Barnes LRX TTSX, which one??

[Outlaw6.0]

...
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

^^ Ditto, Sectional Density (along with rotational velocity) dictates penetration characteristics. On heavy bone, I will take Sectional Density all day every day. I'm a Barnes shooter just like Mike, so don't think i'm bashing. The light fellers will do the job up TO elk, then you enter another weight class entirely. They are FAR tougher & much more heavily constructed than any 'lope or deer every imagined. Go heavy, break bone & bring home your trophy. Every time.


t

 

[Korhil78]

500yd,

I don't know where you are gettin your information from but it is incorrect. The 200 TSX and the 200 LRX have a deeper hollow point cavity than does the 130 or 110 TSX.

Also, the lighter bullet will shed all of its energy a lot quicker than the heavier bullet when it goes through the animal. So if both bullets hit bone, the heavier bullet will in theory perform better in order to punch through heavy bone on an elk.

I will agree with you though that Barnes are some great bullets.

 

[barnesuser28]

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.

This can go either way, some say since the bullet is going slower it spends more time in the barrel allowing the hot gases to attack the rifling longer therefore giveing shorter barrel life, but on the other hand a lighter bullet is going to cause more friction from moving faster. So its a tossup.

And to the OP, go heavy! a 200 grain LRX will kill anything in NA.

 

[500yd]

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.

I'll have to take your word for it as I don't have cutaways myself. However, the difference in 'mushroom' diameter is going to be small, and not yield a significantly larger wound channel, as I stated above.

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

Yes, there are many factors in the penetration equation. Energy and SD both play a role. Interestingly, if the 200 LRX you mention does indeed have a much higher petal mushroom diameter, then this actually decreases its SD advantage over the 110/130 zippers after impact. This is because the 200 grain mass is distributed over a larger cross sectional area. To illustrate, terminal SD is precisely why a 147 gr 7.62x51 ball round will sail right through an elk, bone and all, at 500 yds, and keep on truck'n. It doesn't expand at all, so it's terminal SD doesn't change. The terminal SD of expanding rounds will drop by a factor of at least 3 due to mushroom in the case of the TTSX/LRX, and around 6 for standard lead bullets that have a uniform mushroom surface.

Thus, if you want maximum penetration, you want your bullet expanding less, not more. However, penetration isn't the only factor in the kill equation. As I mentioned previously, cavitation creates your wound channel and transfers bullet energy into the body. A larger mushroom diameter is going to create more cavitation, more shock, and a larger wound channel. However, cavitation is more a function of velocity than cross sectional area, so again, the faster X bullets have a small edge here, at least to 500 yds. Above that the 200 is retaining more velocity thus energy, thus more cavitation.

I do agree that field circumstances don't always allow for perfect shot placement, so maybe the extra 500 ft-lbs of the LRX 200 at 500 yds vs the 110, or the extra 300 ft-lbs over the 130, could mean the difference between a running injured elk and a hobbling injured elk which, like deer, is much easier to pump that 2nd shot into. The X bullet design and the math demonstrate that the zippers should be just as effective as the freight train with proper shot placement. I guess this debate can only be settled with field experience. Unfortunately I don't own and do not plant to purchase a 300 WM/WSM, and I won't be travelling West for an elk hunt any time soon. It'll be up to others to test these rounds in the field.

 

[rooster740]

I will start by saying that in my 10 twist 3 groove Lilja barrel the 175 LRX is terrible to try to get shooting, but the 168 tsx and 165 ttsx is 1/2 moa bullet for me.

 

[Korhil78]

I will start by saying that in my 10 twist 3 groove Lilja barrel the 175 LRX is terrible to try to get shooting, but the 168 tsx and 165 ttsx is 1/2 moa bullet for me. I am just sure that all the experts here arguing this topic have killed a ton of elk and seen the results of their choosen projectile.

I am sure that in a perfect world a guy could kill an elk with a 204 at 100 yards! In fact I know a rancher that does it every year. I is not gonna to do it! I know that a 25-06 will kill an elk in an alfalfa field when they are all balled up and a pass through is not wanted because I have done it multiple times.

In my opinion for long range hunting you better consider wind, distance, and obstructions. When you hit a 3/4 inch branch (that you can not see at distance) with a very light bullet, and you cripple a great big bull elk and have to kill it before it gets away you had better be prepared to shoot it in the *** if you have to, and kill it before you never see it again.

I am by no means a long range expert, but I have guided to lots of hundreds of elk, mostly cows, and so in this category, I can really and fairly feel like I can say I have witnessed a lot of peoples elk murdering ideas and lots of failures. If I could count how many children and women have killed their crippled elk with my 308 and 180 grain bullets at over 500 yards, after the hot rod rifle they were using was not the answer, it would tally more dead elk then most people will kill in a lifetime.
A person can sit on a computer and dial up any combo you want to, but I will take a big heavy bullet and some target knobs any day of the season.

Exactly

 

[Broz]

I am by no means a long range expert, but I have guided to lots of hundreds of elk, mostly cows, and so in this category, I can really and fairly feel like I can say I have witnessed a lot of peoples elk murdering ideas and lots of failures. If I could count how many children and women have killed their crippled elk with my 308 and 180 grain bullets at over 500 yards, after the hot rod rifle they were using was not the answer, it would tally more dead elk then most people will kill in a lifetime.
A person can sit on a computer and dial up any combo you want to, but I will take a big heavy bullet and some target knobs any day of the season..

Bingo!! We have a winner!!!!


Jeff

 

[Sako7STW]

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

Wow, that is horrible performance and NOT the performance I have seen at all. Over the years between myself, wife, grandfather, dad, and father-in-law, I have seen the 25-06 kill atleast 20 elk without a single lost elk. I killed even a B&C bull moose with mine in 95'. I have watched my wife kill a 5x6 bull at 280 yards, 100gr TSX, full pass through right through the boiler room. Then 2 years later killed a very decent 6x6 bull at 410 yards. Bullet was sitting between the ribs and the hide on the off side.

Since 2004 i have been using a 127gr Groove bullet (very simular to the TSX) @3850 fps in my 7STW and so far everything it has touched has hit the dirt and in my freezer. Yes it is a laser to 500 yards and I love it. They however are no longer made. This year I tried the 145gr LRX and did not retrieve a bullet, very minimal damage though. Infact first broadside shot I could not find the entrance hole. Second shot followed the spine down and came out through the head on a quartering away shot. I am on the fence as to how well I like this bullet. I think it is possibly too solid and sharp and just pencil holing. If I can get the 120gr. TSX to work in my STW I might try it next.

In .30 cal my bro shoots the 300 Roy with the 150gr TSX at first and switched to the TTSX and this year is going back to the TSX because is simply had better terminal performance. The last 2 years it has taken several shots to bring down his elk with the TTSX, with the TSX years prior 1-2 shots every time. The TTSX didnt penetrate any farther than the TSX but the wounds with the TSX are just more violant but within reason.

 

[500yd]

For all of you "go heavy or stay home" types, I present evidence against that Neanderthal view of caliber vs kill.

Teenage girl drops elk cow at 688 yds with 105 Gr VLD .243 Win:
Interesting Vid - Girl pole axes elk at 688y with a 105g VLD in a .243 Win - Georgia Outdoor News Forum

Another teenage girl drops nice bull at 300 yards with 130 gr TTSX 300 WSM:
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f86/165-gr-barnes-ttsx-elk-91841/index3.html#17

A very young teen girl drops a cow at 110 yds with 120 gr TTSX 7mm-08:
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f86/165-gr-barnes-ttsx-elk-91841/index4.html#22

I particularly like this comment in the GON thread regarding the 688 yd .243 kill:
"It's easily possible if you don't have testosterone and ignorance retarding the rifle's, shooter's and bullet's performance."

I am not a girl. I'm simply using these examples to drive home the point, again, that caliber and or bullet weight are mostly irrelevant. If girls can kill elk with "light" caliber/rounds even at extreme range, then surely men can as well. Or at least those of us who are not trapped in old school "it must be heavy" thought processes.

 

[jrsolocam]

Teen girls shooting elk at 700 yards with a .243.........Ya that sounds like a great idea.

 

[toddc]

For all of you "go heavy or stay home" types, I present evidence against that Neanderthal view of caliber vs kill.

Teenage girl drops elk cow at 688 yds with 105 Gr VLD .243 Win:
Interesting Vid - Girl pole axes elk at 688y with a 105g VLD in a .243 Win - Georgia Outdoor News Forum

Another teenage girl drops nice bull at 300 yards with 130 gr TTSX 300 WSM:
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f86/165-gr-barnes-ttsx-elk-91841/index3.html#17

A very young teen girl drops a cow at 110 yds with 120 gr TTSX 7mm-08:
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f86/165-gr-barnes-ttsx-elk-91841/index4.html#22

I particularly like this comment in the GON thread regarding the 688 yd .243 kill:
"It's easily possible if you don't have testosterone and ignorance retarding the rifle's, shooter's and bullet's performance."

I am not a girl. I'm simply using these examples to drive home the point, again, that caliber and or bullet weight are mostly irrelevant. If girls can kill elk with "light" caliber/rounds even at extreme range, then surely men can as well. Or at least those of us who are not trapped in old school "it must be heavy" thought processes.

This is hilarious. I knew that lead could cause brain damage which is part of the reason to use copper. Isnt working evidently.
Anything on this continent can be killed with a 22lr. I would love a vegas bet on some teenage girl with a 22lr versus a griz.
Sectional density and weight do matter. Copper KOOL-AID will not change this.
I love how on the web its always the guy who has never done it that is the genius on that matter.
I used to live in eastern ok with deer about like missouri deer. I killed most of them with a 22 to feed my cougar. Over 10 yrs time in the high hundreds. Doesnt mean I think most people should be doing it.
You should be real excited tho I heard barnes is coming out with a 17hmr with a 12gr KED (KILL EM DEAD) bullet. According to you this will be even better right?
Google some things on terminal ballistics written by someone who isnt selling $13 APIECE bullets. Then you might REALLY KNOW what you now just THINK YOU KNOW.
And while you are at it you might look into windage. (Of course I realize that copper bullets dont blow in the wind but still).
Google is your friend....a single bulletmaker with financial irons in the fire is not.

 

[toddc]

Teen girls shooting elk at 700 yards with a .243.........Ya that sounds like a great idea.

Yea even if her name is Michelle Gallagher. Of course she wouldnt be dumb enuf to try that stunt anyway.

 

[rooster740]

So now I think like a Neanderthal?

I will start this rant by saying that what I like about this forum is there are a lot of very great people sharing their knowledge with others.

But every once in a while an individual gets on here and tries to drive their stupid ideas down everyone's throat! This really ****es me off! Mostly because this individual reads some adventure 75% of which is BS even out of the most honest hunter! And with zero knowledge about what they are talking about, they try to keep alive an argument with a bunch of folks that already know what they are doing!

I am sure that this style of name calling has taken you a long ways in this wicked world, but I would not make a habit of name calling on this forum, it will lead to lack of participation when you do have a valid question. I have also noticed that generally name calling is a great way to get your teeth pushed in. No threat intended I am just offering my opinion.

I am not going to argue the facts you bring to this forum because I do not agree with them. Mostly because I have proved them wrong on my own time, already! I will add that the little girl who shot the cow elk at 100 yards is an awesome story and I wish her many more lucky hunts. 300 yards with a 130gr. bullet is surely not long range hunting I say congrats.

This thread was about LRX vs TTSX. Now I am sure that "500yd" has put hundreds of these bullets down range (I just cannot find the 110gr LRX) and has killed hundreds of elk so I do not mean to offend him.

That being said, I will invite anybody who knows everything about shooting to come join me any day on a wolf hunt. I would love to know everything someday. I have a perfect world renowned elk hunting location on private land, that now can barely sustain a semi sucsessful general season hunt. I will put you on a bronc and we will leave the truck at sun up and return at dark. At lunch I will find a 12 inch rock at 700 yards and if you can hit it with one shot. I will not make you walk home. Now we all know that a rock does not need retained energy, but I would say that 80-90% of the people on this forum
(me included) would miss this rock in the wind we have. Offer extended!

I added my experience with the two bullets of topic and will not revisit this thread.

 

[500yd]

Teen girls shooting elk at 700 yards with a .243.........Ya that sounds like a great idea.

Why didn't you watch the video?