), but have not commited 100% to the 150 but it's looking that way. Decisions, decisions. Tell you what, you load one, I'll load the other (150, 160), and we can report back late this fall. I'll be in CO from Oct 21-31. Over the last several years, I've always seen elk within rifle range, so if we hit the same areas, I believe my chances are fair to good at getting a legal bull within 350 yards. 140 will work, but I'd think it over. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
one of us |
Doc, I've shot 130 gr. GS customs through elk. Makes a nice size hole, all the way through. If you let the air out, they will fall. JMO, Dutch. Life's too short to hunt with an ugly dog. | |||
|
one of us |
I'm headed to Colo. for cow elk.what powders are you shooting w/ the 140 & 150 TSX | |||
|
one of us |
That is the exact statement that bear guide said to me about shooting big black bears in camp with a 22LR. No question, you deflate the lungs, you kill the animal. But with my limited experience on elk, I do not know how far they can run after a good hit. My friend in Tucson, Ralph, has advised me that his hunters (he is a guide), dump big bull elk every single year with a 130 bullet from a 270. And there are some real toads in unit 10 in AZ. I look at it like this: I have a comfort zone. And if I'm more comfortable with a bigger bullet per caliber then that is what I'll take. If I had 20 bull elk under my belt, or if I lived where elk hunting is plentiful, I'd be less cautious and more experimental with "marginal calibers and bullets" according to the norm. No different than my whitetail bowhunting. I really want to take a buck with a recurve, but I have this inherent fear that THE SLUNGER will come by at 25 yards and I will be with a recurve in hand, regardless of my practice, and I'd miss or not even take the shot. I would probably slam myself for it for years. I'm just not in that "zone" yet. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
one of us |
Are you asking me? If so, I have had remarkable success with all of the following in the 150: IMR 4350 H1000 Retumbo Re22 and Re25 What I can say, is there seems to be a perfect powder in the 7mm Rem mag: it is H1000. Just like the 270 is to 4831. However, I have noticed a handsome increase in velocity with both Retumbo and Re25 without any loss in eyebrow raising accuracy out to 250 yards. H1000 has traditionally been my go to powder for the 7remmag, but now Retumbo has claimed an equal number of impressive groups at the range that it may move in to the 1000's place on my bench. FWIW, I personally have never had a "bad" group with IMR4350 in any 7mag load I've tried, and it seems to outperform the 4831 with the 160 and smaller slugs in terms of velocity IN MY RIFLE. An acceptable hunting group to me is 5"-6" at 350 yards using a variety of hunting positions if I'm not in the mood to fine tune. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
one of us |
I have witnessed several elk and moose killed with the 140grx bullet out of a 7mmremmag.They penetrate better than the 175gr partition in my opinion and are a fine choice for elk or moose.Bullet construction means far more than bullet weight. | |||
|
one of us |
Got to agree on 4350. Using 140 TSX out of my Encore. .33" groups average, have not needed a second shot. I really like the TSX. Wish I had taken a picture of the coyote that happened up on me while in my deer stand last year, little over 100 yrds., front on, right through the bottom lip, man what a mess! Hunt my own place so I can pick and choose my shots, take a lot of does to keep the herd in check, so I always take full broadside shots on them, jerks the world right out from underneath them. Two bucks last year, one angled through from just back of the left shoulder, was like hitting him with a bull dozer. Have not been lucky enough to try them on elk, but the way they whistle through some pretty good bodied deer, I would not be afraid to try. "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." Mark Twain | |||
|
one of us |
There you have it. Another witness to the capable 140. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
One of Us |
I took my .300 Win Mag with 180 grain TSX's to RSA last month and was extremely impressed with their performance. I took 5 animals all of which were one shot kills ranging from 80 yards to 200 yards. I was able to recover the bullet from my blue wildebeest, which retained 98% of its original weight with a perfect mushroom. I hit the animal quartering towards me in the left front shoulder and the bullet went diagonally through him stopping between it's skin and right rear thigh muscle. Oh, and they are extremely accurate out of my rifle. "Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars." | |||
|
one of us |
Doc and Wor'dman. I have been using Retumbo with 160 & 175 gr.and have used H1000 w/ 154gr in the past with great results. I just like to get others opines on what they are using.Thanks | |||
|
one of us |
The 140 TSX will penetrate as deeply as the 160 Partition (or more). If this penetration is adequate, you gain NOTHING by going up in weight with an X bullet, and you will lose trajectory. An X bullet by design will open up the same wound channel, when in the same caliber, whether it weighs 120 grains or 175 grains, because the nose configuration does the same thing every time -- opens in an X. The lighter bullets may actually be better as the added velocity often increases the size of the wound channel. In a Partition this is a completely different story, as the heavier the bullet, the more weight there is in the nose portion to "blow off" causing more trauma, and the greater likelihood of retaining a larger mushroom up to the very end of the bullet path. This is why many experienced hunters like the heavy for caliber Noslers. In most cases a heavy for caliber Nosler will produce a greater wound channel than an X bullet. | |||
|
one of us |
So Thunderstick based on your reply to my post am I to assume you feel the parition is the better choice of bullets for elk and moose? If so, are you of the opinion that the TSX in either 120 or 140 grain is insufficient? You appear to have valuable experience with both so I am curious. I want to shoot the lightest and flattest bullet that WILL get the job done. It is off little benefit to shoot the lighter and flatter bullet if it is inadequate. | |||
|
one of us |
BHW, if you want the lightest and flattest adequate bullet, then I retract my original post and advise you go with a 140 TSX. I spoke with my friend in Tucson last night. If a 140 TSX from a 270 Win will blow through a big bull elk in AZ at just over 200 yards, then I believe the same bullet wt from a 7mag will do the same, even out to 300+. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
one of us |
My own experiences have indicated that the partition wound channel is very large at first as the front core expands.It then tapers off to a narrow channel since the remaining bullet has a small diameter.The wound channel for the x bullet never gets as large as that of the partition,but it seems to maintain it's size for a longer distance.Both work well and either does a fine job,but the x bullet will do the job with a lighter bullet. | |||
|
One of Us |
| |||
|
one of us |
Doc, I have no arguments with the desire to "drop right there", especially if you are 50 yards from the edge of Hernia Gulch. That's usually the case where I chase elk, and it is why I often carry either the 358 or the 35Whelen (with 200 Gr. GS customs). Thing is, based on the Swedish Moose study, and the Carolina deer study, there just is NO correlation betwixt chambering and how far the critter runs. None. Nada. If you break the running gear or hit the nervous system, you stop them. If you hit the lungs, they run. If you want a D.R.T. then put a good bullet where you have to. On my wife's cow last year, the 140XLC took out both front legs, and went through the rib cage. She STILL went 100 yards downhill (yes, they ARE tough buggers....). The "bigger bullet" makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, too, but there is no basis in fact for it. JMO, Dutch. Life's too short to hunt with an ugly dog. | |||
|
one of us |
yea I read that Carolina study. It is full of flaws. I'm not familiar with the Moose study. I've simply migrated my aim point from tight behind the shoulder on a broadside to the forward top point, and where the top third and middle third of the animal join. Quartering shots are of course, still lung shots. My brother made a heck of a mess with a small Alabama doe about 10 years ago. He went to south Alabama where he could take 2 or 3 does and one buck per day. He was there for 3 days. He popped a doe at about 150 yards with his 270 and a 140 Btip. She dropped on the spot but a huge chunk of her lung tissue came out the exit hole and was still connected to her body cavity. Funny thing was, within 15 more minutes he had 2 more deer on the gound. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
one of us |
I agree. Equal or better penetration, flatter shooting and better accuracy than the 160 gr. Nosler Partition equals a superior bullet. That is why I switched from Partitions after using nothing but Partitions for over 40 years. Lawdog | |||
|
one of us |
Doc, I don't have a link to it, but the long and the short of it was that the "distance after the shot" was essentially the same for cartridges ranging from the 6.5x55 through the 375 H&H. Of course these studies have flaws in them! They do not control variables as wide ranging as shot placement, bullet construction, SD, phase of the moon, size of the animal.... In the end though, if you include enough observations, those variables randomize. In other words, including those variables would make the model predict the distance traveled far better. It would not improve the "explanative power" of the chambering much, however. Anyway they're the only numbers we got.... JMO, Dutch. Life's too short to hunt with an ugly dog. | |||
|
one of us |
My own experiences with different cartridges has led me to believe that a rapidly expanding bullet driven at high velocity does produce quicker kills than a controlled expansion bullet or a bullet driven at lower velocities.More damage is done to the carcass and the kills do seem to be quicker as a result.My quickest kills on deer have been with 140gr ballistic tips launched out of my 7mmstw's at 3500fps.Not one deer covered 50 yards and most dropped on the spot or within a few yards.Yet when using partitions,the deer did seem to run a bit after being shot.They also seemed to run a fair distance after being shot with my partners 30-06.Both of us use primarily lung shots on all game. | |||
|
one of us |
Sounds like a guy I know in SD. That same setup, 7STW, 140 Btip, over IMR7828. He uses that combo for everything, even bears over bait. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
one of us |
The penetration quality of the Barnes is really something. I remember reading a article by a gunwriter a few yrs. ago where he took a X bullet of 75 gr. in a .243 win and shot thru a Mule deer doe end for end! I myself just got a box of 140 gr to try in my 7mm Rem mag and wo'nt hesitate to shoot up to Moose with it. Previously I have been using Partitions but am always open to new ideas. As for anchoring an animal where it stands... thats always been a no brainer for me... if it must drop in its tracks I shoot for the neck and take out the spine... done deal simple as that! | |||
|
one of us |
Are those standard X bullets you ordered or the new TSX? Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
one of us |
Doc Yeah... they are the TSX version. | |||
|
one of us |
The simple summary of what I am saying based both upon field observations and bullet testing with the Barnes and Noslers are: 1. a lighter X-bullet will almost always penetrate as deeply as a significantly heavier Nosler, but the wound channel from a heavier Nosler will usually be larger than an X bullet. 2. if you have sufficient penetration from a 160 Nosler, then a 140 TSX will be OK, since it will equal or better the Nosler in most circumstances, however the Nosler may produce a larger wound channel, depending somewhat on the game and the anatomy that is hit, I do not see a significant advantage of the one over the other, as each has their advantages in some areas. I think either bullet will do the job. In the TSX I would prefer the 140 over the 120, but doubt that anything heavier than 140 in TSX would offer any significant advantage, as penetration will be sufficient and wound channels will not get any larger with a heavier X bullet. | |||
|
one of us |
I almost wonder if in the next 5 years or so the TSX will take the place of the standard X bullet. I'd guess that with the XLC and TSX, there's really no need for the X anymore, but that is just my opinion. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns | |||
|
one of us |
My opinion too. Barnes is already dropping a number of bullet weights in the older X version in favor of the same weight in the newer TSX. Also better penetration, better accuracy, flatter shooting due to being able to use a lighter weight bullet equals better performance. This is why I switched after using nothing but Nosler Partitions for over 40 years. Lawdog | |||
|
one of us |
The 140 grain barnes triple shock will retain more weight and energy than either the 160 grain or 175 grain nosler partition . Like stubble said, bullet construction means more than bullet weight. The new triple shock is an amazing bullet. Great BC, excellent weight retention(99%), sub moa accuracy( 3 of my rifles) = great hunting bullet. Nuff said | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia