Recovered Barnes bullet

[Waynzee]

I'd rather argue with Waynzee than **** on a flaming Hillary supporter. We are all brothers in arms even when we spar a little over silly internet stuff. There's a lot of ways to skin a cat and I'm sure we have all skinned a few.

Hey Man, this is like a sleigh ride that never ends with all the bells ringing. And you're right about skinning cats although I skinned more deer and other animals in my day. And I'm glad you hold me in such high esteem as to rather argue with me than **** on a flaming Hitlary supporter.
As long as the old cup and core bullets are made there will be dead deer. The mono bullets ?

 

[valleyloader]

Thanks for trying to bring it back to my reason for posting. Is the 168 TTSX to heavy, and to "tough" a bullet for light game at a muzzle veil of 2550? Most seem to agree I should at least drop my buddies loads down to 150 gr. Jus sayin

My suggestion is to try the 150's or even the 130's if you are comfortable going that light and run them as hard as your rifle will allow. I get 3050 out of my 30-06 and 3100 out of a friends 30-06 with the 150's, his son used the 130's in his rifle when he was younger for reduced recoil loads with great success. We could never tell the difference between a deer hit with either bullet, they both work great. With the 308 you may not achieve the same velocity as the 06 but you will be nipping on its heels!

 

[Timber338]

My experience with Barnes bullets is to run them fast and they'll produce amazing terminal ballistics. Copper deforms much differently than lead and should be treated differently with respect to impact velocity. I do think you should drop bullet weight to get your velocity up.

Lots of my buddies shoot 165 and 150 TTSX out of 300 WSMs and never lost a bull elk. I really can't tell a difference in performance on elk with those two bullet weights. Of course they are not long range guys all of their shots have been 200 or less. Most less than 100.

Another buddy shot a cow elk at about 35 yards with a 210 TTSX and impact veocity was right near 3000 FPS. Head on shot bullet entered the chest below the neck and traveled the entire length of the body and stopped under the hide on the back side of the rear quarter. Heart lungs and everything in that bullets path was soup. I will try and dig up the picture we took of the bulllet. It had a very impressive mushroom.

The previous year we both shots bulls with the 210 TTSX at longer ranges... I think 460 and 630 yards. Impact velocities were about 2300 and 2000 FPS respectively. We had two dead elk, and one of them was a huge herd bull with a massive body. Both shots were quartered but we only retrieved one of the bullets on the smaller bull. Mushroom was what I expected but not what you would want with just the tip of the nose opened up. Shot placement is what killed both elk, there were quarter-sized holes through the vitals and virtually zero tissue damage outside of tue quarter sized path of the bullet.

So in my opinion/experience, drive them fast for high velocity impacts and the TTSX produces excellent results. But not so great for long range. I'll try and dig up the pics of those bullets.

 

[Timber338]

Here's pics of the 210 TTSX recovered from elk. Easy to see which bullet had the ~2300 (or maybe it was closer to 2200... memory is a bit fuzzy) and which bullet had the 3000 FPS impact velocity.

 

[toddc]

Here's pics of the 210 TTSX recovered from elk. Easy to see which bullet had the ~2300 (or maybe it was closer to 2200... memory is a bit fuzzy) and which bullet had the 3000 FPS impact velocity.

Looks like the higher velocity load is the winner in a Barnes bullet.

 

[WildRose]

Since you don't allow private messages..

Please don't use that kind of language. It is a personal attack. You are a "site sponsor", please set a better example.

Physics is physics. Arguing physics is not going to change how simulate materials react vs how flesh and bone reacts.

I'd love to have my PM's working again but something is broken and neither Len nor the invisible "administrator" can fix it.

My language is always acceptable to our host, I won't use any that he disapproves of.

 

[WildRose]

The shape of an object passing thru a fluid not only makes a difference but it makes a huge difference.

A 30 caliber bullet that mushrooms to 1.5 times the original diameter has slightly more than twice the frontal area. The debate should be about a flat object vs a rounded object with twice the surface area.

As I pointed out it's not the shape that is at issue between an expanding or non expanding bullet, it's the frontal diameter.

Round or square you get the same size. The larger the diameter, the greater the direct damage done and the larger and more energetic the shockwave generated.

 

[WildRose]

Physics is physics. Arguing physics is IMO arguing for the sake of arguing.

I agree with you that SHAPE and DIAMETER have a huge impact on the cavitation effect in water. We don't hunt water.

Cavitation effect in flesh and bone is not something I know enough about to comment on other than it exists and flesh and bone is not monolithic a monolithic material like water or ballistics gelatin.

These two guys shouldn't be arguing in public over physics. IMO, it looks more like purveyors of projectiles arguing over who's approach is better.

I have my preference and I voted with my check book. I'm not sayin' who.

The animals we shoot are about 90% water. Bones can be broken by the shockwave and more importantly nevers can be. I've seen a lot of animals go straight down having lost the use of their back legs or even all four legs even when the spinal cord isn't directly damaged by passing through it.

We all I think would like to put every shot in the perfect spot but being human that just isn't possible. An expanding bullet just like larger bullets and higher velocities allow us to be less than perfect and still get good, clean, one shot kills.

 

[WildRose]

Rose you were not attacked. It was pointed out when you said that the shape of a bullet in terminal performance makes no difference that you are wrong. This was after I gave you the chance to correct yourself. Yet you doubled down on wrong. I have been on this site for a long time and seen lots of guys like you show up. Guys like you seem to know everything. Have owned two of every gun ever made. Shot every animal in the world. Everything you have or have done is better or bigger than the next guy. Your ability to recite strings of crap from reading on the internet is astonishing. It is know it alls like you that are the reason that there are fewer and fewer guys that really do have great knowledge here. Having to filter through the giant piles of crap that guys like you continually leave makes it not worth the effort to be on the board. You are the cancer that will turn this site into 24hr campfire.

I stand by my statement that you continue to prove. You inject yourself in every thread on here in order to make yourself look good. You are the reason they say "just because you saw it on the internet doesn't make it true". The more you go on about how much you know the more it shows you have no practical experience of your own.

You are a fake and a troll.

Steve

Thank you for once again proving my point.

 

[WildRose]

Funny stuff. I had to keep a log book when I shot control. That got me in the habit and so I have data from about 18 yrs of control, guiding and hunting with friends and family. I hunt on the plains and gear everything towards LR. Including 24 deer shot with bows, 32 with muzzleloaders and 11 with pistols, our AVERAGE shot distance was 574 yds. The last three yrs with 3 bow and 1 pistol the average was 743 yds. Hard for us to imagine hunting in heavy cover. Funny part is I think being under a 100 yds can produce just as many issues as being at 800. Shoot a deer in heavy cover and you better drop it quick. Shoot a deer out here and just sit back and watch where it goes. Really lets you see things you never would in heavy cover. Takes a lot of the MYSTERY out of bullet performance and animal behavior.

The reason why whenever possible I prefer to hunt wheat fields. In most of central, north, or west Texas that's about the only way you get those types of opportunities. On droughty years you can add crp fields as well but usually the grass is just too tall to see a body on a deer.

 

[WildRose]

Thanks for trying to bring it back to my reason for posting. Is the 168 TTSX to heavy, and to "tough" a bullet for light game at a muzzle veil of 2550? Most seem to agree I should at least drop my buddies loads down to 150 gr. Jus sayin

No, not if you put it in the right spot.

If you just hit the lungs on a deer sized animal or larger it'll likely run a good ways before going down with either but put it through the front shoulders and/or spine and they'll never take a step or very few of them.

I've seen one big buck run/slide about fifty yards with a well placed shoulder/lung shot that missed the spine.

 

[Edd]

As I pointed out it's not the shape that is at issue between an expanding or non expanding bullet, it's the frontal diameter.

And as I pointed out, you are wrong, shape does matter.

 

[WildRose]

And as I pointed out, you are wrong, shape does matter.

Then show the evidence to support the claim.

 

[Edd]

Then show the evidence to support the claim.

I don't mind providing some basic facts but I have no desire to do any research for some evidence that will convince you, thats too much like work. Do your own research, you will learn things you wouldn't learn if I did it for you.

Besides if you are spending time educating yourself, you will have less time to tell people that heating and quenching their brass is a good way to harden their primer pockets.