130 vs 150 vs 168 Barnes TTSX

[the blur]

I'm looking at the ballistics chart for .308, TTSX. It certainly appears the lighter bullet has a flatter trajectory, more energy, more velocity, just better all around.

Could it be heavier bullets just do not perform as well????

I did have a bad experience with the 168 TTSX. They didn't expand well out of my Tikka. Would I be better off with lighter copper ?

I only choose 168's because they are deadly accurate. So I never tried anything else.

 

[crazymonkey]

After running ttsx bullets for awhile in my 7_08 the standard statement I've gotten is you need to come down on bullet weight with copper. The copper will retain more weight than a conventional bullet but needs more speed at impact for expansion. With the 168s you need to know what your minimum velocity is for proper expansion. My 7-08 with a 140 ttsx and a 26inch brux gets me 3060 fps and the bullet needs around 1800fps to expand. It sets my limit at around 600 yds with this setup. I didn't get much testing with the 120s just 10 rounds but they showed promising results. I was mid 3200 and just slightly bigger group I didn't finish testing as another member was looking for some 120s for his son for elk so I sent him what I had. There are some videos of the lighter bullets and what they can do to ballistics gel.

 

[greg47]

After running ttsx bullets for awhile in my 7_08 the standard statement I've gotten is you need to come down on bullet weight with copper. The copper will retain more weight than a conventional bullet but needs more speed at impact for expansion. With the 168s you need to know what your minimum velocity is for proper expansion. My 7-08 with a 140 ttsx and a 26inch brux gets me 3060 fps and the bullet needs around 1800fps to expand. It sets my limit at around 600 yds with this setup. I didn't get much testing with the 120s just 10 rounds but they showed promising results. I was mid 3200 and just slightly bigger group I didn't finish testing as another member was looking for some 120s for his son for elk so I sent him what I had. There are some videos of the lighter bullets and what they can do to ballistics gel.

I've used 120ttsx in my 7-08 for many years on everything. Always good expansion and complete penetration. Only recovered one bullet that was 99+% of original weight. Also the most accurate in this rifle. A 77 tang safety Ruger I built for a goat hunt w Shilen barrel 1:11 twist. The 120 is as long as most 140 gr jacketed lead bullets.

 

[Greta06]

I have had good luck with both the 130 & 150. I have one gun that likes the 130 and another that likes the 150.The 168 is too heavy for the 308, needs more speed. I run the 168 in the 300wsm, very deadly. I also tried the 110 in 308 and wasn't as impressed. So now i stick with the 130 or 150's. Another option is to switch powders, i cut my tikka 308 barrel down to 18 inches and lost accuracy with the 130's. Tried 4 different powders, ended up liking reloader 15.

 

[C-130 Dude]

I'm looking at the ballistics chart for .308, TTSX. It certainly appears the lighter bullet has a flatter trajectory, more energy, more velocity, just better all around.

Could it be heavier bullets just do not perform as well????

I did have a bad experience with the 168 TTSX. They didn't expand well out of my Tikka. Would I be better off with lighter copper ?

I only choose 168's because they are deadly accurate. So I never tried anything else.

To get proper expansion with copper, you must keep velocity up. Most manufacturers state minimum velocities required. Also consider the distance you are shooting. If you have to shoot farther, you may have to reduce bullet weight. Barnes also suggests seating longer for better accuracy.

 

[azarcher10x]

I'm looking at the ballistics chart for .308, TTSX. It certainly appears the lighter bullet has a flatter trajectory, more energy, more velocity, just better all around.

Could it be heavier bullets just do not perform as well????

I did have a bad experience with the 168 TTSX. They didn't expand well out of my Tikka. Would I be better off with lighter copper ?

I only choose 168's because they are deadly accurate. So I never tried anything else.

What rifle are you shooting the 168's in? The reason I'm asking, the original runs of 168's were designed for magnums. I found this out the hard way, shooting them in my old '06. 452 yards on an elk with zero terminal performance. When I contacted Barnes, they asked for the Lot # from the box, and that was what I was told. The design was changed after that, but to this day i still use them, but only in my RUM. The '06 gets 165's!

 

[wild_musk]

I switched to 130s after trying some bulk OTMs in one of my 16" rifles which were advertised to be around 3000fps - opened my eyes. I don't see any reason to shoot anything else. I think I'm at 2925fps with ttsx, compared to 2550 or less with all the 165/168/175 bullets I've tried. I have one rifle that especially likes 150g sst, which is hard to get away from. I don't hunt elks with any of these guns tho, just deer. I do wish those OTMs would come available again.

 

[Yuktuk]

FWIW, when I spoke to a tech at Barnes (about five years ago), he said the lighter weight versions (130 and 150 grain) of their 308 Winchester, VOR-TX line of ammo require more expansion velocity, than the heavier 168 grain variety.
His approximate numbers were 1800 fps for the light weight bullets and 1500 fps for the 168 grain flavour.

I repeat, this is in reference to the factory loaded, VOR-TX, 308 Winchester ammunition and not the hand load, bullet components.

He further stated, that the VOR-TX, 168 grain, 308 Winchester loads utilize the VOR-TX Long Range bullets. Which is why the VOR-TX Long Range line does not include a 308 Winchester option.

 

[azarcher10x]

There's also a difference in the ogive on the 150 gr.

 

[C-130 Dude]

FWIW, when I spoke to a tech at Barnes (about five years ago), he said the lighter weight versions (130 and 150 grain) of their 308 Winchester, VOR-TX line of ammo require more expansion velocity, than the heavier 168 grain variety.
His approximate numbers were 1800 fps for the light weight bullets and 1500 fps for the 168 grain flavour.

I repeat, this is in reference to the factory loaded, VOR-TX, 308 Winchester ammunition and not the hand load, bullet components.

He further stated, that the VOR-TX, 168 grain, 308 Winchester loads utilize the VOR-TX Long Range bullets. Which is why the VOR-TX Long Range line does not include a 308 Winchester option.

Your last paragraph is a bit confusing. Or is it me? At first you say that the 308w use vort-ex lr bullets. Then you say that the vor-tx lr line does not include a 308w option. Hhmm....

 

[Yuktuk]

Your last paragraph is a bit confusing. Or is it me? At first you say that the 308w use vort-ex lr bullets. Then you say that the vor-tx lr line does not include a 308w option. Hhmm....

Barnes does make LRX 30 cal. bullets, but does not market a 308 Winchester cartridge, in the VOR-TX Long Range product line. Instead, they load the 168 grain LRX bullets in the "standard" VOR-TX line of ammunition, without publicizing that that particular SKU has the LRX bullet. Clear as mud?

 

[C-130 Dude]

Barnes does make LRX 30 cal. bullets, but does not market a 308 Winchester cartridge, in the VOR-TX Long Range product line. Instead, they load the 168 grain LRX bullets in the "standard" VOR-TX line of ammunition, without publicizing that that particular SKU has the LRX bullet. Clear as mud?

As far as explanations go, as clear as mud. Someone at Barnes spent too much time coming up with that crap. Get to the point, huh??? Or is that too much to ask paying customers to put up with.

 

[choprzrul]

FWIW, when I spoke to a tech at Barnes (about five years ago), he said the lighter weight versions (130 and 150 grain) of their 308 Winchester, VOR-TX line of ammo require more expansion velocity, than the heavier 168 grain variety.
His approximate numbers were 1800 fps for the light weight bullets and 1500 fps for the 168 grain flavour.

I repeat, this is in reference to the factory loaded, VOR-TX, 308 Winchester ammunition and not the hand load, bullet components.

He further stated, that the VOR-TX, 168 grain, 308 Winchester loads utilize the VOR-TX Long Range bullets. Which is why the VOR-TX Long Range line does not include a 308 Winchester option.

Per phone conversation with Barnes' tech support on 1/6/21, here is the info they provided for minimum velocities:

.308 diameter TTSX
130gr 1800 fps
150gr 1500 fps
168gr 1500 fps
180gr 1500 fps

.308 diameter LRX
175gr 1600 fps
190gr 1600 fps
200gr 1600 fps
208gr 1700 fps

.257 TTSX
80gr 1900 fps
100gr 1900 fps

.257 TSX
115gr 1800 fps

.338 LRX
250gr 1500 fps

.338 TTSX
225gr 1600 fps

Hope this helps.

Personally, I abandoned Barnes for Hammers.....and so far I've been very please with ease of load development and on game performance, but YMMV....

**EDIT**
Found a couple more in my notes:

.458 TTSX/TAC-TX (same bullet they said)
300gr 1100 fps

.458 TSX
350gr 1600 fps

 

[JohnnieB]

I shoot the 168 TTSX in a 300WSM, performance across 30 animals has been perfect from 50lb pigs to 1900lb buffalo. In a 308 I would stick to the 150's or the 130's.