New Barnes bullet testing.....

[Jon A]

No I did not say the nose was the same length. I said they had similiar ogive designs, nothing about nose length. Since the HP has a HP, its much shorter then the TTSX nose because it has a tip, both have similiar taper to the design of the ogive but I did not say they were the same length.

I guess I misunderstood:

The Ogive design is nearly identical to the 300 gr SMK in profile and length.

Anyway, now I know what you meant—basically the same shape but the TTSX extending out a bit to the tip. Yes, that'll help some, but I wouldn't expect a whole lot. The 300 SMK already has a relatively small meplat for its diameter and extending it out a bit to a rounded tip without changing the rest of the shape of the ogive won't be a dramatic difference.

Years ago I tested the 180 30 cal MRX and TSX side by side and the MRX was only a little bit better (about 7%) and they were both pretty lousy. Those grooves aren't doing them any favors.

Good luck, I'm just saying not to get your hopes up too high.

 

[ZSteinle]

Any more testing on these bullets? Just ordered some for my edge and hopefully will be testing soon.

 

[ZSteinle]

Just recived mine today. thinking an average BC of .820 is a bit optimistic. Maybe from 3500FPS to 3000FPS. Just by the shape of the 265 barnes I see it being around the .740 to .670 for an average. No testing done yet but i will post results with my edge. Here is the 265gr. barnes next to a 300gr. berger.

 

[Nomosendero]

It will be interesting to see if the bands are a big factor.

 

[venom600]

Just an FYI:
The .338 265g TTSX is now being re-marketed as 'LRX'. Barnes moved two bullets from the Tipped TSX lineup into a new 'long range' lineup called LRX. They moved the 200g .308 and the 265g .338. They're also developing two new bullets for the LRX line in:
7mm, 145g
.308, 175g

Just got off of the phone with their tech support, since I was concerned that the .308 200g TTSX was listed as 'discontinued'. They confirmed that they just moved it into a new lineup called LRX.

--Ben

 

[Long Time Long Ranger]

Just a little note on grooves in a bullet such as the Barnes. Through flow field analysis tests performed using high speed photography performed on high speed missiles there would be very little affect the bands would have concerning atmospheric resistance. The nose of the bullet or missile breaks through the air diverting the flow field around the body of the projectile. In other words a 2000 mph wind is not flowing over the bands but is diverted around the body. Mostly what is around the bands is turbulence in a pocket against the body that would have minimal affects on resistance that would slow the bullet any faster than a bullet without a canelure or bands. Think about the major grooves rifling puts on a bullet so the bands have very little if any measurable effect. It is fun to watch with high speed photography and using red air.

 

[Nomosendero]

Just a little note on grooves in a bullet such as the Barnes. Through flow field analysis tests performed using high speed photography performed on high speed missiles there would be very little affect the bands would have concerning atmospheric resistance. The nose of the bullet or missile breaks through the air diverting the flow field around the body of the projectile. In other words a 2000 mph wind is not flowing over the bands but is diverted around the body. Mostly what is around the bands is turbulence in a pocket against the body that would have minimal affects on resistance that would slow the bullet any faster than a bullet without a canelure or bands. Think about the major grooves rifling puts on a bullet so the bands have very little if any measurable effect. It is fun to watch with high speed photography and using red air.

makes sense!

 

[Booney]

I wish we could just find out what the b.c. is .

 

[mt_archer]

I too called Barnes and was told the old .338 265 Lapua bullet was just given a new name, and so the old bc of .575 is their number. I have loaded, but not yet tested, a batch of them for my 338 AX, and will see what they do. But I am not as optomistic as is Kirby about the bc being very high.

I shoot the 225 grain ttsx in my .338 RUM at 3140 fps. Accounting for elevation, temperature, barometric pressure, etc, the .514 BC claimed on them seems to be just about right, at least out to 800 yards. Velocity under normal conditions is about 1870 fps at that point. After that, I don't know where they go, but they don't dial in for the 1000 yard plate I have set up.

Whatever the BC claimed might be, at least we all know not to trust the number until we test it.

 

[Outlaw6.0]

Tag

 

[mt_archer]

I got to the range over the weekend to try the barnes in my AX. I started at 96 grains of retumbo, 4 grains less than I used w/300 smk. First shot showed excessive pressure with the primer flattend completely against the bolt and around the primer. Velocity was 2996, or about 40 fps faster than 300 smk load w/100 grains of the same lot of powder, same primer, cases, etc. Bullets were seated well back from rifling, so it was not a spike from seating the barnes too long.

Rifle was sighted 1.5" high at 100 yards for 300 smk load. Using the center of a standard redfield target, bullet completely missed the paper at 100. That ended my testing. Don't really care what the bc is if they are going to go the same speed as a 300 smk at max pressure.

But I have 91 fresh bullets and 8 soon to be pulled bullets I will sell.

 

[venom600]

I got to the range over the weekend to try the barnes in my AX. I started at 96 grains of retumbo, 4 grains less than I used w/300 smk. First shot showed excessive pressure with the primer flattend completely against the bolt and around the primer. Velocity was 2996, or about 40 fps faster than 300 smk load w/100 grains of the same lot of powder, same primer, cases, etc. Bullets were seated well back from rifling, so it was not a spike from seating the barnes too long.

Rifle was sighted 1.5" high at 100 yards for 300 smk load. Using the center of a standard redfield target, bullet completely missed the paper at 100. That ended my testing. Don't really care what the bc is if they are going to go the same speed as a 300 smk at max pressure.

But I have 91 fresh bullets and 8 soon to be pulled bullets I will sell.

For what it's worth:
I've noticed in testing of the TTSX in my 300 RUM that the first shot after cleaning usually shows some pressure signs with no notable increase in velocity. They settle down after that. They definitely seem to require at least a little bit of fouling. Accuracy hasn't been affected on mine, though....that seems pretty odd.

Not sure if you started with a clean rifle or not, but that's been my experience....YMMV.

--Ben

 

[mt_archer]

I did start with cold, clean barrel, which I typically do for any new testing. Especially with Barnes. I have a completely untested concern (but a strong one, none the less) that the soft copper can build up over other jacket material and increase pressure. I have used ttsx in 6.5, .308, and .338 (225's) without any real issue regarding the fouling or pressure, except that the pressure tends to peak sooner with lower charges of powder vs comparable jacketed lead bullet.

But, even if it were a spike, and the pressure/velocity would drop off, and the accuracy improve, I have no need for a fickle load that needs to be worked up to being useful every time I clean. And, I have to expect that the pressure/velocity ratio would be similar after fouling. If so, that means the 3000 fps level would be too hot. I can run the 300 smk nearly that fast, and could go to a 250 scenar, rocky, etc. with a much better bc at higher velocity.

Not to knock the Barnes ttsx. The 225's are fantastic in my light 338 RUM, and I have had very good luck with the 180/308's. I just do not plan to try them any more in the AX.

 

[venom600]

But, even if it were a spike, and the pressure/velocity would drop off, and the accuracy improve, I have no need for a fickle load that needs to be worked up to being useful every time I clean.

Yep, I'm in agreement. Especially since you've already got a load with another bullet that is working well for you.

The only reason *I* continue to experiment (and try to find workarounds for the slight quirks) is that the TTSX has proven to be notably more accurate than the Accubond in my rifle, and those are the two bullets I'm mostly interested in hunting with.

--Ben