Barnes TSX reviews/question

I have been reloading Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets for all my rifles (223 Rem, 6mm Rem, 7mm Rem Mag, 300 RUM, 375 RUM, 416 Rem Mag). I have harvested White Tail Deer, Cape Eland, Sable Antelope, Gemsbok, Waterbuck, and Greater Kudu. In every case the bullet did it's job. Before I used Barnes, I used some Remington Soft Point factory ammo on a 6-point buck in the Pecos River canyon at 60 yards using a 6mm Remington. I hit on the left side in the shoulder blade. He spun around and I hit on the right side in the shoulder blade. He spun around again and I finally hit in a few inches behind the shoulder and he went down. When I dressed him out, I found the first two shots had exploded on impact. At least with Barnes the bullet travels all the way thru and the animal has two holes to leak from.

Winmdl71 said:

I’ve used a TTSX 180 gr in a 300 wsm at 3,000fps on everything from a dik dik to an eland. Everything has gone less than 40 yards. Good expansion and penetration on everything. An excellent bullet for sure

Click to expand...

Barnes has a very good explanation of which bullet is for which application.

Surgeon1 said:

Had a long discussion with a fellow Double Rifle shooter who is using TSX 500 gr in his 470NE.
He is using slow burning powder and loads exceed Barnes listed max loads, both of those issues make
me nervous.
I don't load any Barnes bullets especially for my Doubles and never will.

If there are any of you using them, would you share your experience in a 470 and your loads.

Click to expand...

3 recovered 500 grain Barnes TSX bullets from a .470 double.
From left to right, frontal shot, then shoulder shot, then spine shot from the back (the insurance shot).
I’d never used anything else.

Gunnie said:

Barnes has a very good explanation of which bullet is for which application. View attachment 786041

Click to expand...

This is why I chose the 200gr LRX for my .300Win “travel load”

I want the option to go 600yds-700yds with my .300win and 3-15x40 VX5 and take advantage of the custom dial once I finalized load data.

As of now I have the 200gr LRX @2900fps from a 23” barrel.

So I’ll have the ability to reach out there and expand or on closer game the softer front of the LRX will have rather dynamic opening but still fully penetrate … or that’s my theory, I’ll test on whitetail this season and hopefully an Elk.

Recovered Barnes tsx 225g from a 35 Whelen. Muzzle velocity 2550 fps.

M70375! said:

Of course they will work for whitetail, they will expand, penetrate and cleanly kill any deer if placed properly from a suitable caliber and there will be slightly less meat loss because you don't have the extreme fragmentation that many of the lead core bullets do. Deep penetration , 2 X expansion within the first 2 inches of penetration, no lead fragments in your meat, what is not to like? If you are in doubt about whether they will expand properly, just look at this coyote I shot with 300 grain TSX from my 375 H&H. It doesn't get much softer and thinner than a coyote..View attachment 783368

Click to expand...

What Happened to that case mouth!?

I used TSX bullets in my 375 H&H AI and had very good results. The only other bullet I used was on an old giraffe, I used a solid into the shoulder on it.
Greater Kudu, wildebeest, and cape were all shot with TSX no failures of the bullets!

Gday Kevin

Kevin Peacocke said:

So TSX in 500J and 470 Nitro is good for buffalo?

Click to expand...

It works but definitely better bullets but the issue is not when they work it’s when they don’t that’s the concern for me & where I come from
this post of @Altitude sickness is one that needs to be understood before a blanket statement of the Barnes are going to work consistently or any bullet so please take that into account for the next part

Altitude sickness said:

So it makes complete sense that with any bullet design, they need to make impact 100% nose first. with zero yaw

Click to expand...

This is the part that we can hone in on to see why /where
Number 1 is easy & explained well here

Altitude sickness said:

So of course a bullet not hitting perfectly straight due to the wrong rate of twist or spin rate will impact expansion.

Click to expand...

But I also ask who actually determines the requirements of the twist required to open the bullet & getting a little deeper the amount of rpm
Even more important is what level do they use to call it good & equally important what test media are they using to determine this ????
Yes that is a very important part to understand if one is after consistency!!!
Which the company is ultimately setting those minimum limits so should be fine right hmmm
No as we can see even in this thread yet people look @ the good & dismiss the bad & with respect Kevin you have not done enough homework with your response in post number 146 & why I offer some advice based off actual field results & only recently various media tests

Before those are explained a little more we better take number 2 into the equation & once again this is explained well here

Altitude sickness said:

Also as the bullet slows enough it starts to wobble it’s not going to open correctly.

Click to expand...

But also it’s not only when the bullet slows its also when it leaves the muzzle & takes a little time to settle & a general rule I’ve seen put out is 20/22 yards plus & can confirm that you get more issues with bullets terminally @ less than 15 yard impacts in bovines than 25 plus ( velocity is not the issue here as we thought that was the case & it’s better linked to wobble imo as results showed a pattern of the range being the issue not the velocity impact)

Number 3 is what makes the bullet itself expand
A is it a hydraulic activated system or
B a mechanical activated system
Some bullets even use both

These are also very important to understand if one wants consistency as if one is using a hydraulic activated system one needs a hydraulic substance entering into the hp cavity which is fine right as a body is around 80% water ??
Yep if it hits the critter on most shots but what about a dry mud encrusted critter of a skinnier than normal critter that has very little meat between the hide & bone or a knuckle shot that on some critters some angles basically no fluid on those shots so the chances of failure have increased substantially
So back to the company & the ones that use ballistic gel give pretty consistent results but as has been shown from testing Barnes by vortex they just couldn’t get a pill to open @ range ( I’ll see if I can find the video & link it if you want ?? Please confirm if you do or don’t as I’m very time poor ) & wasn’t until they put a think it was a snap lock bag of water in front of the gel that the bullet actually worked that’s ballistic gel that still needed help to get the bullet to work hopefully that gives a little insight .

The worst companies to listen to are the ones that use milk jugs full of water as their test media hence parameters they tell us are good to go as this just masks the real life results & what occurs in critters is different on a way higher level again & the pattern of a needing hydraulic medium type A bullet to work ( Barnes don’t use milk jugs so tick on that )
The mechanical B type bullets don’t require hydraulic to work & another day on those id suggest is better left to then imo



There are other factors ( numbers if one likes as I only showed 3 ) that go into this & ultimately finding which bullets offer better consistency over the other & that is one personally having used the Barnes in the Jeffery on many critters it’s one I don’t use them anymore as I can’t rely on them to give consistency & a 500 Jeffery shouldn’t be a problem creator it should be a problem solver !!!

Here’s a few pics
Also have some recent wounds from elephant that are also interesting but I’m yet to put all that stuff together

So my advice is please just do a little more research & hope the above helps
Although you maybe happy staying with the Barnes which is cool if one wants just as long as we don’t paint them in a all being ready to go light as they are not for the .510 cal even though they work well when they do it’s the bad that concerns me & why I offered the above


Cheers