Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Barnes LRX TTSX, which one??
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="500yd" data-source="post: 728212" data-attributes="member: 27428"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="500yd, post: 728212, member: 27428"] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Barnes LRX TTSX, which one??
Top