Can plains game A Frames or TSX bullets be 30% lighter?

[One Day...]

I have been studying the debate of light/solid/fast vs heavy/bonded/slow for several years and have been experimenting in the field. Here in Texas, I cull whitetails and elk for ranches and donate the meat to the homeless. I have shot a lot of both and am always searching for quick kills and very little tracking. I guide hunts each year and have about a dozen hunters each year to observe. First of all, it does not take a lot to kill a whitetail deer. A .243 works great all the time. Shot placement is the key. I use a 30-06 for everything and have experimented with virtually all manufacturers and weights. Everything works, just some work better than others. I have found the 110 grain TTSX to be one of the best killers. At 3500 fps, it is a lightning bolt for deer. I would show you a picture, but no deer I have ever shot has captured one. I can tell you that the heavier 150 and 168 grain TTSX has been dismal on whitetails. It is my opinion that they are not going fast enough to reliably expand on this light, thin skinned game. One ranch I guide on does not allow Barnes bullets, period. My next favorite is the 150 grain Swift Scirocco driven at 3050 fps from my 24" Pacnor barrel. Devastating performance from all angles. For culling elk, I use the 130 grain TTSX at 3200 fps and the same Swift Scirocco with 150 grains. Great shock effect, destroyed vitals and DRT is what I like.

In Africa, I cull hunt only and the meat is used by villages or it is sold commercially. I also drill water wells there, but that is a different story. Again, I am looking for the most effective bullet I can find. Last year I shot 51 wildes and 10 oryx. I experimented with 180 grain Scirocco, 180 A-frame, 200 grain Partition, 200 grain Norma Oryx, 180 grain Sierra Pro Hunter, 180 grain Speer HotCor, 240 grain Woodeigh Weldcore, and 168 grain Barnes TTSX. 5 shots for each then switch. Best ones were used over again. The best performer was the 180 grain Scirocco. Next was the 180 a-frame, followed by the partition and oryx. The ProHunter and HotCor, killed great and I would use them any time on wildes. The Woodleigh was a novelty and killed every wilde I shot at, but it did nothing special. The TTSX was the worst performer of the group with the longest tracking jobs. All of the bullets worked fine with the exception of the Barnes.

I shot 25 zebras at one area and used A-frames and Remington Ultra Bonded Corelokt. The a-frames punched thru every zebra and killed effectively. The 180 grain Remington would expand magnificently and penetrate all the way to the opposite skin and sometimes exit. But the internal damage was massive and the zebras all died quicker and with less tracking than the A-frame.

I shot 50 impala with my .223 loaded with 55 grain soft points. Slip it in behind the shoulder, and it destroys the internals without messing up any meat.

Point of all this is that I am a fan of light, fast Barnes TTSX for plains game applications. I am not a fan of them at normal speeds against less than kudu/eland species. As a guide, I see way too many hunters using too much bullet for deer hunting. I am always nervous when the hunter shows up with his latest long range build and boxes of handloaded cannon fodder with tough, heavy bullets. Those are the ones I end up on long tracking jobs or lost deer. The guy that shows up with a green box of Corelokts or blue box Federal is going home with a deer and usually without a tracking job.

Great data indeed. Thank you. Does your good results with 130 gr TTSX and less satisfying results with 168 gr TTSX, both out of the 30-06 lead you to conclude that a 30-06 does not drive the 168 gr TTSX fast enough? Would you expect better results from the 168 gr TTSX out of a .300 mag, especially the faster ones (Wby, RUM, etc.)?

 

[Von S.]

When I was a kid at hunting camp some of " the old guys" would ,after a day of crawling around inside a bottle, would let all us youngsters in on the inside and outside of the of what you need to kill deer, bears and all other such game.

First off came patriotism and with that all guns and calibers used by anyone other than the USA were basically trash and god pitty anyone who disagreed.

When handed the sacred 30-30 Winchester with a customary , " this is all you'll ever need right here boy" and another offering the old " ought six" as the ultimate in long range iron. Sighting in was a real treat. That normally took place on Saturday around noon as that's when their heads could take the pounding. Their target was the big tree in the back yard. A kid new to the camp watched as all the beer bellies took at cut at it and he looked at me and asked when I thought the tree would fall down. My reply was it would either die of old age or lightening strike as in the years I was there I hadn't seen it hit once. My father, who was rich as Rockefeller had me use an old single shot shotgun that even had the front bead missing, and to add to the excitement of hunting allowed me one slug only to hunt with. Fortunately for me I actually shot a deer with it that wasn't quite dead so in my youthful zeal to " finish the game" I clubbed it to death with the trashcan gun and broke it never to be used again.


For the next season I bought myself a "taboo weapon" and put a 6 power Weaver on it a brand new pre 64 264 WM that I took a bunch of crap over, especially by those telling me how it burns barrels off......even though mine was the first one they ever saw.

Opening morning I think it took about 20 minutes and I killed a nice spike alongside the RR tracks.

I still have that rifle and it's barrel has only been swapped once. It does sport an old Unertal scope and is my go to white tail and mule deer Texas rifle and still drops them like they were hit by lightening.

You are absolutely right about the similarities on the 458 and the 338. And as Iwas typing it I was sure others would as well.

It is absolutely amazing what velocities can be had by a competent handloader in the 458, add about 150 more with your Lott and through a 460 you'll believe that your Chrono is broken and any bullet with lead in it will disintegrate on impact.

What has made shooting fun is the guys who were and are innovators. As far as I am concerned it is a constant on going process of experimentation and learning that has taken us to where we are today.

Who knows hat tomorrow could bring?

One day, I really interested in your 25 caliber Weatherby expedition on animals up to 500 pounds. On bullet that I have had great success with has been the 90 grain Sierra jhpbt that is actually tougher than most people might believe and though I have only ever necked or skulled various deer species it had dropped everything in it's tracks.

I am just Leary about the bones of a body shot.

 

[One Day...]

...One day, I really interested in your 25 caliber Weatherby expedition on animals up to 500 pounds. On bullet that I have had great success with has been the 90 grain Sierra jhpbt that is actually tougher than most people might believe and though I have only ever necked or skulled various deer species it had dropped everything in it's tracks.
I am just Leary about the bones of a body shot.

Awesome post Von S. it nostalgically reminded me of my first deer camp in Pennsylvania in 1987, shortly after I emigrated to the US. It was nowhere near as far back as the ones you described, but we still had two survivors of the times you describe, both in their late 70's early 80's, one with an old sporterized military Springfield 03 and one with an old lever action Savage, in 30-30 if memory serves (?). The dialog you quote could have been recorded right then and there, in the hills above Williamsport PA.
I was suspiciously appraised when I showed up with a Steyr Mannlicher, but I was accepted with audible sighs of release when it was revealed that it was a .270 Win LOL The Zeiss scope instantly and terminally classified me as "a rich guy," which ended up costing me way more beer than I ever thought I could ever buy LOL again.

I will not quite go to 500 lbs with the .257 Wby. I asked it a bit provocatively in the title of the thread .257 Weatherby Magnum on 300 to 500 lbs antelopes - opinions please (https://www.africahunting.com/threa...-antelopes-opinions-please.45286/#post-478715) because I wanted to see what people would say (the same way I launched the 30% test balloon in this thread ;-) but I feel really good about the 250 lbs range with the 100 gr TTSX and the 350 lbs range with a 120 gr A Frame.

 

[JMM]

I really tried to like the 168 grain TTSX. I have several boxes of bullets and have loaded and shot a lot of rounds. It is a very accurate bullet. I just could not get it to work on game to my particular liking. I don't think I have ever lost a whitetail or wilde or zebra while using the 168 grain TTSX, but MY observations over 100's of game animals is that it is not optimal. I think speed has a whole lot to do with it. The 110 grain is a hammer. I have shot some incredibly large bucks with it as well as countless smaller bucks and doe. At speed, it appears to open up well and penetrates any reasonable width. The 130 grainer seems to always penetrate the elk thru and thru. In order to get numbers, you have to take quick shots at all angles. I have not found the lighter bullets to be an issue on deer or elk. In Africa, the well constructed 180's have penetrated all sizes of game from every different angle. It is only my observations and others may have different results.

 

[One Day...]

I really tried to like the 168 grain TTSX. I have several boxes of bullets and have loaded and shot a lot of rounds. It is a very accurate bullet. I just could not get it to work on game to my particular liking. I don't think I have ever lost a whitetail or wilde or zebra while using the 168 grain TTSX, but MY observations over 100's of game animals is that it is not optimal. I think speed has a whole lot to do with it. The 110 grain is a hammer. I have shot some incredibly large bucks with it as well as countless smaller bucks and doe. At speed, it appears to open up well and penetrates any reasonable width. The 130 grainer seems to always penetrate the elk thru and thru. In order to get numbers, you have to take quick shots at all angles. I have not found the lighter bullets to be an issue on deer or elk. In Africa, the well constructed 180's have penetrated all sizes of game from every different angle. It is only my observations and others may have different results.

So, your mission is now to urgently acquire a .300 Wby, load 168 gr TTSX to the gills, go back to Africa pronto, shoot fiks-fiks (quick quick!) 100 heads of various game on the heavier side, and report back to us LOL

PS: and, since you are at it, do the same with 150 gr TTSX too please, we need complete data LOL again.

 

[Von S.]

One day,

We're you hunting up around Trout Run?

 

[One Day...]

One day, We're you hunting up around Trout Run?

Oh my Gosh! Yes!!! The "camp" was at Beech Grove in Cogan House Township about 5 miles up hill from Trout Run. Turn left on 184 at Fry Brothers Turkey Ranch. The watering holes were at Trout Run and, on the other side of the mountain, at Bear Run. We hunted Stated Land 75. These were wild deer and they did not grow very big in the horns, but such great memories... Hard to comprehend this was already 30 years ago...

Could we have met in the woods or at the bar LOL !?!?!? Remember the Crippled Bear? Troxell's Sporting Goods? What was the name of that bar at Trout Run itself? The owner looked so much like Dana Delany, the actress of the TV series China Beach.

This is where I took my first whitetail deers... 1 buck tag and 2 doe tags over the counter if memory serves, but a really short season, two weeks I seem to remember.

 

[Von S.]

We very well might have seen each other up there. I stopped hunting up there in around 2000 when I brought in my 13 th bear in 14 years and a game warden outright accused me of baiting them in front of people at the weight in station. My response was, let's say, way less cordial than that sawed off runt was used to and with about 30 hunters laughing at him he called in many state police who just wanted to be somewhere else.

All ended well.

That buck you have there is about the biggest that I've ever seen during the day light. There are some nocturnal only bucks up there that are scary big.

The mountain to hunt bear up there is or was Mc Intire mountain. It also is full of fossils out the wazoo and really big Rattlers in the summer. And though abandon for a long time there was a small settlement on the top. The only things left are foundations, an apple orchard and a children's grave yard where it appears that by the dates most of the kids died about the same time. Maybe the flu?

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

@One Day...

You started this thread asking the question of "Can..." this be done. I think you've got your answer. But what I think you must ask is should and/or why you would move down in weight. I think @Red Leg has addressed this correctly in respect to DG, don't do it. There's no such thing in my mind of over penetration when it comes to DG. The newer high weight retaining bullets, it just make a lot of sense, save for maybe the 270gr TSX.

When it comes to PG, I think you have the option. But as per my previous post, I think you can go too far, and 30% just "feels" too far. But here are my two reasons for dropping down in weight with these bullets:

1) Accuracy: If a 180gr .308 version of the bullet is showing better accuracy than a 200gr, no brainer, make that choice.

2) Lesser recoil: I chose a 140gr North Fork for my son's 7x57 when he was 13. He was small and I wanted to be careful just how much recoil he'd absorb at the range.

You could also make the argument of lighter/faster in favor of better flight ballistics, but even that argument is limited when you take into account the lower BC's of the lighter bullets, not to mention wind resistance.

 

[BobT]

I'm getting in on this kind of late (as usual) but just finished reading the entire thread and a couple of things come to mind. It looks to me like the first shot on your Eland was a killing shot, granted there was no exit but a dead Eland was the result. I don't know that an A-Frame would have exited either all else being the equal. I have not used any of the newer Barnes offerings because of the dismal results I had with the original X bullets many years ago. I too prefer exit wounds but they don't always exist. I am a big fan of the Nosler Partition bullets and have used them for many years and by the appearance of things they have been doing a good job for you also. I guess I don't understand why you want to change to a lighter bullet with lower sectional density and a larger frontal area, after impact, searching for more penetration. The lower recoil part I completely understand and do agree with but I think if a fellow chooses to hunt thick skinned game then increased recoil is one of the things he must be willing to accept. For me personally, I tend to stick with what I know works, too old to change I guess.

A very interesting thread!

 

[One Day...]

@One Day...

You started this thread asking the question of "Can..." this be done. I think you've got your answer. But what I think you must ask is should and/or why you would move down in weight. I think @Red Leg has addressed this correctly in respect to DG, don't do it. There's no such thing in my mind of over penetration when it comes to DG. The newer high weight retaining bullets, it just make a lot of sense, save for maybe the 270gr TSX.

When it comes to PG, I think you have the option. But as per my previous post, I think you can go too far, and 30% just "feels" too far. But here are my two reasons for dropping down in weight with these bullets:

1) Accuracy: If a 180gr .308 version of the bullet is showing better accuracy than a 200gr, no brainer, make that choice.

2) Lesser recoil: I chose a 140gr North Fork for my son's 7x57 when he was 13. He was small and I wanted to be careful just how much recoil he'd absorb at the range.

You could also make the argument of lighter/faster in favor of better flight ballistics, but even that argument is limited when you take into account the lower BC's of the lighter bullets, not to mention wind resistance.

Thanks @PHOENIX PHIL. I do not know if you read my post at the bottom of page 4, - it is easy to miss some when responses are numerous and quick - but here are excerpts:

And the verdict is...
... everything can be pushed to the absurd ...
... I was really curious to see if others have learned things I have not because up to now I have always shot the heaviest for caliber Partition available ...
... As I said in the opening post, I have my idea on the subject ...
... So, here is where I am: Applying blindly a "30% rule" as it has come to be discussed in this thread does not seem reasonable to me...

Ant here is my conclusion:

... So, yep, coming down one or two notches on the weight scale with mono-metal, but staying shy off the 30% weight reduction until further experimental learning emerges...
Thank you all for helping me come to my decision.
Pascal

I think, we all agree

PS: as to DG, my original post specifically excluded it from the discussion, so here too I think we all agree

 

[One Day...]

... I have not used any of the newer Barnes offerings because of the dismal results I had with the original X bullets many years ago ...

Exactly my personal experience too. The original X I tried in the early 90's behaved like "solid" bullets. No or very little expansion. This is why I stuck with Nosler Partition.

But now that my last 100 .340 Wby rounds from the same lot are gone and I need to restock, this is an opportunity to upgrade, if in the mean time technology has progressed, which it apparently has in regard to Barnes. I am interested in getting away from lead and increasing the likelihood (I have hunted enough to know that it is never a certainty) of exit wound blood trails.

... I guess I don't understand why you want to change to a lighter bullet with lower sectional density and a larger frontal area, after impact, searching for more penetration. The lower recoil part I completely understand and do agree with but I think if a fellow chooses to hunt thick skinned game then increased recoil is one of the things he must be willing to accept. For me personally, I tend to stick with what I know works, too old to change I guess.

Yep, lower recoil is the only motivation here in going (reasonably) lighter, if it does not compromise performance, which apparently it does not with TTSX. I deal well enough with heavy recoil, and I have proven it, but I do not especially enjoy it, and I see no reason not to avoid it if it can be avoided with no detrimental effect (I consider muzzle brakes as having detrimental effects).

Since I do not include plains game in the "thick skinned game" category, I did not discuss .416 Rigby, .458 Lott, or .470 NE in this thread, and I specifically excluded DG from the discussion in the opening post. DG is a different discussion. We all agree on this.

So, as plains game is concerned, if I can drop my .340 Wby recoil from 36 ft/lbs (in a 10 1/2 lbs scoped gun with 250 gr bullets) to 29 ft/lbs (in the same gun with 185 gr bullets, i.e. about the same as a .300), and still get the same performance, you bet I am going to do it

 

[One Day...]

As to the argument about not changing because it works, I too respect heavily the benefits of proven technology.

But I also accept that having done it this way yesterday, is not necessarily a good enough reason to do it the same way tomorrow. I gladly embrace the turn bolt evolution from muzzle loading; the smokeless powder progress from black powder; multi coated glass over uncoated glass; the laser range finder over the optical coincidence range finder; Gore Tex over rubber; etc. etc. Not to mention electronic injection over carburetor; ABS over manual brakes; electric light over oil lamps; CAT SCAN or MRI medicine; the Internet; etc. etc. LOL, you get my drift

So, despite having shot my entire life, and to my great satisfaction, Nosler Partitions of what I would characterize as "classic weight," if there is now a PROVEN better mouse trap out there in terms of bullets, yep I am going to adopt it too.

Early adopters, of which I am not, adopted this one it seems 10 to 20 years ago, and it seems that they did all the field testing and triggered all the continuous improvement that was required, for me to feel comfortable jumping on the bandwagon at this time. And if I can get lower recoil on top of it, as the proverbial cherry on the cake, all the merrier

Others are certainly free to not do it, and I entirely respect, if not necessarily understand, their preference. One clearly has the right to continue getting pounded by more recoil launching heavier bullets that shed their core. All one needs to do is just shoot heavier at the muzzle so that one gets enough retained weight at the end. I know: I have done it myself for 40 years.

 

[Luvthunt]

If you are getting less recoil so is the animal when th lighter bullet strikes.

 

[One Day...]

If you are getting less recoil so is the animal when the lighter bullet strikes.

It is a good point. Basic application of Newton's third law. But as mentioned earlier, I am not after shock/energy, but expansion and penetration, i.e. mechanical damage:

... for what I understand of the conditions required for 'lightning bolt' shock kill, i.e. energy related kill, it entirely depends on what systolic stage the animal is at upon impact. Apparently, at the 'right' ventricular contraction stage the hydrostatic shock will flash-destroy the central nervous system, and at the 'wrong' ventricular contraction stage, shock will essentially do ... nothing. Hence our collective experience of 100% or 0% on 'energy kills.' My challenge to apply consistently hydrostatic shock (i.e. rely on energy to kill) is that I have yet to figure a way to determine at what systolic stage the animal will be when my bullet arrives ;-)

So, if I am getting the expansion and penetration I need to get the job done, including a healthy safety margin, I am perfectly happy with less energy/force i.e. recoil.

 

[Edge]

Been a good thread, I’ve used cup & core at close range and witnessed no exits and sometimes multiple exits with most dead in their tracks with properly hit deer sized game. I’ve used 165gr Nosler partitions to great satisfaction with the -06 on whitetails.

I shot a bunch of animals on my first plains game hunt in South Africa last year with cup & core 180 gr out of a 300 Win Mag...all died quickly including a hard quartering away on a big zebra stallion.

I went through a similar discussion on how light can I go with monometals before heading to Zimbabwe this past July. More concerned with recoil as my wife would also be shooting my -06. I settled on 165 gr Peregrine monometal bullets for a trial and my oh my did they produce and without seemingly the fouling the TTSX produced. I used 130 TTSX during the year and had more fouling than the Peregrines and seemingly less recoil with the 165gr Peregrines. Subjective of course, but I was driving the 130 TTSX hard. I posted a thread on the load development of both if you are interested.

Point being, the 165gr Peregrine delivered exceptional performance on smaller animals as well as the larger ones. Why use a 180gr or 200 gr when I can punch through shoulders of a waterbuck with a 165gr? It’s all about bullet placement in the vitals or CNS. Wife and I had a great hunt this past summer.

https://www.africahunting.com/threads/zimbabwe-2018-cast-blast-x2-with-nyamazana-safaris.44690/

I do believe softer bullets create more immediate wound channels for shorter tracking jobs if hit correctly and not needing to drive theough the body on a hard quartering away angle. In the off chance the animal moves or I screw a shot, I want the bullet to drive as deep as it can, through a paunch if needed.

Is a 30% reduction the right figure to use? I don’t know, but going down 15-20 grains with a monometal is safe.

Not all mono-metals are created equal. I’ve shot TTSX in my -06 and .375 and they still leave a good bit of copper fouling. The Peregrine brand do not, at least in my rifles. Oh, I like all bullets! Starting to ramble now lol

 

[One Day...]

Very interesting point @Edge, thank you.
I have been reluctant with bronze, brass, or higher tin-content and harder alloys that typically fool less, since shooting A Square Monolithic Solids (one of the first mono-metals to come around, in the last 80's if I remember well) actually pushed out the rifling on the outside of the barrels on my pre-WWII Belgian Jules Burry .450#2 NE first double rifle. This was not quite literally of course, but you could physically see, if not quite feel, the rifling pattern on the outside surface of the barrels. Pressure relieve groves have been added since on mono-metal bullets, and the alloys are softer, both to address this issue, so I am OK with mono-metal, but I did not know that the TTSX may have gone a bit too far on the softer side (which would also favor easier expansion at lower velocity, hence address limitations of the earlier X). That is interesting...
I will read your load development thread.
Thanks
Pascal

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Thanks @PHOENIX PHIL. I do not know if you read my post at the bottom of page 4, - it is easy to miss some when responses are numerous and quick - but here are excerpts:

Ant here is my conclusion:


I think, we all agree

PS: as to DG, my original post specifically excluded it from the discussion, so here too I think we all agree

Yep, good discussion or at least fun. For whatever it's worth I spent part of a weekend a year ago or so playing in my mind and with spreadsheet software to show whether or not a North Fork Bonded Core (you could sub A-Frame easily) would do better than a Partition. I am a big fan of the Partition by the way.

The idea was to guesstimate the weight, velocity, size of mushroom at various points in a theoretical 16" path through an animal and presuming it stopped at the skin on far side. It took into account the loss of weight and the increase in diameter of the bullet on sectional density. And with my guesses what that would also mean on momentum.

I don't have the spreadsheet available to me as I'm away from home and will be for another 10 days. But in the end, it was hard to determine much difference between the two bullets by the numbers. However my little trip down Bullet Geek Lane didn't account for bones or any other realities.

I love the Partition, if only because it was developed some 60 years or so ago and was a major leap forward in bullet technology with what really is a pretty simple idea. And it took quite awhile for someone to improve on it. But that said, I'll take my North Forks or alternatively A-Frames over the Partition particularly when there's an expensive trophy fee at the other end or something that may take particular exception to me putting a hole in it.

 

[One Day...]

Yep, good discussion or at least fun. For whatever it's worth I spent part of a weekend a year ago or so playing in my mind and with spreadsheet software to show whether or not a North Fork Bonded Core (you could sub A-Frame easily) would do better than a Partition. I am a big fan of the Partition by the way.

The idea was to guesstimate the weight, velocity, size of mushroom at various points in a theoretical 16" path through an animal and presuming it stopped at the skin on far side. It took into account the loss of weight and the increase in diameter of the bullet on sectional density. And with my guesses what that would also mean on momentum.

I don't have the spreadsheet available to me as I'm away from home and will be for another 10 days. But in the end, it was hard to determine much difference between the two bullets by the numbers. However my little trip down Bullet Geek Lane didn't account for bones or any other realities.

I love the Partition, if only because it was developed some 60 years or so ago and was a major leap forward in bullet technology with what really is a pretty simple idea. And it took quite awhile for someone to improve on it. But that said, I'll take my North Forks or alternatively A-Frames over the Partition particularly when there's an expensive trophy fee at the other end or something that may take particular exception to me putting a hole in it.

Amen! Same ectoplasmic trip LOL. We are likely neighbor, we should compare spreadsheets one of these days ;-)

Lord knows I have defended, and still defend the Partition as an incredible and pioneering breakthrough, and I still have probably a couple hundred rounds of Federal Premium Partitions in various calibers (.375 H&H 300 gr; .338 Win 250 gr; .300 Wby 180 gr and 150 gr; 7 Rem Mag 160 gr; 7x64 160 gr; .270 150 gr; 6 mm Rem 100 gr; .243 100 gr) to launch on various hunts. Some years back, in a powerful urge of "being done with it" agonizing over what to shoot and constantly re-sighting guns, I purchased 200 rounds of the same lot of each of the above. Three quarters of them are gone, but there are still a few boxes left here or there, so I am going to remain a Partition shooter for while, and will be happy to do so.

But like with you, and many others, "the times, they are achangin..." and I am either on a 'same-weight-higher-performance' trip (e.g. .375 H&H 300 gr and .416 Rigby 400 gr mono-metals), or a 'lower-weight-same-performance' trip (e.g. lower mono-metals weights in .340 Wby and smaller calibers).

What steers me toward mono-metals (I mostly use "(T)TSX" as a short-hand linguo rather than a specific brand preference: Barnes, North Fork, Peregrine, etc. all qualify) rather than A Frame, is the lead-free characteristics. I will take with whomever wants a bet that lead-free rifle ammo will sooner or later become the law of the land (it already is "recommended" in Arizona in Units 12A, 12B, 9, 10, 13A, 13B near the Grand Canyon Condor recovery area), and ... honestly ... why not, if there are perfectly effective alternatives...

 

[Edge]

Very interesting point @Edge, thank you.
I have been reluctant with bronze, brass, or higher tin-content and harder alloys that typically fool less, since shooting A Square Monolithic Solids (one of the first mono-metals to come around, in the last 80's if I remember well) actually pushed out the rifling on the outside of the barrels on my pre-WWII Belgian Jules Burry .450#2 NE first double rifle. This was not quite literally of course, but you could physically see, if not quite feel, the rifling pattern on the outside surface of the barrels. Pressure relieve groves have been added since on mono-metal bullets, and the alloys are softer, both to address this issue, so I am OK with mono-metal, but I did not know that the TTSX may have gone a bit too far on the softer side (which would also favor easier expansion at lower velocity, hence address limitations of the earlier X). That is interesting...
I will read your load development thread.
Thanks
Pascal

I’m not sure the metal alloy but the construction of the Peregrine with the metallic solid tip for expansion vs a plastic tip as well as the multiple shank grooves is different from the TTSX. Maybe better maybe worse?

I will note that knocking a bullet out with an impact puller forced the metal tip in enough to start expansion. I shot it this morning and it sounded good hitting the steel at 20o yards!

Here is a picture of the one bullet that was recovered from the Kudu earlier this year and the bullet that came out of the impact puller, you can see the tip driven in and the expansion already beginning. We are getting off topic but I believe lighter monometal bullets can be very effective.