Understanding The Barnes TSX Controversy

[grand veneur]

Curious about the rifling perspective (but I am always curious).

Is it twist rate, rifling profile and depth, number of grooves and lands?

It makes sense, that "harder" alloyed mono-metal bullets may require different rifling design, twists than traditional lead, or soft cupronickel cup and core bullets.

The topic of rifling should not be underestimated. The lead-free bullets are much longer for the same weight than those with a lead core and therefore require a shorter twist than the classic bullets. When it comes to small and medium calibers, manufacturers are increasingly taking this into account, but it's different with the old classic big bores where standards from the past still prevail. You don't have to be surprised that modern bullets like the TSX from Barnes don't always deliver in such rifles the performance you expect.

 

[uplander01]

Ah man, you hear these stories and occasionally see a pick of a bullet that just didn't work. I have had good luck with Barnes but I must follow that up with I don't use them in any of my large calibers 458 and up. Have had fantastic luck in 300's, 375's and 416's with Barnes but one must assert that the gents comments above make sense,....they need substantial velocity to work right. I think one must also take into account that it is probably one of the most widely used bullets out there, so statistically prone to a failure here and there. We need Woodleigh back in full force, I trust those bullets in both soft and solid completely.

 

[MontanaGrant]

I’ll ad my 1 cent of input (don’t have 2 cents worth of brains).

Barnes need velocity and rule of thumb since the all copper bullet is longer than the solid, I’d say one should drop down a bullet weight. Example I shot 120 grain TSX in my 7 mag. And dad shoots 350 grain in his .416. That’s gets velocity while also not making the bullet super long. That .500 bullet at 525 grains goingg a hundred feet per second faster may well have opened up.

Second one must differentiate between the TSX and the TTSX. The TT will expand a bit slower. I’ve always taken Barnes velocity’s needed and added 200 fps needed for expansion. My (small) experience feel that’s about right.

Barnes told me 1600 fps for the TTSX bullets and 1800 for the TSX. I firmly believe a TSX shouldn’t be used under 2000fps impact velocity.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS POST IS PURELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES WITH NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER TO CRITICIZE BARNES BULLETS

(I am still an avid fan & regular user)

Below is a 570Gr Barnes TSX bullet (fired from a .500 Nitro Express Federal Premium Cape Shok factory load at 2150 FPS) that was recovered from an African Cape buffalo. Expansion was non-existent and the Cape buffalo required other shots in order to be taken down.

Photograph Source: Thaba Mahaka Safaris
View attachment 637494
Below is a 300Gr Barnes TSX bullet (fired from a .375 Holland & Holland Magnum Barnes VOR-TX factory load at 2530 FPS) recovered from an Asiatic Gaur. Expansion was quite beautiful.
View attachment 637493
So here we have two scenarios involving the Barnes TSX bullet. One quite disconcerting & one quite encouraging.

Let's try to understand why this happens. In the late 2000s, quite a few reports were emerging of Barnes TSX bullets (as well as the earlier unbanded Barnes X bullet) failing to expand properly on certain big game when fired from certain calibers. The phenomenon was chalked up to either:
a) Faults in the initial batches of copper alloy
Or
b) Faulty hand loads (as well as some factory loads) which weren't being loaded to the ideal spec

Then, in the last one decade... the complaints suddenly seem to have stopped. Until the recent incident with the .500 Nitro Express and the Cape buffalo. As well as a few incidents involving the .470 Nitro Express (more details on those incidents will hopefully reach me soon).

I always discouraged usage of the Barnes TSX bullet on soft framed big game such as lions or leopards (or tigers, hypothetically speaking). My reasoning was that the all-copper hollow points would not expand quick enough on the great cats (esp. for broadside heart-lung shots taken at this kind of game feeding on baits). There would simply not be enough resistance in order for the bullets to begin expanding properly. But a Cape buffalo is a very thick framed game anima which provides ample resistance for bullets. And that 570Gr Barnes TSX bullet should have expanded properly.

My hypothesis is that the high velocity (2530 FPS) of the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum Barnes VOR-TX factory load enabled my 300Gr Barnes TSX bullet to open up satisfactorily. While the relatively low velocity (2150 FPS) of the .500 Nitro Express Federal Premium Cape Shok factory load impeded the bullet's expansion. This might also explain why there have also been documented issues of 500Gr Barnes TSX bullets failing to expand upon being fired from .470 Nitro Express rifles (at a velocity identical to the .500 Nitro Express) but not Barnes TSX bullets being fired from higher velocity calibers like the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum or .416 Rigby.

Any thoughts/ insights here would be most welcome.

Warmest Regards,
Habib

I read a few replies but not all, so my response is perhaps redundant. It's pretty well known that the TSX bullets need good velocity and that would be impact velocity to open up properly. Certainly the .500NE is a little on the slow side all things considered, but if the shot was also a bit long, that would make matters worse. This does seem a result of a somewhat low velocity impact.

The other thing that I may be seeing is it looks like the bullet hit at an angle not. The bullet at the bottom of the nose appears to be slightly bent inwards while the rest the nose looks pretty much round like when new. So if the bullet actually started to compress at the nose on an angular hit (versus perpendicular to the animal) that could make matters worse.

Purely speculation on my part.

 

[RichieG]

I would have thought that Barnes would adjust the hardness of the bullet depending on calibre. A 6mm 85gr TSX would almost always be launched at significantly more mv than a .500 570gr TSX and this has to be a factor adjusted for in manufacturing. If it isn’t, it’s an error, but if it is, (which I think it is) then Habib’s 570gr pic is illustrative of a problem.

 

[Beck]

Between my father and I we have now killed seven cape buffalo, six of them with TSX's. They have always performed flawlessly for us, but we were always shooting higher velocity calibers - .416 Rigby/Ruger, .404 Jeffery, or .450 Rigby. The one buffalo I killed with a .470 nitro express I used DGS and DGX bullets - which in my opinion are not nearly as effective as Barnes

 

[poco]

I would have thought that Barnes would adjust the hardness of the bullet depending on calibre. A 6mm 85gr TSX would almost always be launched at significantly more mv than a .500 570gr TSX and this has to be a factor adjusted for in manufacturing. If it isn’t, it’s an error, but if it is, (which I think it is) then Habib’s 570gr pic is illustrative of a problem.

I might be wrong, but I have seen barns bar stock and all of them were the same copper compound, just different sizes and computer lathed to specs
When I talked to hammer and CEB both had a proprietary compounding that is more brittle to shed the pedals

 

[skydiver386]

Curious about the rifling perspective (but I am always curious).

Is it twist rate, rifling profile and depth, number of grooves and lands?

It makes sense, that "harder" alloyed mono-metal bullets may require different rifling design, twists than traditional lead, or soft cupronickel cup and core bullets.

It is twist rate.

This is a quote from Steve at Hammer bullets.

"We learned this when we first started impact testing bullets in the beginning of marketing Hammers. We were low velocity testing to confirm proper performance at 1800 fps. Launched a bullet at 1800 fps and recovered it looking like it could be loaded again. The only distortion was engraving from the rifling. Very disappointing as this is our advertised min. We decided to increase the vel to find out the min for this particular bullet, but could not get any more powder in the case. We had another rifle of the same caliber with a larger case so we grabbed it. First launch was right at 1800 fps. I remember thinking " That was a wasted shot". Went and dug the bullet out of the media to find a perfectly deformed shank. Hmmm... The only diff was barrel twist. Lots of lightbulbs went on at that moment. Ran the stability numbers and the first bullet was about 1.2 sg and the second bullet was over 1.5 sg.
Just because you can get a bullet to an animal accurately does not mean the bullet will perform properly. Marginally stable for ballistics can shoot extremely accurately but significantly increase the odds of failure to expand."

Straight from the designer of the Hammer mono metal bullets "THE ONLY DIFF WAS BARREL TWIST. LOTS OF LIGHTBULBS WENT OFF AT THAT MOMENT "

To make this as simple as possible, I'll use a very basic illustration. If you had a 30-06 with a smoothbore barrel (no rifling twist), and fired a Barnes TSX bullet from it at 2900 fps into a block of ballistic gel at point blank range, it would likely fail to expand. It would enter the ballistic get point forward, and very rapidly yaw sideways until it had turned 180 degrees, and the base was pointing forward. The nose of the bullet will be pushed inward, not outward. This 180 turn is very common for projectiles with limited gyroscopic stability, and the M-16 rifle was famous for it during the war in Vietnam.

This is most likely the reason for the bullets failure to expand, and also explains the small exit wounds noted by some.

That same 30-06 with the same bullet at the same 2900fps velocity, but with a rifled barrel spinning the bullet at a rate of 1 turn for every 8 inches of forward travel, or 1/8, will produce a beautifully mushroomed 4 petal Barnes X. What is the difference between the two examples? Twist. Centrifical force. 2900fps X 1 turn in 8 inches = 261,000 RPM!

You don't crush the bullet nose open on a Barnes X, you SPIN the bullet nose open.

 

[mdwest]

Barnes will tell you that their TSX line requires a minimum impact velocity of 1800 FPS. With a 2100 FPS muzzle velocity it doesnt take a whole lot of distance for a round as big and heavy as a 570gr 50 caliber to start dropping speed dramatically...

Most people heavily experienced with Barnes TSX and TTSX will tell you that the real impact velocity for proper expansion is closer to 2100 FPS..

If the 570gr started at 2100.. it was doomed to failure even just a few feet after it left the muzzle..

Ive never had an expansion or weight retention problem with any barnes bullet.. but.. I only shoot them from rifles where I am retaining substantial speed above the 2100 fps mark at the distances I intend to shoot them..

For example I use a 300gr TSX in my 375 H&H loaded to a MV of 2570 FPS.. and generally only shoot that cartridge at distances of 100 yards or less..

I use a 400gr TSX in my 416 Taylor.. loaded to about 2425 FPS.. and generally only shoot that cartridge at distances of 100 yards or less (with the intention of only engaging DG at distances of 50 or less)..

In my 308 I am loaded to 2750 FPS and keep shots below 300 yards...

In my 300 PRC we're looking at a 208gr Barnes LRX trucking along at 2875 FPS and shots kept below 400 yards..

If shooting barnes I make sure the bullet Im shooting will be moving well above 2100 FPS at the distance Im engaging.. or I dont engage..

 

[One Day...]

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS POST IS PURELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES WITH NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER TO CRITICIZE BARNES BULLETS

(I am still an avid fan & regular user)

Below is a 570Gr Barnes TSX bullet (fired from a .500 Nitro Express Federal Premium Cape Shok factory load at 2150 FPS) that was recovered from an African Cape buffalo. Expansion was non-existent and the Cape buffalo required other shots in order to be taken down.

Photograph Source: Thaba Mahaka Safaris
View attachment 637494
Below is a 300Gr Barnes TSX bullet (fired from a .375 Holland & Holland Magnum Barnes VOR-TX factory load at 2530 FPS) recovered from an Asiatic Gaur. Expansion was quite beautiful.
View attachment 637493
So here we have two scenarios involving the Barnes TSX bullet. One quite disconcerting & one quite encouraging.

Let's try to understand why this happens. In the late 2000s, quite a few reports were emerging of Barnes TSX bullets (as well as the earlier unbanded Barnes X bullet) failing to expand properly on certain big game when fired from certain calibers. The phenomenon was chalked up to either:
a) Faults in the initial batches of copper alloy
Or
b) Faulty hand loads (as well as some factory loads) which weren't being loaded to the ideal spec

Then, in the last one decade... the complaints suddenly seem to have stopped. Until the recent incident with the .500 Nitro Express and the Cape buffalo. As well as a few incidents involving the .470 Nitro Express (more details on those incidents will hopefully reach me soon).

I always discouraged usage of the Barnes TSX bullet on soft framed big game such as lions or leopards (or tigers, hypothetically speaking). My reasoning was that the all-copper hollow points would not expand quick enough on the great cats (esp. for broadside heart-lung shots taken at this kind of game feeding on baits). There would simply not be enough resistance in order for the bullets to begin expanding properly. But a Cape buffalo is a very thick framed game anima which provides ample resistance for bullets. And that 570Gr Barnes TSX bullet should have expanded properly.

My hypothesis is that the high velocity (2530 FPS) of the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum Barnes VOR-TX factory load enabled my 300Gr Barnes TSX bullet to open up satisfactorily. While the relatively low velocity (2150 FPS) of the .500 Nitro Express Federal Premium Cape Shok factory load impeded the bullet's expansion. This might also explain why there have also been documented issues of 500Gr Barnes TSX bullets failing to expand upon being fired from .470 Nitro Express rifles (at a velocity identical to the .500 Nitro Express) but not Barnes TSX bullets being fired from higher velocity calibers like the .375 Holland & Holland Magnum or .416 Rigby.

Any thoughts/ insights here would be most welcome.

Warmest Regards,
Habib

Not a controversy, and no surprise...

I have no issue whatsoever discussing the Barnes X family (TSX, TTSX, LRX). They represent one technology (monometal semi-expanding hollow-point solids) that, like every other technology (e.g. bonded, partition, bonded-partition, etc.) has its pluses and minuses.

What surprises me however, is the post title ("controversy") and the narrative ("Let's try to understand..." and "My hypothesis...").

As illustrated by the chorus of responses in this thread, it is a widely known fact, that is amply documented by Barnes themselves, that the X bullets require a minimum velocity to expand. There is nothing to "try to understand" and no "hypothesis" here, just a simple fact openly and repeatedly specified by the manufacturer.

Can an X bullet not expand? Of course! All that is required is for it to go too slow. How slow is too slow? It depends... Per Barnes themselves, contacted by email at a previous time on this very question, the .308 TTSX bullets require:

TTSX .308 130gr - 1,800 fps​

TTSX .308 150gr - 2,000 fps​

TTSX .308 168gr - 1,500 fps​

TTSX .308 180gr - 1,500 fps​

LRX .308 175gr - 1,500 fps​

According to Barnes, at those velocities you get "about 1.7X expansion", and if 2X expansion is desired, then "add 100-200 fps".

I do not know what is the minimum velocity required for the 570 gr .500 TSX to expand, but I suspect that it only takes a call to Barnes to know...

All it takes for a TSX / TTSX to NOT open is a shot at too long a range (hence the creation of the LRX) or a weak load (whether it be intentional practice reload or accidental factory underload). There is neither controversy, nor surprise, nor hypothesis in the fact that X bullets require a minimum velocity to expand.

Whether that particular .500 Nitro Express Federal Premium Cape Shok cartridge was defective or not; and/or at what distance that shot was fired, i.e. at what speed was that bullet flying when it hit, I do not know ... but we have all seen enough TSX .416, .458, .470 and .500 extracted from Buffalo, Elephant, Hippo, Eland, etc. to know that they typically perform flawlessly when used nominally.

Of course a fluke is almost possible, but a controversy it does not create...

 

[NIGHTHAWK]

I've used Barnes TTSX and from 55 grains in .22-250 and up to 350 grains in .375 H&H and never had a problem. I"ve recovered many Barnes bullets that were perfectly expanded, many that lost their pedals and did plenty of internal damage, and I've had many pass all the way through double rib/double lung unrecovered. They have all worked well for me... 350 Grain were traveling at 2,300 fps and 300 Grain load travels little over 2,500 fps. I'll likely try them in my 450....

 

[NIGHTHAWK]

From a popular custom ammo maker. If they still have/make Barnes TSX, I may order a couple boxes…

DESCRIPTION​

Our favorites for 450 Dakota ammo are:

• Cape Buffalo – Swift A-Frame, Barnes TSX, Northfork Bonded Soft Point, Woodleigh Weldcore
• Elephant – Northfork Solids, Woodleigh FMJ
• Lion & North American Big Game – Swift A-Frame, Hornady DGX, Woodleigh Weldcore

Muzzle velocities w/24″ barrel as follows:

• 350gr bullets – 2800 FPS
• 400gr bullets – 2650 FPS
• 450gr bullets – 2550 FPS
• 500gr bullets – 2450 FPS

 

[meigsbucks]

My experience with 180 gr TSXs out of my 30-06 aligns with yours @Hunter-Habib. On thin-skinned animals at 2700 for they perform like a solid. Interestingly, 300 gr TSXs at 2,600 fps open nicely on larger game like eland. Does the larger frontal area overcome the relatively slow velocity or is it the more beefy animal that makes the difference?

I used the 180gr TSX out of a .30/06 @ ~2600 in Namibia. I got good performance on zebra, gemsbok, two springbok and a steinbok from 20 yds to 250 yds. All made exit, but wrecked the vitals. I wouldn’t hesitate to use that combo again.
I shot a buffalo, two BWB, warthog, zebra, waterbuck, kudu and an impala with a .416 Ruger and a 400gr TSX. Longest shot was ~125 yds. All were one shot kills. Only bullets recovered were from a frontal shot on the buff and an insurance shot with a Banded Solid that went thru the spine, out the brisket and lodged in a leg.
I’ve used Barnes TSX, TTSX and LRX in several other rounds at higher velocity and got similar or better performance on deer sized game. A friend used a 127gr LRX from a 6.5 CM last year to take a cow elk and got exit. He’s also gotten exit with a 130gr TTSX from a .308 on elk. He is an avid user of Barnes bullets and prefers lighter weights for caliber at higher velocity.

 

[WyoBull]

I have been a Barnes fan for many years. I cannot add much to what has already been said other than to say if reloaded per Barnes specs, they work as marketed, period.
I use them in everything from my smaller varmint calibers up through my 375 H&H with fantastic results.

 

[TMac]

Odds are you have your answer, impact velocity. But there is another possibility, a plugged hollow point. Was the tip of that bullet cleaned out for the picture? I’d think in that large of a bullet a plugged up tip would be extremely rare, but possible I suppose.

I use Barnes quite a bit in the USA. Almost always in light for caliber bullets to keep velocities high. I also only use the TTSX or LRX, no TSX at all, so I have a tip to initiate expansion.

 

[colorado]

The three animals I've killed with the 570g TSX out of my 500 Jeffery are two cow elk (longest shot 225 yards), and a 425 lb feral hog at 8 feet. All died instantly. The impact velocity at 225 yards should've been about 1800 fps. The ek squealed and died instantly, the bullet exited so I have no evidence of expansion but the size of the exit wound. I had spoken to Barnes earlier and they assured me they had tested the bullet and it expanded down to 1600 fps which make sense since it was made for the 500 NE.

 

[RichieG]

I might be wrong, but I have seen barns bar stock and all of them were the same copper compound, just different sizes and computer lathed to specs
When I talked to hammer and CEB both had a proprietary compounding that is more brittle to shed the pedals View attachment 637588

That’s interesting because that would then reveal the problem. Maybe we expect too much of bullet manufacturers?

 

[OxfordTheCat]

Not a controversy, and no surprise...


As illustrated by the chorus of responses in this thread, it is a widely known fact, that is amply documented by Barnes themselves, that the X bullets require a minimum velocity to expand. There is nothing to "try to understand" and no "hypothesis" here, just a simple fact openly and repeatedly specified by the manufacturer.

Can an X bullet not expand? Of course! All that is required is for it to go too slow. How slow is too slow? It depends

All it takes for a TSX / TTSX to NOT open is a shot at too long a range (hence the creation of the LRX) or a weak load (whether it be intentional practice reload or accidental factory underload). There is neither controversy, nor surprise, nor hypothesis in the fact that X bullets require a minimum velocity to expand.

Well the issue is when TSX bullets seemingly fail to expand at normal factory loads, and at middling if not short distance. Not an issue of too long a range, or a weak load.

Barnes may say 1500, but my eyebrows are raised when there are reports of broadside, 100 yards 30 caliber shots from factory loads which should be at 2500 penciling through.

Similarly, I find the thoughts on twist interesting: Would the Barnes TSX reliably expand at 2400 out of my 1:10, but fail for someone with a 1:12?

To me, the issue is that the Barnes TSX seemingly fails to perform at velocities well in excess of what Barnes claims are the 'minimums', and in factory loads which rule out a handloader under loading. What the manufacturer openly and repeatedly is stating appears to be erroneous.

Adding fuel to the fire, a quick Google search will reveal plenty of complaints about the TSX and failures to expand, but blaming velocities that are too fast, not too slow.

It's also contentious because the TSX is and has been the darling of the hunting community. If we had half as many instances of something like a Corelokt failing as have been seen with the TSX, any poster daring to admit they used one would be on the virtual pillory for having deigned to use them.

So it does make for curious reading.

That's why we have these threads.
It's not a phenomenon limited to this venue either.

Your mileage, and degree of surprise and controversy, may vary.

 

[Sabre]

I have used the Barnes all copper bullets in 30-06, 308, 6.5CM, and 300WINMAG. Every animal hit with them died quickly and didn't go out of sight. However, something that was strange and I noticed on multiple animals is that the entrance wound would be larger than the exit wound. To the point other people I would be hunting with wouldn't believe me on what way the animal was facing when it came in, because they just couldn't believe that the entrance and exit were the sides I said they were.

One time it happened on a large bear and everyone thought I was mistaken which way the animal was facing, except in that case a trail camera caught the bear coming in, proving me correct about the orientation of the bear.

All I can think to explain the large entrance and smaller exit is that they expanded quickly on impact and sheared the petals off before exiting.

All animals were shot well within the velocities supposedly needed for expansion.

I mostly use bonded bullets at this point and I have been consistently happy with them thus far.

 

[1dirthawker]

Any thoughts/ insights here would be most welcome.

@Hunter-Habib, here are mine.

about 7 years ago, i contacted Barnes directly regarding nitro velocity bullets and their consistent expansion. i was considering buying some for my 450-400 double rifle.

i have seen a bullet board with a variety of expanded bullets on it (.308 cal) and most bullets quit opening up at 1900. that would be a possible impact velocity for my rifle. so, before loading any, i called Barnes customer service and spoke to a bullet tech. he assured me that in the nitro caliber velocities the bullets would open up properly even at a low velocity like 1700 fps.

i assumed that they were made somewhat differently than the other Barnes bullets. now, in retrospect i am not so sure. i have seen 300 gr barnes (don't know velocity, was a rented rifle) not open up very well on a cape buffalo that was shoulder shot at 100 yards. (the buffalo died and was recovered after running 100 yards)

I ended up loading north fork bullets and have been very happy with them out of my 450-400 and 375.

i guess that my final thoughts are; if you are going to use Barnes bullets, run them fast. i don't know if i would trust them at the slower velocities that the nitro class cartridges typically develop.