Barnes TSX/TTSX vs Nosler Partition

Which is the better hunting bullet?

  • Total voters
    378
Last study I read about showed it was not the lead used by the hunters/shooters that was/is causing the problems with the condor, but a different source in the environment. Better get on mother nature.lol
You don't see them changing the law back to allow lead now though. I think it had just as much to do with trying to ban hunting as saving the condor (ugly vulcher bird).
 
RTK said:
Last study I read about showed it was not the lead used by the hunters/shooters that was/is causing the problems with the condor, but a different source in the environment. Better get on mother nature.lol
You don't see them changing the law back to allow lead now though. I think it had just as much to do with trying to ban hunting as saving the condor (ugly vulcher bird).
Click to expand...
+1 RTK
Yes, I would like to know the real truth and statistics behind keeping the Condor zone and especially since they want to expand it to the whole state...and eventually not just for hunting. I have read that lead paint on buildings at retired army bases and other sources are in part or perhaps mostly the source, not bullet fragments in gut piles. But the other side says that there is data that shows the lead ban was followed by an increase in Condor survival rate. But is that the whole story? Maybe they demolished and cleaned up a military or industrial mess during that period.

Besides, why not just require hunters to bury the gut piles? Coyotees who can dig are not cited as needing protection, only Condors and other birds of prey. And they cite 99.9% hunter compliance with the lead ban, so they should realize that requiring gut burial would be effective as well.

Barnes are excellent bullets, but we should be allowed to use them when we choose rather than be forced to because of a feel good political move that does not actually save endangered wildlife.

I have written my representatives.

Maybe its time for a dedicated thread here.
 
I really wish that more bullets would Reliably NOT expand. That's the problem with most target bullets. In reliable expansion. For fur I don't want expansion. . But to get back to the original? I trust Barnes to Not over expand and destroy a pelt. Where the Partition really sets up soon and makes quite a hole.
 
Seeing a TSX hit objects at the range, and seeing a 130gr .277 whack a Russian boar at about 160 yards and the through and through it made, its hard to imagine a bullet failure with one of those. I couldn't tell how much it expanded but both the entrance and exit were much larger than .277. In this pic you can see where I hit him, just above the heart, and there are blood splatters all the way up betwen his ear and eye! Major arteries and 1 lung was gone.
 

Attachments

  • 2013-05-21 05.29.17.jpg
    2013-05-21 05.29.17.jpg
    299.2 KB · Views: 34
Apologies in advance for highjacking the thread to the lead ammunition ban argument that has sufraced as a Senate bill to ban all lead ammo for hunting in California....I wanted to dig a little deeper to get at the truth of the claims and found this research paper by several University of Calif. and other agencies. This could be your state next!

Link to study:
http://www.ventanaws.org/images/spe...e_critically_endangered_California_Condor.pdf

My short take on it:
It is dense reading and we see assumptions being made, however it is some of the important data being considered. Firstly, in the graphs I don't see big drops in the lead poisoning since lead ammo was banned in the prescribed area. Also they do not talk about hunting statistics in Calif. Has it increased or decreased over the years? Did a rise in the number of hunters lead to a rise in Condor lead poisoning? They do talk about matching PB isotope ratios which may be telling. I don't know if there are other applications for the same lead isotop as is used in hunting. Do they? So I had to push through to the "what ifs". Still I'm uncertain of the truth or efficacy of conclusions.

In the paragraph below, they seem to be saying that even with the best mitigation techniques (banning lead ammo, etc.) it will take 1,800 YEARS FOR NATURAL INCREASE OF THE CONDOR POPUPLATION TO 150 BIRDS!!! HELLO- ***??? 2,000 YEARS TO SPAWN AND SUSTAIN A POPULATION LEVEL OF 150 BIRDS? WE HUMANS WILL DESTROY THE EARTH BEFORE THEN! AND THEY'RE ONLY 53% SURE THAT INCREASE WILL HAPPEN?? THAT MEANS THE ONLY WAY TO INCREASE THEIR POPULATION SIGNIFICANTLY IS TO BREED AND RELEASE. IN THAT CASE WHY NOT JUST BREED 150 OF THESE GUT MUNCHERS, RELEASE THEM, DO IT SEVERAL TIMES, AND KEEP THE EXISTING AREA BAN?


With current levels of intensive management, the California
condor population is predicted to be roughly stable (best esti-
mate of annual growth = 1.0003) (Fig. 4
A
). Thus, without future
releases of captive-reared birds, the population would take
∼
1,800 y to meet the recovery goal of a noncaptive population of
150 individuals within California (9). Importantly, this estimate of
population stability is dependent on the continuation in perpetuity
of the current level of management interventions, including near
daily monitoring and targeted trapping and treatment if individual
behaviors indicate lead poisoning. In addition, accounting for
parameter estimation uncertainty shows that even this stability
is unclear, with a 53% probability of growth rates less than one
under current conditions
 
And they further state that the current ban which hunters have been 99.9% compliant has not had a measurable effect yet that if they get rid of all lead ammo the problem will be solved. I don't quite get it.

Following this section they talk about all animals in the food chain being affected by lead, inferring that the next logical move would be a complete ban of hunting with bullets containing lead.

These results are especially pertinent given recent regulatory
efforts in California to mitigate the lead exposure hazard to
California condors by partial bans of lead ammunition use in
condor habitat (39, 40). Although these regulations have been
in place for only a few years, we looked for evidence that they
had impacted the prevalence of lead poisoning in California
condors. We compared blood lead levels in birds in 2006-2007
(preban) with levels in 2009–2010 (postban) and found no in-
dication that blood lead levels had declined in 2009–2010 com-
pared with 2006–2007, suggesting that, at
least thus far, the regulations to help reduce lead exposure in
condors have not been effective.
Here, we describe a situation in which intensive ongoing man-
agement efforts conceal the lack of true recovery of a critically
endangered species. Despite the recovery efforts for the California
condor, this species is not on a trajectory to a self-sustaining
wild population. Our demographic model clearly illustrates
that, without reduced lead poisoning, the California condor
will require extraordinary management efforts in perpetuity
to avoid again declining to extinction in the wild. Additionally,
our analyses show that, if the lead exposure hazard is removed
and thus lead deaths are halted or severely reduced, California
condors could once again achieve a sustainable wild popula-
tion. Although we present work only on condors in California,
the condor populations in Arizona and Baja California are also
experiencing impacts from lead poisonings.
 
When we first started hunting elk in the late 1970's I was afraid of using my reliable Sierra Gameking bullets. We had no experience with elk and only knew they took a lot of killing. So I went to work loading for five different 30-06 rifles using the Nosler Partition. I have never been so frustrated in my life. All five rifles using six or seven different powders, OAL and not one of the load/powder/rifle combinations would group better than a shotgun at 100 yards. Those Noslers at that time were the premium bullet and were outrageously expensive compared to the Gamekings. I would never again try the Nosler bullets. The Gamekings were accurate but I was concerned when all I ever found in the elk was the bottom of the cup somewhere in the animal with no exit at all.
Fast forward to six years ago. My brother bought a new elk rifle. Kimber Model 84 325WSM. Based on information gathered on forums started with Accubonds, Sirocos(sp?) and TTSX's. Only bullet that remotely printed a group was the TTSX.
I also started a new gun project several years ago. Remington SPS 300RUM. I knew after watching my brother send a lot of expensive bullets into the dirt at the range, I wasn't going to try anything other than the TTSX bullet.
I am a firm believer that accuracy is the starting point of bullet usefulness. If you can't hit it, it doesn't matter what your terminal performance with the inaccurate bullet actually does. If I can't make it shoot I don't use it.
On all of the elk and deer that we have shot with the Barnes bullets, we have recovered one bullet that was picture perfect, petals etc. and everything else complete pass through. Bullet size going in and seemingly fist size coming out. I know that we have not lost any animals using the Barnes bullet and have never had anything less than rivers of blood for the sometimes short tracking.
Elk are tough to kill. I don't think that there is any rifle/cartridge combination that will 100 percent of the time drop an elk in its tracks. I believe that based on whether the elk know you are there, if they excited or just completely unaware that you are there will often make the shot more or less lethal.
Bullet placement will ALWAYS be more important than bullet design.
Someone else said it but I believe this: "The only interesting rifle is an accurate rifle".
My two cents worth.
 
Thanks for the write up 19elkhunter51, it was a good read!

I have also had very horrible experiences with the partitions! With the Barnes bullets they have never let me down! My 375rum loves them along with my 338wm and 270win. All three rifles will always shoot Barnes!
 
I have killed 6 bulls with the 180 gn ttsx in my 300 win, shots from 50 yard out to 611 yard,knocked every one of them dead
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

RockyMtnMT
  • Poll
MOA vs MIL
3 4 5
Replies
63
Views
13K
Recon$$
Recon$$

Recent Posts

Top