Barnes bullet failures?

[JPbowhunter]

At how many feet per second does a Barnes TSX or TTSX need to be traveling to expand reliably?
Would this speed equation vary based on caliber or is it relatively constant?
I mean to say that all of the Weatherby cartridges are known speed demons, so how far can you really take game?

Been a "heavy for caliber" guy my whole life.
Just trying to wrap my head around a lighter bullet going faster...maybe.

It's different for different calibres and different weights within the same calibre. I email the shit out of Barnes when I get a new rifle about reloading information. Out of the same cal reliable expansion might vary by up to 300fps with 30 or 50 grain difference in projectiles.

This thread doesn't need to exist, there are always going to be people that complain or don't like something irrespective of what it's like. Use barnes as they're designed and you won't go back.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Two reasons to use lighter mono-metal slugs...

+1 on Phil. Actually +2 because he said it twice, and I believe that he was right to repeat it


I would also add that since the mono-metal bullets (X, TSX, TTSX, LRX, GMX, E-Tip, North Fork, Peregrine, etc.) typically retain over 95% of their weight, they do not NEED to be as heavy as traditional cup & core, or even Nosler Partition (NP) bullets, that typically shed 40% to 60% of their weight during the first couple inches of penetration. By the way, the same logic applies to the A Frame since it too retains most of its weight.

As well documented on AH, my own journey toward mon0-metal slugs started with the question Can plains game A Frames or TSX bullets be 30% lighter see https://www.africahunting.com/threads/can-plains-game-a-frames-or-tsx-bullets-be-30-lighter.45537/

The full-scale test of my theory was for me to use a .257 Wby with 100 gr TTSX in 2019 in Africa, after having used a .340 Wby with 250 gr Nosler Partition in 2018 in Africa. Both were widely successful on 16 animals and 18 animals (if memory serves?) respectively, from Vaal Rhebok to Roan with the .257 Wby, and from Steenbok to Eland with the.340 Wby. To my immense surprise I must admit, the .257 Wby produced a lot more instant dead-right-there kills than the .340 Wby did !?!?!?

The .257 Wby 100 gr and .340 Wby 250 gr are the two extremes, obviously, but I meant to prove a point to myself. In simplistic terms, a NP that starts at 250 gr and looses half its weight within a few inches of penetration actually performs most of its penetration with only 125 gr. Comparatively, a 100 gr TTSX that retains almost all its weight performs all its penetration with close to 100 gr. The difference is not all that big (25 gr) and the higher velocity of the .257 Wby clearly contributes to further erase the difference. NO, speed alone and energy alone do not kill, but it is just mind boggling what that .257 Wby does. Apparently I am not the only one to have observed that...

I shall also freely admit that the .257 Wby is A LOT easier to shoot than the .340 Wby and I credit it freely for helping me make better shots.

This is why I now fully expect a 130 gr TTSX .300 Wby to achieve exactly the same results, or better, as I have experienced for years with the 180 NP .300 Wby in my old faithful Win 70 Stainless Classic .300 Wby in North America. After all, a 180 gr NP that looses its front core (~40%) weighs 108 gr for most of its wounding channel, while a 130 gr TTSX that retains 95% of its weight will be pushing 123 gr all along...

On the other end of the paradigm, a 180 gr TTSX from a .300 Wby that retains 95% of its weight and plows through with 171 gr is firmly in .375 H&H territory where a 300 gr NP that looses 40% of its weight only plows through with 180 gr.

So, no, I do not feel foolish saying that my 2020 safari will use 130 gr TTSX from a .300 mag, despite loud clamoring from traditionalists arguing that shooting anything lighter than 180 gr in a .300 is the height of foolishness. Truth be told, having done it all with the 100 gr TTSX .257 Wby, I feel that the 130 gr TTSX .300 Wby will give me an incredible safety margin... while still shooting as flat... but at the price of slightly increased recoil - 18 ft/lbs instead of 13 ft/lbs in 10.5 lbs rifles, although still well with the comfort zone (exactly half of the .340 Wby 250 gr 36 ft/lbs to be specific).

So, yes, go down on the weight with the TTSX to make room for the powder, BUT also keep in mind that you are not sacrificing terminal performance when you do so

Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Been a "heavy for caliber" guy my whole life.
Just trying to wrap my head around a lighter bullet going faster...maybe.

Would you prefer 90% of a 180gr .308 remaining after a shot or 60% of 200gr?

The questions presumed you’re shooting a fairly large animal.

 

[One Day...]

And sectional density...

... Been a "heavy for caliber" guy my whole life. Just trying to wrap my head around a lighter bullet going faster...maybe.

I was too. My rule was simple: only shoot Federal Premium Nosler Partition in the heaviest weight available: e.g. 150 gr in .270, 160 gr in 7 mag, 180 gr in .300 mag, .250 gr in .338/340 mag, 300 gr in .375 H&H etc. and shoot big: e.g. my first one-rifle PG safari was with a .340 Wby owing to Kudu, Hartebeest, Wildebeest, Eland being on the package...

As I reluctantly get dragged kicking and screaming into post 1948 technology (Nosler Partition market release date), my brain calculates that there is a strong logic to state that, for a given caliber, a mono that retains 95% weight could weigh what a Nosler Partition minus its front core (40%) weighs. But I still cannot get myself to consider a 108 gr .300 mag... Barnes does make a 110 gr .308 TTSX, but I do not think they intend it for any .300 mag. This is where the third factor comes into play in my analysis: with a bullet this light and this short in this caliber, the sectional density (i.e. penetration momentum) really drops too much I am afraid.

I have proven to myself 16 times that a 100 gr TTSX from a .257 Wby will kill any plains game dead-right-there with a proper shot, with quarter-sized expansion (1" exit holes diameter or more), and pass-through penetration, but this bullet has a decent 0.216 sectional density and a decent 0.357 ballistic coefficient.

Conversely, a 110 gr TTSX .308 bullet only has a 0.166 sectional density and only a 0.295 ballistic coefficient. These are quite low. I am not going there myself...

I feel much better with a 130 gr TTSX .308 that has a 0.196 sectional density and a 0.350 ballistic coefficient. Actually, the 150 gr TTSX .308 tops the 100 gr .257 TTSX in that respect, with a 0.226 sectional density and a 0.420 ballistic coefficient. So, technically the 150 gr will penetrate better, which I would consider, IF I had recovered even one 100 gr .257 TTSX. Since I did not, I guess that I am OK with the expected penetration from the 130 gr . 300 TTSX... That is a ~30% decrease in weight compared to the mythical 180 gr that made all the .300 famous.

Life is a long learning experience, is not it?

 

[BeeMaa]

Would you prefer 90% of a 180gr .308 remaining after a shot or 60% of 200gr?

The questions presumed you’re shooting a fairly large animal.

I'm thinking 90% retention of a 180 grain 300WM Swift A-Frame vs a faster moving 150 or 165 grain TTSX.
Or the same in 375H&H with 300 grain SAF's vs 270 grain Barnes TSX.

I want my cake and to eat it too.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I'm thinking 90% retention of a 180 grain 300WM Swift A-Frame vs a faster moving 150 or 165 grain TTSX.
Or the same in 375H&H with 300 grain SAF's vs 270 grain Barnes TSX.

I want my cake and to eat it too.

You’d be preaching to the choir. I prefer my beloved North Fork bonded cores, but A-Frames are a fine alternative.

 

[BeeMaa]

You’d be preaching to the choir. I prefer my beloved North Fork bonded cores, but A-Frames are a fine alternative.

I get it and will continue to use my beloved SAF's where I can.
Just keeping my eyes to the future and thinking about going lead free.
Being prepared for doing so and possibly finding a sweet shooting (and killing) load would be good.

 

[One Day...]

Up-gunning technology...

Would you prefer 90% of a 180gr .308 remaining after a shot or 60% of 200gr?

I am there too with Phil. 90% weight retention from a 180 gr .300 mono - North Fork are great, I only wish someone would load them commercially! I never had the time yet to get into reloading... - or A frame leaves 162 gr to do the work after the first couple inches of penetration. To still have 162 gr to punch through with a bullet that shaves 40% of its weight, you need to start not with 200 gr but with 270 gr...

As I said above, that puts the modern mono (and A Frame) 180 gr .300 solidly into .375 H&H traditional territory...

And this leads us to the inescapable conclusion that modern loads and bullets have generally up gunned considerably the performance of the traditional calibers and loads that made Africa Safari legends (180 gr .300 and 300 gr .375). We stick to them mostly based on acquired norms, or romanticism (this is why I shoot a double on DG) but in truth we could do just as well and likely better (because they are easier to shoot) with modern better bullets in lower calibers.

I ain't giving up my .300, .375, .416, .458 and .470 though

Heck! That is already the second time it happens in Africa. The conversion from black powder to smokeless powder already drove calibers and bullet weights to drop dramatically! Imagine the cultural shock for the contemporary hunters, going from shooting elephant with a 4 bore (0.935–0.955" caliber) throwing 1/4 lb lead balls (1,750 gr projectile!!!) down to a .256 Mannlicher shooting a 159 gr bullet. Now THAT was a drastic weight reduction

 

[C.W. Richter]

GMX will likely group better for long range work. I've used all Barnes bullets (since the original leaded SP!) and their performance on game is generally very good, but I find in the smaller calibers (.22-.25-.26-.27-.28) they don't seem to group as well as their counterparts. .3o-.338 TTSX and my favorite (discontinued MRX <moment of silence> in "favor" of LRX) flew exceptionally well!!! In larger calibers, I tried 'em. The African big game died, but the bullets eat up precious powder space (less dense, so longer), so in those circumstances I have to recommend Swift (or even better Woodleigh). Your first shot on thinner-skinned big game should be with a soft so the barnes will work, but any follow-up shots (and ANY shots on elephant, hippo, rhino) should be with solids-my absolute favorite being the Barnes brass alloy solids. They are phenomenal and print similarly to the swift a-frames. *the comment re: velocity is valid as well. In a standard velocity gun, use the soft points instead. High velocity true magnum guns will "make it happen" upon impact.

 

[C.W. Richter]

*****no cultural shock w/ the .256 performance! LOVE my .264 mag wildcat. It's extremely accurate, light, quick pointing, and with the right bullet, can kill ANYTHING. Bell and Jamieson, of course would agree....

 

[C.W. Richter]

Used barnes 160 gr ttsx on recent safari. Shot 5 trophies all with good bullet performance from the ttsx. Gemsbok dropped in place @ 100+ yards; blue wildebeest @ 190 yards ran 70+/- yards; waterbuck @ 270 yards ran 75+/- yards; sable @ 170 yards ran about 50+/- yards; black wildebeest shot it once in shoulder @ 150+/- yards - while it was doing a circular hip-hop "going to meet jesus dance", ph said to shoot him again. Shot him in the other shoulder and he dropped. Both bullets were recovered - perfect expansion, with all of bullets intact.

you didn't mention caliber/cartridge. not all are the same. 7mm?

 

[C.W. Richter]

Has anyone ever had the plastic or polymer tips on some of the bullets mentioned break off in the rifles magazine from shifting back and forth during recoil?

I'd be more concerned with exposed, lead tipped bullets (with them, YES!) Never w/ the plastics. Though, at moderate range the lead-tipped bullets generally perform better on game.

 

[perttime]

As has been mentioned, an all copper bullet will be longer than a lead bullet of the same weight in the same caliber. ....

I believe the length for weight must also affect how the bullet stabilizes in the rifling.

There's probably barrels that do not stabilize the longer bullet well enough for good accuracy.

 

[ack]

Fellow Hunters and Rifle Enthusiasts,

My life’s experiences have left me believing that hollow point bullets occasionally fail to expand.
The smaller the hole in the nose, the harder the bullet material, the lower the impact velocity, and more acute the angle at which a bullet may nick a bone, the higher the risk of failure to expand will be.
(More risk of failure than I have the time left to put up with).

Likewise, if the hollow point bullet hits an animal that is coated with dry mud, the hole can be rammed tightly full of dirt and sand.
Hollow point bullets generally rely on the hole filling with body fluid to force the bullet into deformation (“hydraulic pressure).
Dry dirt is not the best material to force open a relatively tiny hole in a metal object.
Hair packed tightly into the hole can cause the same problem, in my personal experiences.

Incidentally, in Law Enforcement related shootings, I know of more than one or two incidents where hollow point hand gun bullets failed to expand, due to cloth fibers from the criminal’s clothing plugging the hollow points.

Anyway, back to rifles and big game hunting.
IMO, bonded core bullets, with plenty of lead showing at the tip are my recommendation.
The more lead showing at the nose, the better.
The best of the best are from Swift / A-Frame.
Most of their projectiles are semi-spitzer, with a little less lead showing than I’d prefer but, a select few are round nose profile and plenty of lead showing (500 grain .470 NE is one example).

Just as I’m convinced that hollow point spitzer bullets are not the most reliable bullet available today conversely, I’m convinced that round nose and flat nose bullets are the best ones, especially ones with jacket bonded to the core, of course provided one chooses to use them at reasonable velocity.
I wish A-Frames were available in round nose shape, beginning from 6.5 mm /156 grain, all the way through their excellent lineup of calibers.
Nonetheless, my wish is insignificant (if not absurd) when one considers how incredible the A-Frame’s track record is, despite its more streamline, semi-spitzer shape.
At least it’s not a boat tail, needle pointed spitzer.

Regarding the present day Barnes and similar design bullet popularity, I am quick to admit that, evidently they do expand most of the time.
Furthermore, the ones with the plastic thingy in the hole seem to be the most reliable of their designs, as of this writing.

Last but not least, for those who insist on using any of the “hyper-velocity” type cartridges, such as the Remington Ultra series, also some of the small bore Weatherby, Lazzeroni and others, the current Barnes design bullets are likely your safest bet.
At screechingly high velocity, my recommended lead core designs all too often shatter against heavy bone and/or can and will splatter meat and skin of your hunted animals, half way to the moon.

I will stand by for my spanking.

Cheers,
Paul.

 

[ack]

Velo Dog,,We just finished a great hunt with Khomas..Wife and I took 15 animals of all types with Swift A-Frames..Fantastic bullet as all were put down with first shot.....She killed a large giraffe with one shot from a 30/06....

 

[Ray B]

Bill Steigers made one run of .423" bullets- I'd prefer one of them to any other, but until I find one I'll go with North Forks- at least until lead is banned and the ban is enforced.

 

[bruce moulds]

90% of 180 any time.
heavier, going faster, what more do you want.
bruce.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I believe the length for weight must also affect how the bullet stabilizes in the rifling.

There's probably barrels that do not stabilize the longer bullet well enough for good accuracy.

That too

 

[njc110381]

And sectional density...
Barnes does make a 110 gr .308 TTSX, but I do not think they intend it for any .300 mag. This is where the third factor comes into play in my analysis: with a bullet this light and this short in this caliber, the sectional density (i.e. penetration momentum) really drops too much I am afraid.

I've mulled over this. The conclusion I came to was that the sectional density of the cup and core reduces very quickly upon impact when shedding the lead core. Quite how one would work out how much difference that makes I'm not sure? But it will make a difference. So the Barnes starting off lighter shouldn't matter so much as long as the sectional density is somewhere between what the jacketed bullets will be in the end vs when they start out?

I believe the length for weight must also affect how the bullet stabilizes in the rifling.

There's probably barrels that do not stabilize the longer bullet well enough for good accuracy.

I believe it's entirely a length thing. The heavier a bullet is the longer it has to be assuming the same materials being used. When you take away lead and replace it with copper alloy that length grows even more. I guess that's why Barnes simply don't offer a true heavy for calibre bullet? Standard rifles wouldn't shoot them.

 

[Mekaniks]

This is a picture of a a Barnes .338 185g TSX shot from a 338 WM and the only TSX that I have ever recovered. It went into the left shoulder of a black bear at about 35 yards. It hit the inside of the right shoulder and I found it under the hide in the right rear quarter. It lost one "petal" in the process. When I cut open the gut cavity it was one bloody mess....
Because it lost a petal was it a "bullet failure"??? Absolutely Not !Sure it lost a petal, but the bullet did its job and the bear is dead....Thats all you can ask for IMO