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

[Graham Hunter]

LOL and now we know why there are so many companies and so many bullet choices!

 

[TheWhitetailNut]

So much missing...

 

[SRvet]

Im late to this party in one way but have a fair bit of experience with light monometal bullets shooting 200 - 250 UK deer over the last 15 years. I have grown to trust the 308 Win firing the 130g TTSX at 3000fps and the 7mm Rem mag firing the 120g TTSX at between 3250 and 3450fps. Both of these combinations put small Roe deer and large Red deer on the deck with authority at ranges out to 300metres. If you swap the bullet for a 180g core lock soft point in the 308 even the small roe deer will run a surprising distance, red deer even further. I havent used many partitions (only one deer shot with a 150g NPT). My son has shot a few Roe deer with a 130gTTSX from his 300 WSM at 3650fps. The results were dramatic but I think the 150g TTSX is looking like a better bet in that calibre as the 130 did damage a lot of meat on the small deer

 

[colorado]

I'm lazy. I only shoot one weight bullet (except for the 270 Win varmint loads) in all my big game rifles

270 Win 150g Partition at 3000 fps
375 Weatherby 300g A-Frames at 2700 fps
500 Jeffery 570g TSX at 2300 fps

The 500 Jeffery is hell on elk and wild piggies

 

[double rifle newbie]

in my humble opinion it depends on the animal. i hunt alaska frequently and my favorite caribou load is the hornady gmx premium bullet in 185 grain 338 win mag. it is light for caliber but caribou tend to “flop over” when hit decently. i had a complete pass-through with this load from 470 yards. now, I do NOT go light for caliber for dangerous game no matter the bullet construction for anything that can bite you back (grizzly).

 

[Sabattiboy]

in my humble opinion it depends on the animal. i hunt alaska frequently and my favorite caribou load is the hornady gmx premium bullet in 185 grain 338 win mag. it is light for caliber but caribou tend to “flop over” when hit decently. i had a complete pass-through with this load from 470 yards. now, I do NOT go light for caliber for dangerous game no matter the bullet construction for anything that can bite you back (grizzly).

Recoil felt is at the launched bullet weight and velocity not after X amount has shed and only the retained core is left to penetrate. Some of this discussion has taken place on Weatherby hyper velocity being said to be too fast vs slower cartridge speeds. It is non arguable that newer designed bullets change the game for any caliber or cartridge and can be used as above described in reducing recoil by lighter bullet weight without suffering terminal bullet performance.
Everybody wears their own shoes for their own reasons.

 

[Ridgewalker]

Just for everyone’s info, a CS guy at Barnes told me their bullets penetrate like a conventional cup and core 15-20% heavier. Thus a 250 grain Barnes penetrates like a 287-300 grain cup and core.

 

[CBH Australia]

Just for everyone’s info, a CS guy at Barnes told me their bullets penetrate like a conventional cup and core 15-20% heavier. Thus a 250 grain Barnes penetrates like a 287-300 grain cup and core.

I'm not expert but I have read a lot of others experience s.

It seems many newer mono metal bullets are light for calibre and are claimed to penetrate better.

Barnes have been around a while now. Hammer Bullets are getting good reviews.
There is CEB and others.
The Australian Woodleigh projectiles are loaded commercially.

There is also Outer Edge Projectiles in Australia and now Atomic 29.

Probably others I have not considered.

They seem to offer performance in lighter weights, helps with recoil.

They all have supporters..

Not sure which is the best or which situation each excels in.

The reason you would be using lighter is they are long for weight so a 150gn .30 Cal might be near as long as something 15-20% heavier.

A .220 GN .30 Cal mono might well be too long to be chambered in any .30cal and would need a faster twist to stabilise it. Perhaps faster than the usual offerings.

The length should increase the BC but all things being equal the lighter bullet will penetrate as it's going to hit faster and is tough enough to penetrate because of its mono metal alloy.

Take in some of what others are saying and determine what best suits your requirements. Shoot straight and you will have to see what works for you.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Just for everyone’s info, a CS guy at Barnes told me their bullets penetrate like a conventional cup and core 15-20% heavier. Thus a 250 grain Barnes penetrates like a 287-300 grain cup and core.

@Ridgewalker
So a 225gn 35 cal would be equivalent to a 275gn Woodleigh.

 

[Ridgewalker]

@Ridgewalker
So a 225gn 35 cal would be equivalent to a 275gn Woodleigh.

Their statement was they will penetrate similar to a cup and core bullet 15-20% heavier. They may or may not expand to the same degree. Or they may not blow apart to the same degree. “Penetration” was the specific term he used.

 

[Dr Ray]

Their statement was they will penetrate similar to a cup and core bullet 15-20% heavier. They may or may not expand to the same degree. Or they may not blow apart to the same degree. “Penetration” was the specific term he used.

Many years ago I went for maximum velocity.
These days I like to match the bullet and its construction to the intended target.
I’m about to load 165 grain Woodleigh power points I think they’ll called for my newly acquired Kimber 308.
Slower and much heavier bullets (within reason) is what I go for now.

 

[CBH Australia]

Many years ago I went for maximum velocity.
These days I like to match the bullet and its construction to the intended target.
I’m about to load 165 grain Woodleigh power points I think they’ll called for my newly acquired Kimber 308.
Slower and much heavier bullets (within reason) is what I go for now.

It's not all about velocity but I expect the monos are finding a compromise between more velocity and less recoil to get penetration and a good result.

Traditional bullet types still work, always did.we just like trying new stuff.

What are you targeting with the .309?

 

[Dr Ray]

It's not all about velocity but I expect the monos are finding a compromise between more velocity and less recoil to get penetration and a good result.

Traditional bullet types still work, always did.we just like trying new stuff.

What are you targeting with the .309?

Long distant targets and deer
I normally use my 270 for deer but have decided to try the 308.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Long distant targets and deer
I normally use my 270 for deer but have decided to try the 308.

@Dr Ray
Load the 08 with 150gn accubonds or 150gn SSTs and a healthy dose of 2208. Sight in 2 inches high at 100 yards and you are 24" low at 400
Happy hunting
Bob

 

[Nevada Mike]

I have had similar thoughts about bonded and monolithic bullets and that their weight retention characteristics might enable 'killing power' that would equal that of the older, heavier cup and core bullets. I've thought about this quite a bit, especially in light of the superior momentum of heavier bullets.

Then the obvious occurred to me... we can have our cake and eat it, too. Modern bonded and monolithic bullets retain more weight (and momentum) than cup and core bullets of the same weight and can be launched at the same velocity. What's not to like?

 

[CADDIE5]

I talked to Barnes ballistician and he gave me load data for 375ruger 250ttsx. He said it will work reliably on cape buffalo no need for 300gr or 270gr unless my rifle shot them more accurately. He said PG or DG 250ttsx will get it done if I do my part.

 

[WAB]

The L/D is much greater on a mono bullet. This seems to indicate that they will prefer a faster rate of twist vs a conventional bullet of the same weight. Have you guys found this to be true?

 

[ldmay375]

There is definitely a point where the mono’s need a faster twist than equal weight cup & core bullets.
Barnes was doing a pretty good job of updating their bullet to twist rate requirements on their website, prior to the latest buy out.

One example is the .308, 168 grain TTSX, per Barnes, requires 1-11” rate of twist. Above sea level elevations and velocities may have some effect as to creating anomalies.
Apparently the 165 grain TTSX does not have the same rate of twist limitation.
I have some older 308 Winchesters and 30-06’s that per literature are 1-12 twists and and AR-10 with 11.25-12”. Time permitting I may try the 165 grain in these rifles.

I did quickly and informally try the 168’s in the 16.5” AR-10, 308 Winchester.
That little test was inconclusive. Due to the wind blowing the target top forward to me, which could have given the very slight elongated holes. Though the 3 shot groups were about 1” at 100 meters.
Which I thought was plenty acceptable for a military grade light barrel set up, with only a trigger replacement.
I will likely go 150 grain tipped mono’s for my 308’s and 30-06’s that have slower than 1-10 rate of twist. But, I need to contact Barnes and see what their recommendation is for the 165 TTSX.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Hello;

In order to avoid misunderstandings, please note that we are talking about plains game expanding bullets, NOT dangerous game solid bullets.

For the sake of discussion, allow me to arbitrarily pick a few dates to illustrate expanding bullet recent history: 1) pre-1948: soft-point bullets; 2) 1948: invention of the controlled expansion Nosler Partition bullet; 3) 1969 (?): invention of the Bitterroot Bonded bullet; 4) 1984: invention of the Swift A Frame bullet; 5) 1989: invention of the Barnes X mono-metal bullet.

Basically, old soft points expanded unreliably (too much or not enough) and velocity was the primary factor in regulating expansion, weight retention and integrity. The Nosler Partition relies on a divided jacket to trap and retain the rear core and penetrate, while the front core expands, generally violently. Bitterroot, Bear Claw, Nosler, Swift, Hornady, etc. bonded bullets rely on bonding core and jacket to retain the core during expansion. The A Frame relies on both divided jacket and bonding. The Barnes X relies on mono-metal 'solid' construction to control the expansion of a hollow point. Yes, this is over-simplified, but bear with me for a minute please.

Based on personal experience and innumerable hunters' reports, recovered Nosler Partitions have often lost 30% to 40% of their weight. Bonded bullets generally loose less (shall we say 10% to 20%?). A Frames barely loose in the 5% range. TSX & TTSX barely loose 1% or 2%. Yes, this too is over-simplified, but bear with me for another minute please.

If we accept that the "classic" bullet weights (300 gr .375; 180 gr .308; etc.) were indelibly engraved in our collective hunting mind well before even the Nosler Partition existed; and if we accept - let us just focus on the Nosler Partition - that any given Nosler Partition looses at least 30% of its weight in the first inch of penetration/expansion; then it follows that only 210 gr (70% of 300 gr) of a .375 Partition slug actually does most of the penetration; 175 gr (70% of 250 gr) of a .338 Partition slug actually does most of the penetration; or 126 gr (70% of 180 gr) of a .308 Partition slug actually does most of the penetration.

The question that is of interest to me is therefore the following: would we get exactly the same results as a Partition gets, with bullets 30% lighter that retain virtually 100% of their weight during expansion (A Frame, TTSX, etc.)?

From a trajectory perspective, heavier bullets retain their momentum (speed) longer, but this advantage is offset by the fact that longer mono-metals have higher ballistic coefficients, and lighter bullets are launched faster. Any ballistic chart will confirm that the heavier Partition do not have a meaningful, if any, trajectory edge over the lighter TTSX.

From an energy perspective, heavier bullets deliver more energy, but weight is only one factor, and speed matters a lot in the energy calculation. Again, any ballistic chart will confirm that the heavier slower Partition do not have a meaningful energy edge over the lighter TTSX.

So, should the modern (A Frame, TTSX, etc.) golden standard for an expanding .375 be 210 grain, to produce the same penetration and killing results as the 'old' Kynoch 300 gr standard did? We know that a 210 gr TTSX .375 would fly faster and flatter; recoil less; hit almost as hard in terms of pure energy; and should penetrate the same since it does not loose 30%+ of its weight in the first inch or so.

I am on record for having always, for the last 40 years, shot the heaviest Partition available in any given caliber, and I have been very happy with it because the rear core almost never failed to penetrate while the front core never failed to expand. But is this reasoning obsolete in the face of the newer technologies where a bullet does not loose half of its core and still expands? Heck, everything else being constant, a reduction of 10% in ejecta weight results in a reduction of 20% in free recoil. Added velocity will add recoil, so a 20% lighter but faster bullet will not quite yield a 40% reduction in free recoil, but I will gladly take a 20% recoil reduction on anything from .338 and up... Why not...

What say you? I need to re-order 100 rounds of .340 Wby for large American and African plains game. I know these will not be 250 gr Partition anymore (like the last 100), but should they be 225 gr TTSX, 210 gr TTSX, or - dare I say? - 185 gr TTSX (after all, 70% retained off 250 gr is only 175 gr...)?

Another example would be: will a 100 gr TTSX in a 257 Wby deliver what a 120 gr Partition does (after all, 70% retained of 120 gr is only 84 gr...)?

Please explain your view, this is so much more interesting and educational when you do... I have my own view, but I am really interested in your view and experience.

Thanks
Pascal

This is something that I have wondered about myself. Having grown up in California, where the use of lead free bullets is now required, I bought a box of Barnes and loaded them for my .30-06. After about three shots I could no longer hold a group. I polled the bolt a looked down the bore. It looked like a tiny shotgun barrel. Completely smooth and shiny. The lands had sheared so much copper which completely filled the grooves that the bullets would no longer stabilize. It took a lot of copper solvent and elbow grease to restore the rifle to its former tight shooting self.
That was quite a few years ago, and I know that the technology has advanced, but my old friends that still live in California tell me that hey have a lot of trouble with copper fouling. A few of them have stopped hunting in California because of it. We tend to believe that making it tough for hunters was the real reason for the lead ban.
I'm going to stay with premium lead core bullets.
Besides that, have you ever seen a western movie where they threatened anyone with copper poisinin'?

 

[ldmay375]

Thankfully, I have never had the experience of copper fouling to that degree. I have shot quite a few copper and gilding metal monolithic bullets in range sessions and have not had that happen. Actually, I have had no worse copper fouling from old Barnes X-bullets than Swift A-Frames in a couple of rifles that I shot both in.

I pretty much exclusively use the expanding monolithics, be they copper, gilding metal from .224 through.458 calibers. Some may foul worse than others, but I have never felt the need to stop a range session and clean the barrel due to copper fouling when starting with a relatively clean barrel.

I fully agree on that type of politicians, in any country, will attempt to make it as difficult as possible on hunters / shooters / firearms owners. Their bullshit has no boundaries of borders. It is universal.