165 gr Barnes ttsx 30.06
- Thread starter Dennist7
- Start date
If you have to ask you don’t have experience to test with unlisted powders.
Look on Barnes, hodgsdon etc for load data.
————-If your powders aren’t listed do your own testing at EXTREME CAUTION AMD DESCRESSION.
Look up powder burn rates see if vviatouri or Norma is in ballpark of listed powders. If it’s not listed then that powder doesn’t work, burn too fast over pressure or can’t get velocity needed.
————Manufactur posted data is specific for reason, their testing dictates best results for their bullet.
If you don’t have a lot of experience reloading DO NOT DO YOUR OWN TESTING WITH POWDERS THAT ARENT LISTED IN LOAD DATA BOOKS
Look on Barnes, hodgsdon etc for load data.
————-If your powders aren’t listed do your own testing at EXTREME CAUTION AMD DESCRESSION.
Look up powder burn rates see if vviatouri or Norma is in ballpark of listed powders. If it’s not listed then that powder doesn’t work, burn too fast over pressure or can’t get velocity needed.
————Manufactur posted data is specific for reason, their testing dictates best results for their bullet.
If you don’t have a lot of experience reloading DO NOT DO YOUR OWN TESTING WITH POWDERS THAT ARENT LISTED IN LOAD DATA BOOKS
VV lists a 168 TTSX in their load data. Norma does not list the 165 or 168 Barnes bullet.
www.vihtavuori.com
Rifle reloading data | Handloading | Rifle calibers | Centerfire Rifle bullets | Reload your own ammo - Vihtavuori
Vihtavuori offers rifle reloading data for numerous calibers and bullets for match and hunting purposes. Never exceed maximum loads.
www.vihtavuori.com
The 165 TTSX is too heavy for a copper bullet. They work better when you step it down to 150 gr ttsx because the faster they fly the better they work. If you already have the 165 ttsx that's ok, they will work.
I can only help you out with Quickload data...
Any other specific powder you want data for let me know.
I can't say this enough.. REDUCE & WORK UP.
It be best if you start at where it says -10 which means -10% from MAX.
And Quickload isn't always super accurate. Neither are Reloading manuals. There are many variables that affect pressures.
====================================
N-550
==========================================
N-150
========================================
Norma UPR
======================================
Norma 204
==================================
Norma 203 B
I can only help you out with Quickload data...
Any other specific powder you want data for let me know.
I can't say this enough.. REDUCE & WORK UP.
It be best if you start at where it says -10 which means -10% from MAX.
And Quickload isn't always super accurate. Neither are Reloading manuals. There are many variables that affect pressures.
====================================
N-550
==========================================
N-150
========================================
Norma UPR
======================================
Norma 204
==================================
Norma 203 B
Last edited:
A little side note here, I've read a few times now that the 168gr TTSX was developed for the '06 and the .308, supposedly better suited than the 165gr with those cartridges. Apparently the 168 will expand at a slower velocity than the 165, which is intended for the .300's. Food for thought I suppose. I'm currently running some 150TTXS in my '06, trying for a moose and whitetail with it/them.
That seems odd, as the 308 has less recoil than the 30-06, one would think in that case that the '06 would be better suited for the 165 grain and the 168 for the 308. I've heard of people using the 130 TTSXs in the 308.
Curious, what type of velocity are you shooting those at? Smaller projectiles with higher velocities seems to be in vogue these days...
Several years ago I read on Barnes website to step down in weight with the copper bullets compared to the cup & core jacketed lead bullets.
Another thing I read at the same time is to give the copper bullets plenty of jump to the lands and they don't recommend being any closer than 40 thou from the lands.
I can verify this because I jump the 130 ttsx in a 300winmag almost 0.200" and they are the most accurate load in that rifle... 3,550'ish FPS from a 24" boom stick.
My procedure is simple with Barnes copper hunting bullets...
1 - Lighter weight bullet.
2 - Long jump to the lands.
3 - Max safe velocity.
4 - Pull the trigger and put the meat in the freezer.
Another thing I read at the same time is to give the copper bullets plenty of jump to the lands and they don't recommend being any closer than 40 thou from the lands.
I can verify this because I jump the 130 ttsx in a 300winmag almost 0.200" and they are the most accurate load in that rifle... 3,550'ish FPS from a 24" boom stick.
My procedure is simple with Barnes copper hunting bullets...
1 - Lighter weight bullet.
2 - Long jump to the lands.
3 - Max safe velocity.
4 - Pull the trigger and put the meat in the freezer.
The reason they recommend going down in weight is that copper is lighter, and copper bullets equal in weight to lead bullets are much longer. But damm they kill! I have more than 18 kills with Barnes bullets - deer, elk, cow moose, bison and bear. Only recovered muzzle loader bullets from bull elk. Each was perfect petals just like in the pics, and 100% weight retention. Try that with cup and core!
I've been using the 168 TTSX in 30-06. The Barnes website FAQs used to say the 168 was designed for cartridges like the 30-06 while the 165s were designed for 300s. (as previously stated)
I've only killed two caribou with the 168 TTSX and it worked fine. It is my blacktail deer to moose and incidental grizzly load.
Seating depth recommendations from Barnes have varied over the years. It used to be try .050 from the lands to start. If that isn't satisfactory, try .040-.070 and now it's .050 to .250 or more.
This past summer, I did load development on two 30-06s with the 168 TTSX. What I found in relation to bullet seating depth surprised me. I used to believe there was a sweet spot or node for seating depth. Now, I'm not so sure.
I'll summarize my findings for ease of reading. I worked up to a max load of H4350 in my Sako 85. I shot three shot groups varying the seating depth by .003 for each group. I tested a span of .87. I reshot some seating depths because the groups looked promising. I fired twelve 3 shot groups in the sweet spot or node which fired the smallest groups and this "node" spanned .009 wide. The average for 12 groups in this .009 wide node was 1.269. The average of all 45 three shot groups I fired across the whole .87 spectrum with some additional groups was 1.319.
Now, you could argue the "node" did shoot a smaller average. 1.269 vs 1.319. I wouldn't argue that. However, I would argue the difference in the group averages could be due to group size measurement error with calipers on my part. (Now I use ballistic X and my iPhone camera to measure groups) I'm also confident i couldn't shoot the difference between these two averages from field positions.
30-06 number two is a Remington 700. I had previously worked up a decent load for this rifle with the 168 TTSX. The load averaged 1.182 for ten 3 shot groups. This was a compromise seating depth to accomodate the Remington and a Weatherby 30-06. I donated the Weatherby for a DU Fundraiser and decided to change the seating depth on the load so the bullet sat .050 from the lands of the Remington. So, I seated the bullet out .075 closer to the lands. I fired ten 3 shot groups with the new seating depth and the average turned out to be 1.125. Again, not what I expected. That's two rifles of two which weren't significantly impacted by seating depth changes.
What does all this mean? Maybe some bullets and some cartridges don't really benefit from seating depth changes. The Hornady guys on their video/podcast found the same thing with their bullets. Whether this will hold true for other bullets and cartridges I don't know.
My Sako 85 now shoots 180 Accubonds just under MOA and my Remington is enroute to Long Rifles Inc for action truing and rebarreling. So, I will have more 30-06 load development to do once I get that rifle back. The first bullet I will try will be the 168 TTSX. I think it will do everything I need a 30-06 to do. Hope this info helps.
I've only killed two caribou with the 168 TTSX and it worked fine. It is my blacktail deer to moose and incidental grizzly load.
Seating depth recommendations from Barnes have varied over the years. It used to be try .050 from the lands to start. If that isn't satisfactory, try .040-.070 and now it's .050 to .250 or more.
This past summer, I did load development on two 30-06s with the 168 TTSX. What I found in relation to bullet seating depth surprised me. I used to believe there was a sweet spot or node for seating depth. Now, I'm not so sure.
I'll summarize my findings for ease of reading. I worked up to a max load of H4350 in my Sako 85. I shot three shot groups varying the seating depth by .003 for each group. I tested a span of .87. I reshot some seating depths because the groups looked promising. I fired twelve 3 shot groups in the sweet spot or node which fired the smallest groups and this "node" spanned .009 wide. The average for 12 groups in this .009 wide node was 1.269. The average of all 45 three shot groups I fired across the whole .87 spectrum with some additional groups was 1.319.
Now, you could argue the "node" did shoot a smaller average. 1.269 vs 1.319. I wouldn't argue that. However, I would argue the difference in the group averages could be due to group size measurement error with calipers on my part. (Now I use ballistic X and my iPhone camera to measure groups) I'm also confident i couldn't shoot the difference between these two averages from field positions.
30-06 number two is a Remington 700. I had previously worked up a decent load for this rifle with the 168 TTSX. The load averaged 1.182 for ten 3 shot groups. This was a compromise seating depth to accomodate the Remington and a Weatherby 30-06. I donated the Weatherby for a DU Fundraiser and decided to change the seating depth on the load so the bullet sat .050 from the lands of the Remington. So, I seated the bullet out .075 closer to the lands. I fired ten 3 shot groups with the new seating depth and the average turned out to be 1.125. Again, not what I expected. That's two rifles of two which weren't significantly impacted by seating depth changes.
What does all this mean? Maybe some bullets and some cartridges don't really benefit from seating depth changes. The Hornady guys on their video/podcast found the same thing with their bullets. Whether this will hold true for other bullets and cartridges I don't know.
My Sako 85 now shoots 180 Accubonds just under MOA and my Remington is enroute to Long Rifles Inc for action truing and rebarreling. So, I will have more 30-06 load development to do once I get that rifle back. The first bullet I will try will be the 168 TTSX. I think it will do everything I need a 30-06 to do. Hope this info helps.
Last edited:
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.