Can plains game A Frames or TSX bullets be 30% lighter?

[One Day...]

I, for one, really like an exit wound (I try to let the cows get out of the way) - not enough to want to shoot a solid at everything - but an exit after causing significant internal damage. I am not lucky enough to always place a bullet exactly where I want, and an exit wound increases the likelihood of recovery dramatically- at least in my experience. On anything much larger than a march hare, I have yet to see velocity of impact, caused by bullet weight reduction within the same caliber, have any real effect on killing. Hitting is another issue where a lighter bullet can extend effective point blank range. This is most noticeable in calibers with traditionally extremely heavy for caliber loadings such as the 6.5s and 7mms.

I am very much with you on those (exit wound / blood trail and lack of reliability of hydrostatic shock - seems to be either 100% or 0%) and hitting is indeed another issue: external ballistics.

So, where traditional softs and Partitions are lacking, the same weight A Frame or TSX improves markedly performance, and likely produces an exit hole, the bigger the better. See next post on Eland.

Conversely, where Partitions are already punching through, can we safely reduce the weight when shifting to a TTSX.........

 

[Art Lambart II]

I’ll start by saying I’m a heavy for caliber guy and my favorite caliber is the 35 Whelen. My go to load for Africa is a 250 grain Partition @ 2550 FPS but my load for deer is the 200 grain Hornady Superformance. This load preforms as advertised and clocks in at 2900 FPS, at that speed the 200 grain Hornady interlock bullet is very frangible, nothing I have shot with it has moved more than one step. Several years ago Barnes started producing a 180 grain TSX load for the Whelen at the same 2900 FPS. As is turns out 180 grains is 70% of the 250 grains I use in Africa but a quick check of the ballistic tables will steer you away from the lighter faster bullet. At 200 yards the heavier, slower bullet has 500 foot pounds more energy than its faster but lighter competition. Given this scenario I’ll stick with the 250 grain NP, however the best all-around load I’ve seen for the Whelen is a 225 grain Barnes at 2750 FPS. Now I’m able to use a bullet no one question, that shoots flatter and hits harder than my NP.

I used the Barnes load this July to take the Sable in my avatar with a single DRT frontal chest shot at 200 yards.

 

[One Day...]

Example #1

As discussed on my recent hunt report (SOUTH AFRICA: Huntershill Safaris August 2018 Plains Game Paradise https://www.africahunting.com/threa...faris-august-2018-plains-game-paradise.45017/) I was lucky to take this massive Eland:

It took two 250 gr Nosler Partitions from a 340 Wby at approximately 200 yards:

First shot was about perfect on the shoulder. The 250 gr Partition broke both shoulders but did NOT exit, and the Eland did not get the memo and took off at a gallop.

Second shot was off hand at a run away rump and I owe it more to luck than skill to have connected. The 250 gr Partition plowed all the way through the paunch but did NOT reach the lungs.

Bullet #1 found under the skin of the out shoulder:

The entire front core is gone, half of the front jacket is gone, the rear shank is deformed.

Weight retention is 61%.

Bullet #2 found just behind, but outside of the lungs:

Beautiful homogeneous expansion, but the entire front core is gone.

Weight retention is 69.1%.

Postmortem:
1) Luck helping on the follow up shot on the run, the shooting went as well as could be hoped.
2) No exit on 1st bullet.
3) No penetration to the vitals on 2nd bullet.

Learning points:
1) I now know first hand why people who have actually done it, traditionally recommend .375 H&H on a big Eland bull;
2) The 250 gr Partition performed well (the animal is in the salt and collapsed right after the second shot), but the performance was far from being perfect;
3) If I shoot a big Eland Bull again, not only will I use nothing smaller than the .340 Wby, but I would not feel stupid using the .416 Rigby (I have left the .375 bandwagon in favor of the .416 bandwagon);
4) In any case, I will shoot something that retains its weight throughout penetration (A Frame or (T)TSX) in the hope of getting an exit wound on bullet #1 and a full penetration to the vitals on shot #2.

This one is easy, and follows the conventional thinking ;-)

 

[Red Leg]

I am very much with you on those (exit wound / blood trail and lack of reliability of hydrostatic shock - seems to be either 100% or 0%) and hitting is indeed another issue: external ballistics.

So, where traditional softs and Partitions are lacking, the same weight A Frame or TSX improves markedly performance, and likely produces an exit hole, the bigger the better. See next post on Eland.

Conversely, where Partitions are already punching through, can we safely reduce the weight when shifting to a TTSX.........

I don't know. Though I can think of several ways trials could be done that would give a relatively definitive answer between the actual bullets tested. With apologies to Pondoro Taylor et al, I do not believe there is a mathematical equation that would have meaning without actual experimentation. That said. some calibers are, I think, relatively obvious. For instance, exchanging a 180 grain .30 caliber Partition for a 165 gr TTSX will generate longer point-blank range, and I suspect comparable penetration. I would be doubtful the penetration would be the same were we to step down to 150 gr. But who knows without firing into a consistent medium in a controlled environment.

 

[meigsbucks]

I'm sort of "old school" on bullet weights. HOWEVER... There are SO many factors involved. A Nosler Partition acts similar to a solid after it loses it front section with little frontal area.
A Swift A Frame has a lot of frontal area.
A Barnes TSX has a lot of frontal area, but slightly less than the Swift, with gaps between the petals.
For me, if I'm using a Nosler, I go with the heavier "traditional weights". Swifts and Barnes: if two weights will work, I generally go with the lighter.
Example: on my recent Namibian safari, I had my .338 RUM loaded with 225 gr Swifts rather than 250 gr bullets and my .30/06 was loaded with 180 gr Barnes TSX rather than 200 gr. All worked great.
Connie Brooks of Barnes Bullets used 185 gr out of her .338 Win mag on everything under the sun. The .338 Win mag is tied with the .270 as my favorite cartridge, but I can't bring myself to go that low on bullet weight for animals larger than 350 lbs.. Also, those lighter bullets, though they start fast, shed their velocity faster and thus energy.

 

[One Day...]

Example #2

Also as discussed on my recent hunt report (SOUTH AFRICA: Huntershill Safaris August 2018 Plains Game Paradise https://www.africahunting.com/threa...faris-august-2018-plains-game-paradise.45017/) I was lucky to take a great Kudu, nice Black & Blue Wildebeest, Red Hartebeest, huge Waterbuck, etc.

These were all animals in the 350 Lbs. to 550 Lbs range, so I did not feel over-gunned with a .340 Wby shooting 250 gr Partitions.

Would love to show you recovered bullets, but they are all gone, and often dramatically so:

And these were Partitions typically shedding 30% of their weight. I can imagine that near 100% weight retention A Frame or (T)TSX would still be flying...

Hence my musing here: if shooting 210 gr or even - dare I say? - 185 gr TTSX in the .340 Wby (185 gr is still 10 gr more than 70% of a 250 gr bullet) brings the recoil down from 36 ft/lbs to 29 ft/lbs (i.e. the same as a .300), and I still get the same penetration/exit because the bullet stay together while expanding, heck why not !?!? I can deal with the .340 250 gr recoil, and I have proved it, but I would be lying if I said I enjoy it...

So convince me one way or the other, Brothers in Arms, do I re-stock .340 Wby ammo with 225 gr, 210 gr, or (oooooh!) 185 gr TTSX?

 

[Hogpatrol]

I am not an adherent to shoulder shots but if that's a hunter's choice, I would go with the heavier bullets.

 

[One Day...]

@One Day...

I think if the question were can we go lighter with high weight retaining bullets in comparison to old technology, the answer is definitely yes. Would I go 30% lighter in comparison to a Partition? Hmm, that may be a stretch. That would mean that shooting a 140gr .308 North Fork or A-Frame versus a 200gr Partition.

I say that because of the mushroom. With the North Fork / A-Frame the mushroom remains intact and with it a larger surface area to drop energy with, but this also means it has the effect of stopping sooner. With the Partition, the mushroom gives way, allowing it to penetrate further even if with a smaller wound channel.

So to think you can drop that far and still get the same penetration based solely on the momentum numbers I think isn't quite correct. But dropping down at least one weight in my opinion is easily done. So in my .308 case, going to a 180gr NF over a 200gr Partition....no brainer. I might even go to 165gr. But 150gr even with the elevated velocity, not sure I'd go that far.

Exactly the question I am pondering... Is not it a fascinating question?

You say "to think you can drop that far and still get the same penetration based solely on the momentum numbers I think isn't quite correct." I would agree, but this is not exactly the issue is it? The crux seems to me that if a Partition launched at 250 gr weighs 175 gr after an inch or so of penetration, why not launch a 185 gr that retains 185 gr through feet of penetration AND expands as much as a Partition...

 

[One Day...]

This is an interesting point to ponder. For the sake of discussion let me ask a question. Even though a Partition "looses" the frontal portion of the bullet "rapidly" and the back end of the bullet continues to penetrate, what happens to the "lost" portions of the bullet? Do they instantly stop (which makes no sense at all to me) or do they rather change direction, thereby increasing the volume of the wound cannel? Does the larger wound cannel have an increased chance of disrupting either larger portions of an internal organ and or additional organs not in the line of penetration? To me the old axiom of
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies to this topic as well. I'll stay with the heavier bullets.

This was a great mystery to me, that I have often tried, unsuccessfully, to elucidate with field surgery.
The answer was finally made clear to me when in the course of my work, which includes Condor recovery in the Grand Canyon, I saw X-Rays of animals shot with Partitions and other lead core bullets. Apparently the missing core disintegrates so totally upon impact that it sprays a shower of tiny fragments all over the wound cavity and adjoining areas. Almost like if the lead was liquefied or vaporized and sprayed.
This is another reason why mono-metals appeal to me, because as stated elsewhere in this forum, us old men are far too gone to care whether we ingest lead or not, but I would rather not feed too much of it to the grand kids ;-)

 

[stug]

I'm not sure about the 30% rule, but drop one or two weight sizes when choosing a TTSX type projectile. Launch them fast though.
I've shot 3 red deer from 70 to 150yds (all quartering) with my 110gr TTSX at 3000fps from my 708. All projectiles exited, all one shot kills. A red deer would be bigger than an impala but smaller than a kudu.
I went with the 110gr to reduce the recoil for my daughters.

 

[One Day...]

View attachment 251193 For plains game, just shoot Bergers and do away with all this worrying about expansion stuff. In three inches, hand grenade, walk over and get 'em. View attachment 251193 View attachment 251194

Yes, but what weights in which calibers?

 

[One Day...]

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying but have you run a ballistic chart on two bullets, one heavy and one light, with the same muzzle velocity? At the same distance downrange, the lighter one will be faster than the heavier one.

Correct, but the point I was attempting to make is that lighter bullets are typically launched faster, so it is not a "same muzzle velocity" comparison: it is heavier/slower vs. lighter/faster, at least at the launch point.

 

[One Day...]

That's not how I read it. The variable that changed is only bullet weight. So the muzzle velocity would be faster for the lighter bullet. As for ballistics, I think he means within reasonable or common shooting distance, say 300 yards or less. Really, more like 200 yards for the majority of shots taken at plains game in Africa.

Thanks for clarifying. This is exactly what I meant to express.

 

[One Day...]

I've heard and read that more than once. Another thread on another forum compared kills with the 270 and 300 grain TSX. The 270 appeared to have caused greater trauma upon examination and the game dropped faster. Recently a PH I was talking with in South Africa who suggested that even lighter Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets in 375 caliber worked better for Cape buffalo. I think he said 250 grains and maybe even 210's. He claimed they worked as well or better than the heavier ones, usually dropping with one well placed shot. He's seen more buff dropped than I have so if I ever chase them I'll be chatting more with him to see how he still feels about all this.

Hmm? Fascinating! "Recently a PH I was talking with in South Africa who suggested that even lighter Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets in 375 caliber worked better for Cape buffalo. I think he said 250 grains and maybe even 210's. He claimed they worked as well or better than the heavier ones"

 

[One Day...]

He will be in a distinct minority. All PH's I have known are 300 gr or even 350 gr .375 proponents. A 210 gr .375 would have poor sectional density and the BC of a small ashtray and 250's not much better. A bullet like a TSX in 270 gr would have a reasonable chance of performing well on buffalo and offer a bit more point-blank range in hunting PG. The 300 will drive deeper. I'll stick with it.

I am sold, that on thick skinned game - of which the cape buffalo is a prime example - killing is about penetration - not foot pounds of theoretically released energy. PG is a somewhat different issue. Though again, in my experience a wildebeest is a bit tougher to drop than say a whitetail, and that a bigger deeper hole is better than a shallower one. I would go so far as to say on African game in particular, I will always choose deeper penetration over a larger wound channel. With whatever caliber I am using, I want assurance that I can take out both lungs after driving through the shoulder structure or driving from behind the last rib in a rear angled shot. I have little confidence that dumping a lot of theoretical energy is better or even equivalent to deep penetration. Wound channel - particularly the depth of the wound channel - is most important to me when considering a bullet weight and design for a specific caliber. Those choices seems to generally follow predictive expansion, and weight retention. Foot pounds of expended energy don't figure into that calculus for me except to the extent that the energy is sufficient to cause deep penetration with an appropriately constructed bullet.

And a note about the Partition. I used it for a long time because it drove deep - regardless of what happened to the front end and how quickly. Newer designs like the A-Frame and the TSX drive deep and produce a consistently large wound channel throughout their course through an animal. There are others.

Once again, we are in entire agreement
The question I guess I am pondering is: are "All PH's I have known are 300 gr or even 350 gr .375 proponents" because it has always worked, hence with the bullets we have shot over the last 50 years, and is it still true with the newer high integrity bullets (A Frame, TSX) that this conventional wisdom was not developed with...

 

[One Day...]

I’ll start by saying I’m a heavy for caliber guy and my favorite caliber is the 35 Whelen. My go to load for Africa is a 250 grain Partition @ 2550 FPS but my load for deer is the 200 grain Hornady Superformance. This load preforms as advertised and clocks in at 2900 FPS, at that speed the 200 grain Hornady interlock bullet is very frangible, nothing I have shot with it has moved more than one step. Several years ago Barnes started producing a 180 grain TSX load for the Whelen at the same 2900 FPS. As is turns out 180 grains is 70% of the 250 grains I use in Africa but a quick check of the ballistic tables will steer you away from the lighter faster bullet. At 200 yards the heavier, slower bullet has 500 foot pounds more energy than its faster but lighter competition. Given this scenario I’ll stick with the 250 grain NP, however the best all-around load I’ve seen for the Whelen is a 225 grain Barnes at 2750 FPS. Now I’m able to use a bullet no one question, that shoots flatter and hits harder than my NP.

I used the Barnes load this July to take the Sable in my avatar with a single DRT frontal chest shot at 200 yards.

Beautiful Sable, congratulations!
Yep, I agree: "At 200 yards the heavier, slower bullet has 500 foot pounds more energy than its faster but lighter competition." But how long does that last? If that heavier bullets looses 30% of its weight within an inch or so of penetration, is not it logical to wonder if the bullet that started lighter, but which now is heavier because it retained its weight through that first inch or so, will do a better job in term of both penetration and energy?

PS: for what I understand of the conditions required for lighting shock kill, i.e. energy related kill, it entirely depends on what systolic stage the animal is at upon impact. Apparently, at the 'right' ventricular contraction stage the hydrostatic shock will flash-destroy the central nervous system, and at the 'wrong' ventricular contraction stage, shock will essentially do ... nothing. Hence our collective experience of 100% or 0% on 'energy kills.'
My challenge to apply consistently hydrostatic shock (i.e. rely on energy to kill) is that I have yet to figure a way to determine at what systolic stage the animal will be when my bullet arrives ;-)

 

[Art Lambart II]

@one day, This July my dad used his 404 Jeffrey with a 400 grain A-Frame @ 2300 FPS to harvest a bull Eland broadside at 80 yards. The shot was perfect, the bull took one step backwards and dropped. The bullet was recovered just under the skin on the offside of Eland. You can see the bullet and the weight retention on the "Bullet performance data base" thread. Just because you use a premium bullet doesn't mean you'll always get an exit hole.

 

[One Day...]

I am not an adherent to shoulder shots but if that's a hunter's choice, I would go with the heavier bullets.

Yep, I am with you. I prefer the double-lung shot behind the shoulder myself. This is how I took the buff on that hunt, and he piled up with 30 yards (see video at https://www.africahunting.com/media...frican-safaris-in-limpopo-south-africa.69034/).
In the Eland case, the PH begged me to take a shoulder shot because he is apparently tired to run entire days after wounded Elands shot with various 7 or .300 Mag. I elected to gracefully comply rather than argue ... for all the obvious reasons ;-)

 

[One Day...]

I don't know. Though I can think of several ways trials could be done that would give a relatively definitive answer between the actual bullets tested. With apologies to Pondoro Taylor et al, I do not believe there is a mathematical equation that would have meaning without actual experimentation. That said. some calibers are, I think, relatively obvious. For instance, exchanging a 180 grain .30 caliber Partition for a 165 gr TTSX will generate longer point-blank range, and I suspect comparable penetration. I would be doubtful the penetration would be the same were we to step down to 150 gr. But who knows without firing into a consistent medium in a controlled environment.

Funny you would say that, because this is exactly my third caliber pondering. Should we go to the 165 gr or 150 gr TTSX (or - dare I say? - 130 gr) with the .300 Wby?
I am passing on a few boxes of Federal Premium 180 gr Partitions and 150 gr Partitions to my son with the gun, so we have time to get there, but would not a 165 gr or 150 gr TTSX handling both light and heavy duties (deer and elk / any plain game aside from Eland) be wonderful in a .300 be it Win, Wby, RUM?

 

[One Day...]

I'm sort of "old school" on bullet weights. HOWEVER... There are SO many factors involved. A Nosler Partition acts similar to a solid after it loses it front section with little frontal area.
A Swift A Frame has a lot of frontal area.
A Barnes TSX has a lot of frontal area, but slightly less than the Swift, with gaps between the petals.
For me, if I'm using a Nosler, I go with the heavier "traditional weights". Swifts and Barnes: if two weights will work, I generally go with the lighter.
Example: on my recent Namibian safari, I had my .338 RUM loaded with 225 gr Swifts rather than 250 gr bullets and my .30/06 was loaded with 180 gr Barnes TSX rather than 200 gr. All worked great.
Connie Brooks of Barnes Bullets used 185 gr out of her .338 Win mag on everything under the sun. The .338 Win mag is tied with the .270 as my favorite cartridge, but I can't bring myself to go that low on bullet weight for animals larger than 350 lbs.. Also, those lighter bullets, though they start fast, shed their velocity faster and thus energy.

Aaaaahhhh! "Connie Brooks of Barnes Bullets used 185 gr out of her .338 Win mag on everything under the sun." Fascinating!