Barnes LRX TTSX, which one??

[Dalebow]

barnes X are my fav bullet, no debate ok, they are my favorite, always work for me, now they have LRX TTSX, increased BC for long range shooting, Ive got a new McWhorter 300wsm and cant decide on the 175 grain which I can push close to 3000fps or the heavier 200gr LRX TTSX which would be slower 2850 or so but little heavier bullet.
Your thoughts, slower heavier or little lighter, great BC and little faster??

 

[Edd]

It would be an easy decision for me. I'd choose the 175.

 

[Broz]

Wouldn't max distance be something to consider in a decission like this? One guy will answer thinking 300 yards. But since this is LRH I think of 1000 and might have a completely different answer.

With so many members these days you have to remember you might get some answers from guys that hunt in different terrain where 300 is a long poke. Or maybe 300 is your max distance to shoot??

And maybe even largest game you will be hunting?

JMO

Jeff

 

[Dalebow]

Elk, Deer, 500 yards max for me with this rifle and scope.

 

[Broz]

For a max of 500 yards I would shoot which ever is most accurate in your rifle. At that distance I would take accuracy over velocity as either bullet would be heavy enough when well placed.

Jeff

 

[Dalebow]

sounds good

 

[500yd]

My thoughts? MUCH lighter and phenominally faster.

As you already know, all Barnes X bullets are solid copper and don't deform, so you have near 100% weight retention and fantastic penetration for all bullet weights. Thus neither bullet weight nor sectional density play as much a role as with lead core bullets. For elk and deer to 500 yds I'd go with the lightest bullet for the flattest trajectory, even if you have a BDC scope or range finding equipment and turrets. Flatter is always better when all other criteria are met.

The Barnes 300 WSM load data shows the TTSX 130 with a MV of ~3450 FPS with a 24" tube. With a 250 yd zero this roughly equates to +/- 3 inches to 325 yds and 25 inches low at 500 yards. The TTSX 130 is devastating on both deer and elk with proper shot placement at these velocities and ranges.

It should be possible to load the TTSX 110 gr to 3700-3800 FPS in the 300 WSM for even flatter shooting. This yields a 110 gr .30 cal bullet shooting flatter than a 22-250 or 220 swift, with less than 24 inches of drop at 500 yds. This higher velocity tends to negate, or at least compensate for, the decreased mass vs the heavier (175/200) bullets travelling ~700-1000 FPS slower, from a penetration standpoint.

I'm planning to load up the 110s in my .308 Win @ 3500 FPS for Missouri whitetails. Given the penetration of these bullets at any weight I don't think I'd hesitate to use this round on elk at these ranges. Heck, people use 180 gr ballistic tips in .308, -06, and 300 WSM, and .270 140 gr BTs on Elk and even these heavier/higher SD BT bullets come apart inside the animal, decreasing penetration.

As always, the key to a good kill is shot placement. A head, neck, heart/lung, or shoulder/heart/lung shot with either the 110/130 in 300 WSM will be deadly. A faster flatter shooting round simply makes proper shot placement easier, whether you have fancy ranging equipment and scope or not. With the X bullets I don't think the heavier weight gains you much, if anything, over the lighter, much faster, flatter shooting bullets.

 

[Korhil78]

Complete Penetration with a Barnes TSX is pretty much guarranteed whether its a 130 gr TSX or a 200 gr TSX. I myself will always pick the heavier bullet IF it shoots accurately enough for my standards. If it won't shoot accurate enough then I will go down to the next heaviest bullet choice until I find one that meets my standards. I have yet to find a specific Barnes bullet that I have chosen to be inaccurate but it may happen sometime.

Since you are shooting max to 500 yards, it's not really going to matter if you have a laser beam or not. I'm just not on the "speed kills" bandwagon. Even if the 200 gr TSX is going 2800 fps it will have more energy on target at 500 yds than the 130 gr TTSX going 3500 fps and will only get there .1 secs later than the 130 gr TTSX. I myself would rather have 70 more grains of bullet going through the target.

Also a really light bullet going really fast will wear your barrel out faster than the slower, heavier bullet. Again..this is all just my opinion.

 

[500yd]

Complete Penetration with a Barnes TSX is pretty much guarranteed whether its a 130 gr TSX or a 200 gr TSX. I myself will always pick the heavier bullet IF it shoots accurately enough for my standards. If it won't shoot accurate enough then I will go down to the next heaviest bullet choice until I find one that meets my standards. I have yet to find a specific Barnes bullet that I have chosen to be inaccurate but it may happen sometime.

You contradicted yourself here. You state TSX gives complete penetration whether 130 or 200 gr. Then why do you prefer the larger bullets?

I'm just not on the "speed kills" bandwagon.

Velocity (speed) in isolation doesn't kill. Proper shot placement kills. Velocity flattens trajectory and decreases wind drift. These two things aid in shot placement, the latter more than the former. Sure, tools are available to lob a slower bullet to the same POI, but these same tools work even better with flatter trajectory.

Even if the 200 gr TSX is going 2800 fps it will have more energy on target at 500 yds than the 130 gr TTSX going 3500 fps and will only get there .1 secs later than the 130 gr TTSX. I myself would rather have 70 more grains of bullet going through the target.

I don't believe that's correct. Using the Barnes load data, with the 200 at 2700 FPS, at 500 yds the 300 WSM 130/200 TTSX max loads will both have between 1500-1600 ft-lbs/sec impact energy. Thus penetration should be **** near identical for these two rds up to 500 yds. And in fact the 110 gr @ 3800 FPS MV should be in the 1500 ft-lbs range at 500 yds as well, making it the clear winner due to trajectory and flight time, assuming it is sufficiently accurate in your tube.

Also a really light bullet going really fast will wear your barrel out faster than the slower, heavier bullet. Again..this is all just my opinion.

Friction and thus heat buildup wears a tube. Faster rounds produce more heat per unit time. The key here is unit time. This is the long range hunting forum, thus most aren't shooting lots of rounds through semi-autos in rapid succession building up heat in the barrel. The barrel has time to cool between shots. For a standard bolt gun shooting 1000 rds in its lifetime, and none or few in rapid succession causing excess heat buildup, you're not going to see significantly more POI movement after 1000 rds at 3500 FPS vs 1000 rds at 2700 FPS.

 

[500yd]

I don't believe that's correct. Using the Barnes load data, with the 200 at 2700 FPS, at 500 yds the 300 WSM 130/200 TTSX max loads will both have between 1500-1600 ft-lbs/sec impact energy. Thus penetration should be **** near identical for these two rds up to 500 yds. And in fact the 110 gr @ 3800 FPS MV should be in the 1500 ft-lbs range at 500 yds as well, making it the clear winner due to trajectory and flight time, assuming it is sufficiently accurate in your tube.

Some corrections, as I was making gross estimations above. Using the JBM calculator I came up with these rounded figures for 300 WSM Barnes TTSX using a 250yd zero:

           Muzzle    500 yd    500yd   500 yd
Bullet     Velocity  Velocity  ft-lbs  drop inches

110 gr     3800      2100      1100    26
130 gr     3500      2100      1300    28
200 gr     2700      1900      1600    40

A .30 TTSX @ 1100 ft-lbs should be plenty to take down an elk, and more than required for whitetails. So again, any of these would do the job. The lighter bullets simply get there quicker, with less optics adjustment, and something I failed to mention previously: far less kick. The lighter bullets are cheaper as well.

Given that Minnesota indians have regularly killed moose throughout the years with .22 long rifle at close range, I'd think a skilled shooter could take down a bull elk at 500 yds with something as small as a .243 Win shooting 75 gr TTSX. As always, bullet placement is the key. Without that it doesn't matter what bullet, size, or velocity.

 

[Korhil78]

I choose the larger of the two because it has more foot lbs of energy, it has a larger wound channel because the 200 gr will open up more because it has longer petals. So no, i was not contradicting myself. Also, if the bullet hits hard bone then the heavier bullet will be less likely to deviate off course.

In a situation where the wind is blowing from your 3 o'clock to your 9 o'clock at 20 mph, at 500 yards the difference between the 200 gr and 130 gr is that you have to turn 4 more clicks or 1 MOA more to the right with the 200 gr bullet. The bigger difference is the elevation adjustment but even then if you have your drops down, anyone can make quick work of the adjustments needed at 500 yards for elevation.

 

[Tikkamike]

Since you are shooting elk I would have to say the 200 LRX if it shoots well. if not I (like Korhil) would go down to the 180 etc... at 500 yards in my opinion BC has very little value. what matters is sectional density, you are shooting one of the toughest animals in north america, Ell are hard to kill if you are under gunned. If you shoot the 130 TTSX you are doing just that. It will probably not penetrate an elk at 500 yards. I have shot a lot of elk myself and seen many more killed so I would say my elk experience level is high. I have seen a lot of combinations used to kill elk. and the poorest have been light for caliber bullets and fragmenting bullets (specifically the 140-150 corelokt in a 270win) As anyone who hunts elk knows we dont always get a perfect shot opportunity in perfect conditions. so you need a little extra bullet to get you home in those instances (NOT saying you can use a bigger bullet to make up for poor marksmanship) I am saying sometimes things go horribly wrong..maybe you made a bad shot and crippled an elk who is not leaving the country and your only shot is up the tail pipe..you need enough bullet to penetrate into the vitals or break a hip bone...something! I have a couple examples, A few years ago I wanted to use my 25-06 and 100 ttsx at 3300 fps for elk. it has been done a million times. I ended up shooting an elk facing me right in the chest at 250 yards, it bloodied her up and put the hurt on her badly, she spun around and started to run off so I put another in her ribs for insurance. Assuming she was dead right there I went over found a great blood trail which proceeded to dry up. I quickly spotted her walking the trees at about 250 yards, she was full of adrenaline but too sick to run I proceeded to shoot her 6 more times in the ribs and shoulder, finally she laid down and i was able to get close enough to kill her with a 44, when skinning her I found bullets going in the ribs and no further, and just under the skin in her shoulder. shoe only one that penetrated was the one in the chest. I have never seen anything like it in my life but it was a good learning experience.. dont shoot light for caliber bullets and use an elk rifle not a varmint rifle. another time My dad shot a nice bull at 500 yards through the shoulders with his 338-378 and 225 tsx at 3300 fps, it went through the shoulders and was under the skin on the off side, that is a lot of gun pushing a decent sized yet somewhat light for caliber bullet very fast. It did the job but didnt have much juice at the end. Point being the light for caliber bullets even in Barnes really arent the best for elk. these energy numbers that make everyone feel warm and fuzzy on paper dont mean much in real world. what matters is dead elk. Go heavy

 

[500yd]

I choose the larger of the two because it has more foot lbs of energy, it has a larger wound channel because the 200 gr will open up more because it has longer petals.

This isn't correct. The extra length of the heavier bullets is behind the nose. Remember, these bullets are all being fed from the same magazinze into the same chamber, so COAL must be pretty close to the same across the board. The 200 gr won't open up much, if any, more than the 110 gr. It'll only make a bigger wound channel if it has more energy at impact. For a given bullet weight, the greater the speed and energy as it moves through the tissue medium, the greater the cavitation. Cavitation is what creates the wound channel. If the 110 and the 200 impact with the same energy (mass*velocity), the wound channel will be pretty much the same. The difference between wound channels @1100 ft-lbs and 1600 ft-lbs shouldn't be great enough to lose an animal with the same shot placement.

So no, i was not contradicting myself. Also, if the bullet hits hard bone then the heavier bullet will be less likely to deviate off course.

Not if the energy is similar at impact and if the bullet stays together, which with X bullets they will, regardless of weight. I don't think you're going to see much path change with the 110 gr going through bone compared to the 200.

In a situation where the wind is blowing from your 3 o'clock to your 9 o'clock at 20 mph, at 500 yards the difference between the 200 gr and 130 gr is that you have to turn 4 more clicks or 1 MOA more to the right with the 200 gr bullet. The bigger difference is the elevation adjustment but even then if you have your drops down, anyone can make quick work of the adjustments needed at 500 yards for elevation.

This assumes one is using a scope with turrets, has range finding gear, and the game isn't moving toward or away from you as you're adjusting. This is where the 110/130 zippers really shine, as at anyhting less than about 350 you don't have to touch turrets, and if you don't have them, and zero a standard duplex tube at 250, you simply aim and squeeze, hitting between 3 high and 3 low, a plenty large point blank circle for elk. If it's at 500, simply aim at the nose and hit dead center in the chest. Side shot? Aim at the nose and move left/rigtht two feet.

I personally have never shot a real scope. My current glass is a 3-12x50 BSA duplex Chinese tube w/sun shade that drained all of $90 from my wallet a decade ago. I've killed a whitetail at full run at 400 and one stationary at 500 with holdover, both single shot DRT kills, using 150 gr ballistic tips in my .308. All of my other 50+ whitetails over the past 25 years have been less than 300 yds-point, shoot. This is Missouri, so it's rare to have a shot opportunity beyond 500 yds. I've never hunted elk. If they are like Missouri whitetails, and don't sit still very long, I wouldn't be taking 500 yard pops at them anyway. If they do sit still for a bit, I'd pop em in the neck with the TTSX 110s all day long, with my cheap tube sans turrets.

 

[Tikkamike]

This isn't correct. The extra length of the heavier bullets is behind the nose. Remember, these bullets are all being fed from the same magazinze into the same chamber, so COAL must be pretty close to the same across the board.

actually you are wrong, the ogive of the LRX is not the same as your tsx series bullets I have some 200LRX and have cut one in half along with other TSX bullets and the expansion chamber is deeper and the nose is longer.

and a 110 or a 130 hitting elk bone is going to not be nearly as effective as the heavier bullets. energy is a number but it isnt whe whole equation. the very low sectional density makes the 110 and 130 and in my opinion the 165 very poor choices for elk