Barnes bullets on elk

[Trophied]

A "truckload" of elk isn't very many animals.

 

[CharlieNC]

I have no idea who Nathan Foster is though he may be the recognized expert of all experts in his field. However, alleged remarks credited to him regarding Barnes bullets may have no factual basis. Barnes bullets have worked well for me on seven or eight Colorado and New Mexico bull elk with no tracking or lost animals. I realize seven or eight animals is not the classic "truckload" example of kills that some claim, but consider other hunters that have also had excellent results with Barnes bullets.

Google him and find his website, there is quite a bit of free useful info there. I can assure you I have read his book, and consider it to be the most thorough resource on the topic which I have been able to locate.

 

[JimT]

If you want to understand the anatomy of killing and how different bullet designs perform, buy a copy of Nathan Foster's Long Range Terminal Ballistics. You can Google his website and get a copy there. When the book was published several years ago it was based on his personal taking 9000 animals plus those of associates. It is a very thorough assessment of bullet construction vs penetration, wound channel, shock, etc. Book costs less than a box of bullets and is well worth the money. The short answer is he does not recommend Barnes due to erratic non-expansion results.

I’m assuming “Long Range” means that is the goal of the shooter. If you are a “hunter” (see Toby Bradshaw’s Barnes bullet pictures above) you will be well served by Barnes bullets. Monolithic bullets are not made for long range shooters. Long range shooters seem to prefer bullets that blow up. Then they jump up and laugh, yell and high fives all around.

 

[rardoin]

I’m assuming “Long Range” means that is the goal of the shooter. If you are a “hunter” (see Toby Bradshaw’s Barnes bullet pictures above) you will be well served by Barnes bullets. Monolithic bullets are not made for long range shooters. Long range shooters seem to prefer bullets that blow up. Then they jump up and laugh, yell and high fives all around.

???

 

[GNERGY]

225gr TTSX in my 338 Ultra mag 140 yds cow elk right behind the shoulder, punched right thru, she went to run away and piled up in a couple yards.
Tarey

 

[CharlieNC]

I’m assuming “Long Range” means that is the goal of the shooter. If you are a “hunter” (see Toby Bradshaw’s Barnes bullet pictures above) you will be well served by Barnes bullets. Monolithic bullets are not made for long range shooters. Long range shooters seem to prefer bullets that blow up. Then they jump up and laugh, yell and high fives all around.

The book actually covers all distances, since impact velocity is the most important factor which affects the performance of a given bullet design.

 

[seymour fish]

If you want to understand the anatomy of killing and how different bullet designs perform, buy a copy of Nathan Foster's Long Range Terminal Ballistics. You can Google his website and get a copy there. When the book was published several years ago it was based on his personal taking 9000 animals plus those of associates. It is a very thorough assessment of bullet construction vs penetration, wound channel, shock, etc. Book costs less than a box of bullets and is well worth the money. The short answer is he does not recommend Barnes due to erratic non-expansion results.

The original Barnes X was excellent on hogs, gators, and Nilgai, but an utter failure on elk at 400 yds. Pinhole. Elk are easy to kill. A 270 with a 130 Sierra spritzer is more than plenty out to 450-500. DRT. Lost interest in Barnes, with the listed exceptions.

 

[INTJ]

The original Barnes X was excellent on hogs, gators, and Nilgai, but an utter failure on elk at 400 yds. Pinhole. Elk are easy to kill. A 270 with a 130 Sierra spritzer is more than plenty out to 450-500. DRT. Lost interest in Barnes, with the listed exceptions.

That was an issue with the original X. The hollow point would fill up and it would car like a solid. The TSX and TTSX fixes that.

 

[Chad280]

Well piss on the Barnes. They don’t shoot for shit outta my BAR. I’m sick of this gun. Anyone want to buy it

 

[INTJ]

Google him and find his website, there is quite a bit of free useful info there. I can assure you I have read his book, and consider it to be the most thorough resource on the topic which I have been able to locate.

If he did this test several years ago then his info on Barnes bullets is outdated. The originals were indeed erratic. The TSX in smaller calibers could also act like a solid. However, the TTSX is very reliable. I have only shot deer and hogs with TSX and TTSX. Four deer and a hog with a 30-06 and 168 TSXs at 2900ish, two deer with a 300 WSM and 168 TTSXs at 3000 fps. They had full penetration and good expansion.

I recovered one 168 TTSX. I shot a decent Blacktail buck in full rut, swollen neck, musky order, and all. He was about 60 yds away. I hit him in the chest and bullet made it lengthwise and stopped in the back of the right ham. He hunched up at the shot, walked a few feet, and fell over. His lungs were jelly. Here is what that bullet looked like. It weighed 166.9 grains and expanded to .64" in diameter. That was something like what, 4.5 feet of deer? While my elk load for this year is a 225 TTSX from a 33-28 Nosler at 3150 fps, I don't see any issues with a 168 TSX or TTSX on an elk.

 

[dolek]

I used the original X Bullets when they first came out . We did not have the internet then ,so I never heard of these issues being claimed...good thing, I may have never have had the great success I did with them.

 

[CharlieNC]

Every bullet, regardless of design, has a given velocity range within which it must impact to perform as designed. Too fast, too slow, it doesn't perform.

Every bullet is designed to perform in a particular manner, penetrate and exit, penetrate slightly and fragment to dump energy, etc. This is related to the various mechanisms involved with incapaciting and killing.

Every bullet design is a compromise in terms of velocity requirement vs operating distance, and the design which renders the type of performance vs the anatomy of killing which the hunter believes will best suit his needs. Fortunately there are resources which have studied this extensively on thousands of cases vs our individual limited experiences so it is easy to do the research to understand designs and options.

 

[yotehater]

My first two elk were with a 115 gr Barnes X out of a .25-06. The 5x6 went twenty feet before nosediving and the raghorn just collapsed in it's tracks and rolled down the mountain.

 

[INTJ]

Every bullet, regardless of design, has a given velocity range within which it must impact to perform as designed. Too fast, too slow, it doesn't perform.

Every bullet is designed to perform in a particular manner, penetrate and exit, penetrate slightly and fragment to dump energy, etc. This is related to the various mechanisms involved with incapaciting and killing.

Every bullet design is a compromise in terms of velocity requirement vs operating distance, and the design which renders the type of performance vs the anatomy of killing which the hunter believes will best suit his needs. Fortunately there are resources which have studied this extensively on thousands of cases vs our individual limited experiences so it is easy to do the research to understand designs and options.

True, but I think our collective experiences surpass the tests and studies. We have 100+ years of experience with expanding bullets and smokeless powder in real world hunting situations. While I too like reading the results of studies and testing results, all those tests typically do is tell us what we already know. We have known for decades that a 180-220 grain round nose conventional bullet from a 30-06 was very effective out to moderate ranges. So when the June 1998 Handloader came out where every 180 grain 30 caliber bullet that could be found was tested, it was not surprising that the RN SP bullets performed about as well as the Nosler Partition--which we also knew was very effective.

We have also known for decades that a hollow point target bullet would frequently act like a solid on game when the tissue would fill up the hollow point and thus prevent expansion, it was no surprise that the early Barnes X bullets would do that as well. There were also issues with them getting the metallurgy right so petals would open but not break off.

It was also no surprise that the TTSX would be the ultimate in Barnes design. The tip ensures expansion. With expansion now a given, the metallurgy could be optimized for durability. I have cleanly taken a deer at 60 yds and one at 435 yds with the 168 TTSX, launched at about 3045 fps. Again, that was expected based on all the actual experiences out there. However, there is indeed a limit to the velocity at which they will expand.

Nowadays we really shouldn't have many surprises with bullet terminal performance if we just use a bullet where we know it will work.

 

[terrace]

My first two elk were with a 115 gr Barnes X out of a .25-06. The 5x6 went twenty feet before nosediving and the raghorn just collapsed in it's tracks and rolled down the mountain.

I'd be willing to bet your truck was up the mountain

 

[yotehater]

I'd be willing to bet your truck was up the mountain

Isn't it always? The tumble even split his skull in two during the roll.

 

[Zero333]

I load 140gr TTSX in my 7RM - Tikka M65, about 3340fps with RL22 I think it is. Took my first cow elk this past December at 200 yards, she took about 6 steps down the hill. Very accurate load as well. No complaints here!

I concur with your bullet weight choice with the TTSX... 140 to 150 gr. is about perfect in the 7mmRM aiming at elk no farther than 300 yards.
Barnes also has a 7mm 145 gr LRX.
With cartridges burning 70+ gr of powder, if I know my shots will be within 300 yards, I prefer Barnes bullets of slightly lighter weight, but pushed very fast. I get guaranteed kills, guaranteed penetration, no chance of bullet coming apart, and a laser like point blank range.

 

[dolek]

True, but I think our collective experiences surpass the tests and studies. We have 100+ years of experience with expanding bullets and smokeless powder in real world hunting situations. While I too like reading the results of studies and testing results, all those tests typically do is tell us what we already know. We have known for decades that a 180-220 grain round nose conventional bullet from a 30-06 was very effective out to moderate ranges. So when the June 1998 Handloader came out where every 180 grain 30 caliber bullet that could be found was tested, it was not surprising that the RN SP bullets performed about as well as the Nosler Partition--which we also knew was very effective.

We have also known for decades that a hollow point target bullet would frequently act like a solid on game when the tissue would fill up the hollow point and thus prevent expansion, it was no surprise that the early Barnes X bullets would do that as well. There were also issues with them getting the metallurgy right so petals would open but not break off.

It was also no surprise that the TTSX would be the ultimate in Barnes design. The tip ensures expansion. With expansion now a given, the metallurgy could be optimized for durability. I have cleanly taken a deer at 60 yds and one at 435 yds with the 168 TTSX, launched at about 3045 fps. Again, that was expected based on all the actual experiences out there. However, there is indeed a limit to the velocity at which they will expand.

Nowadays we really shouldn't have many surprises with bullet terminal performance if we just use a bullet where we know it will work.

With your theory we are expected to believe strangers on the internet , over what the bullet manufacturer tells us ? With all the bull crap that gets tossed around on this site , no freakin way will I take that as " collective experience" .

 

[Down South]

Haven't shot elk but killed many whitetail and hogs with 180 gr TTSX in 35 Whelen running 3000 ftps. Deadly load, opens up quickly. Only bullets I've recovered was from frontal shots. Full mushroom. Broad side shots leave quarter to 50 cent piece size holes with insides liquified. All shots were 50 to 250 yards.

 

[ChrisNZ]

I have no idea who Nathan Foster is though he may be the recognized expert of all experts in his field. However, alleged remarks credited to him regarding Barnes bullets may have no factual basis....

Agreed. Nathan is a master at self promotion and would have to have lived five lifetimes to get the "database" he claims to have. Take it with a grain of salt, he has limited cred here in NZ which might tell you something..

A very common load/ combo here is a 120 TTSX exiting a 16" bbl suppressed 7-08 at over 2900, mine does 2940. That load kills stuff with authority up to 300yds. You only recover at best a third of them but the ones you do find are invariably on the other side/end and full mushroomed.

A professional guide near here has a rifle identical to mine and he lets his clients use it if they want. Until two weeks ago, he had 15 consecutive DRTs on deer until a total newbie who couldn't manage minute of barn ruined the record