solid copper bullet performance

[RTK]

Does anyone have expertise on solid copper bullets like Barnes TSX and federal trophy copper? Do they retain the same energy down range? Are they good for long range hunting on deer, elk in 300wm? Shooting them at metal at 800 yards they seem to not have as much punch as the lead core. Do they have a lower sectional density? I know there accuracy is good.

I've been using the barnes ttsx & tsx for quite a few years now, kalifornia and all, mostly on mule and black tail. You would be surprised how many times I have had bang flops out to 500 yards shooting a 300wm and 7mm.
My elk last year was a hard quartering shot, went in about the first rib on one side and exited the last rib on the other side, took a few steps and fell over.
To date I have never recovered any bullets or lost any game using them.
From now on I will be carrying both barnes and bergers for my 300 when ever hunting, I like the idea of having two almost completely different bullets at my disposal.

 

[ar3006]

Not sure if this is the right thread to post this, so forgive me if I intrude. But my Savage in 3006 shoots the Federal Trophy Copper very good. It also shoots the Federal Trophy Bonded Tip good. As I checked the Federal website it states that the 165 grain Trophy Bonded is intended for Elk but the 165 Trophy Copper isn't. I am not up to date with these bullets, but its my understanding that the Copper bullets were a lot stronger and more suited for Elk type game. Can anyone chime in on this? Just seems odd to me. Thanks guys, and again sorry if this post shouldn't be here, just seems like the appropriate place.

 

[AKGuide]

Does anyone have expertise on solid copper bullets like Barnes TSX and federal trophy copper? Do they retain the same energy down range? Are they good for long range hunting on deer, elk in 300wm? Shooting them at metal at 800 yards they seem to not have as much punch as the lead core. Do they have a lower sectional density? I know there accuracy is good.

I used Barnes 200 LRX to harvest two caribou at over 500 yards this last spring. Here's the link. http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/barnes-200gr-lrx-300-rum-79277/index3.html I'd say they work well and would use them again.

Reuben

 

[leifalweapon]

I load copper for hunting in California. Though not that experience I have come to believe:

1. Old rifles need to use lighter copper bullets to maintain accuracy.
Data: My 270 WBy 12 twist was fine with 130 lead. Copper 130s go sideways. I worked up a load with 95grn copper and it's sub moa.
Data: My 243 M70 Featherweight will shoot up to 100grn lead but copper must be below 85grns.
2. Copper does not have the sectional density so it won't carry as far.
This is just pure physics. No getting around it. Go faster.
3. Long range is possible with copper. Go faster.
Data: I load for a friend as we shoot the several of the same calibers. He has taken large feral pigs at over 1000yrds.
Notes: The rifle was specifically built with a twist for Barnes 180 TTSX and is very sub moa.

To me it is easier to get a copper bullet with the same aspect ration length to diameter as the lead bullet to shoot well but you will need to go faster for down range energy.

Can you elaborate on your friends gun and loads, I havent heard of anyone with a long range non lead setup! Thanks

 

[Deleted member 46119]

Can you elaborate on your friends gun and loads, I havent heard of anyone with a long range non lead setup! Thanks

The rifle is a Christensen Arms Carbon Custon in 300RUM, Thumbhole stock. 26" barrel. Pretty much standard as the options like set trigger are not his thing.

The gun came with 2 boxes of 'tuned' copper loads as my buddy specified it must shoot TTSX.

We used the provided ammo to break in the barrel and cron the load in multiple sessions.

The load provided came out at 3241. A COAL of 3.615.

We kept one round back for me to dissect and took 5 fired cases to measure H2O volume.

• Projectile: Barnes TTSX 180
• Brass: Remington
• Primer: Federal GM 215M
• Powder: IMR 7828, the load was from a 'boutique' ammo company so probably not a blended powder.
• Load: Sorry, I'm not saying as it is very very scary hot. However there is no sticky bolt. There is an ejector mark and cases last 2 to 3 firings but most get 3 to 4 at the most on Rem RUM brass anyway.

• Accuracy/Precision: Met the stated 1/2 MOA guarantee from Christensen Arms
• Velocity: 3241

How did I determine what the powder was?

I have a very large selection of powders that would work with this class of projectile/chambering.

I examined the extracted powder to make sure it was not a blend. It was an extruded powder (stick), all the kernels were the same length/diameter. Color was consistent for all kernels in the case.

I measured the length diameter of enough kernels to be sure of the dimensions.

I weighed collections 50 kernels on my Gempro 250 to determine the kernel weight.

Now time to compare to powders in my collection. Obviously ball powders were not even compared. Some of the stick powders were so obviously not the same dimensions they were easy to eliminate. I got down to I think 3 powders before bothering with the mic. Retumbo and H1000 color was 'close' but were just 'wrong' when mic-ed. Leaving IMR 7828. Color was very very close, put the powder on a piece of 'computer' paper. Dimensions were dead on. All that was left was to weight some lots of 50 with my Gempro 250. Yup, 7828. Not what I expected and a little 'hot' for me but it is what was provided.

Of course I checked the Hodgdon data and Barnes loading data. Yup much hotter, however when I plugged it all into QuickLoad with the extended COAL it made sense and the QL prediction was exact, actual at 3241 vs QL at 3243.

For the technology/QuickLoad haters. Go away. Please don't pick a fight with me on this as it serves no purpose.

Yes I know the legal issues of loading for anyone else. I know that it's not my buddy that will sue me but his family/survivors. I shoot the firearm as well so there has to be some proof of malice, negligence or other for the suit to prevail. Yes it will cost me money to defend the suit, oh well.

Load work up. I discussed with my buddy about how hot this was. The options were to redevelop with a slower powder, lower the FPS or go with it as provided by the manufacturer, with or without with my 'improvements'.

Jimmy opted to go with what was provided with my improvements of primer pocket uniforming, flash hole deburing, concentric neck mouth and neck turning and for me the most important, HBN coating the projectiles.

For me HBN adds consistency to precision and also protects from 'bullet weld'. I have experienced this when I load a batch with non-coated bullets and they wind up sitting on the shelf. The velocity goes up and of course pressure goes up. For most of my loads this is an annoyance, for this load it could be life threatening.

So the brass was prepped, bullets were coated, dates were set for meeting at the range.

Starting at slightly above the book minimum to compensate for the extra capacity from shallower seating and in 1grs increments.

Shot, check brass, shot, check brass...

The Magnetospeed chronograph tells the details. As each powder increment was shot we got closer to the provided rounds velocity. All increments were predictable except discordant nodes which showed odd changes and were off precision (can you tell I'm reading Brian Litz's book). The others were in a line working slowly up.

BTW: There was no intention to exceed the load provided.

When we hit the same load as provided, velocity was dead on. Ejector marks and brass condition was the same as the provided load. So it was duplicated.

With one exception: My loads were closer to 1/4 MOA. Just standard accurizing brass techniques.

He ordered custom turrets for yardage.
Fouled cold bore is very very close on this firearm.

Antelope: 915 yards
Mullie: 725, 10mph
Pig: 980, 15mph
Pig: 835, 6mph
Pig: 1035 but don't remember.

 

[leifalweapon]

The rifle is a Christensen Arms Carbon Custon in 300RUM, Thumbhole stock. 26" barrel. Pretty much standard as the options like set trigger are not his thing.

The gun came with 2 boxes of 'tuned' copper loads as my buddy specified it must shoot TTSX.

We used the provided ammo to break in the barrel and cron the load in multiple sessions.

The load provided came out at 3241. A COAL of 3.615.

We kept one round back for me to dissect and took 5 fired cases to measure H2O volume.

• Projectile: Barnes TTSX 180
• Brass: Remington
• Primer: Federal GM 215M
• Powder: IMR 7828, the load was from a 'boutique' ammo company so probably not a blended powder.
• Load: Sorry, I'm not saying as it is very very scary hot. However there is no sticky bolt. There is an ejector mark and cases last 2 to 3 firings but most get 3 to 4 at the most on Rem RUM brass anyway.

• Accuracy/Precision: Met the stated 1/2 MOA guarantee from Christensen Arms
• Velocity: 3241

How did I determine what the powder was?

I have a very large selection of powders that would work with this class of projectile/chambering.

I examined the extracted powder to make sure it was not a blend. It was an extruded powder (stick), all the kernels were the same length/diameter. Color was consistent for all kernels in the case.

I measured the length diameter of enough kernels to be sure of the dimensions.

I weighed collections 50 kernels on my Gempro 250 to determine the kernel weight.

Now time to compare to powders in my collection. Obviously ball powders were not even compared. Some of the stick powders were so obviously not the same dimensions they were easy to eliminate. I got down to I think 3 powders before bothering with the mic. Retumbo and H1000 color was 'close' but were just 'wrong' when mic-ed. Leaving IMR 7828. Color was very very close, put the powder on a piece of 'computer' paper. Dimensions were dead on. All that was left was to weight some lots of 50 with my Gempro 250. Yup, 7828. Not what I expected and a little 'hot' for me but it is what was provided.

Of course I checked the Hodgdon data and Barnes loading data. Yup much hotter, however when I plugged it all into QuickLoad with the extended COAL it made sense and the QL prediction was exact, actual at 3241 vs QL at 3243.

For the technology/QuickLoad haters. Go away. Please don't pick a fight with me on this as it serves no purpose.

Yes I know the legal issues of loading for anyone else. I know that it's not my buddy that will sue me but his family/survivors. I shoot the firearm as well so there has to be some proof of malice, negligence or other for the suit to prevail. Yes it will cost me money to defend the suit, oh well.

Load work up. I discussed with my buddy about how hot this was. The options were to redevelop with a slower powder, lower the FPS or go with it as provided by the manufacturer, with or without with my 'improvements'.

Jimmy opted to go with what was provided with my improvements of primer pocket uniforming, flash hole deburing, concentric neck mouth and neck turning and for me the most important, HBN coating the projectiles.

For me HBN adds consistency to precision and also protects from 'bullet weld'. I have experienced this when I load a batch with non-coated bullets and they wind up sitting on the shelf. The velocity goes up and of course pressure goes up. For most of my loads this is an annoyance, for this load it could be life threatening.

So the brass was prepped, bullets were coated, dates were set for meeting at the range.

Starting at slightly above the book minimum to compensate for the extra capacity from shallower seating and in 1grs increments.

Shot, check brass, shot, check brass...

The Magnetospeed chronograph tells the details. As each powder increment was shot we got closer to the provided rounds velocity. All increments were predictable except discordant nodes which showed odd changes and were off precision (can you tell I'm reading Brian Litz's book). The others were in a line working slowly up.

BTW: There was no intention to exceed the load provided.

When we hit the same load as provided, velocity was dead on. Ejector marks and brass condition was the same as the provided load. So it was duplicated.

With one exception: My loads were closer to 1/4 MOA. Just standard accurizing brass techniques.

He ordered custom turrets for yardage.
Fouled cold bore is very very close on this firearm.

Antelope: 915 yards
Mullie: 725, 10mph
Pig: 980, 15mph
Pig: 835, 6mph
Pig: 1035 but don't remember.

Thank you for the detailed response, not something I want to duplicate but informative no less, Ive always wondered how I could determine the type of powder in an opened shell.

 

[gtita]

Ballistic tests (Barnes vs. Federal)

Hi,

I recently posted a reply to a similar question and provided my data at:
http://www.longrangehunting.com/for...nded-tip-trophy-copper-bcs-119465/#post972611

I may also add that I used the velocity data I generated employing a Chrony in order to estimate the drag coefficients (at muzzle velocity) for the two copper bullets, i.e. Barnes VOR-TTSX and Federal TC. For this purpose the well known following formulas were used:

BC = SD/I
i = CB/CG

where

SD = sectional density
i = form factor
CB = drag coefficient of the bullet
CG = drag coefficient of the G1 model bullet

In order to obtain the CG I used the calculator available at JBM - Calculations - Drag Function Conversion where I entered the BC I derived from my velocity recordings, as well as the MV I measured with my Chrony.

Here are the input data and the results for Federal TC:

BC = 0.455 (obtained from my field measurements)
MV = 2,770 ft/s (my field measurements)
CG = 0.541
CB = 0.322

…and for Barnes VOR-TTSX
BC = 0.380 (obtained from my field measurements)
MV = 2,615 ft/s (my field measurements)
CG = 0.553
CB = 0.394

As you can see, the VOR-TTSX bullet has drag coefficient (CB) approximately 22% greater than the TC. Unfortunately, I don't have all the needed sizes of the two bullets to explain this difference. But I tried anyway, with some approximation. What it came out is that two key factors seem to play a significant role:

- the boattail shape: the TC as a slightly narrower base (~0.65 mm) compared to the VOR-TTSX (~0.7 mm);

- the bullet's nose length which is slightly longer in the TC (~1.8 mm) compared to its kin (1.75 mm).

I was able to confirm this hypothesis by entering the data I had in another JBM calculator, i.e. JBM - Calculations - Drag/Twist

Regards!