TTSXs = FAIL

[Stocky]

TTSX=Awesome

I have used my 257 weath extensively with a variety of Barnes X bullets and on game ranging is size from Pronghorns to zebra.

I don't think a Barnes bullet can "fail" can it? Sometimes the petals peel off and the solid shank continues on like a solid, but is this not why we love them? The remaining shank penetration is the reason some say you can move "a bullet weight down" with an all copper over a non-controlled expanding bullet like a Sierra Gameking or Core-Lokt. It is however, still governed by the Laws of Physics, not magic.

For example, when considering bullets we are still stuck with the fact that sectional density (ratio of weight to diameter) is directly proportional to penetration. Here's a list of common bullets and their sd's Sectional Density

The s.d. of a 100 gr .257 is a puny .216, not much better than a .243 / 80 gr; versus a 115/.257 at sd .249. For comparison, the 100 grain .257 would penetrate less than a .308 / 150 (sd .226) whereas the 115 is about the same as a .270 / 130 or a .308 / 165, both sensible elk-size minimums.

If you look at the section above where the SD's are over .300, you'll recognize them as having reputations of being "notorious killers all out of proportion to their size." This is why the .264" (6.5mm) 160 grain (SD .328) was so successful on elephant, and why many Swedes consider their 6.5's such good moose (Swedish elk) medicine, they penetrate well with a good bullet. Same with the .458 / 500 gr and the .375 / 300 gr.

Here's the last batch of .375 TSX's I recovered from September's African hunt. By no means would I say the ones that lost their petals "failed", quite the contrary. They did massive damage and penetrated almost as deep as a solid would have.

Another big difference is that the shank of a larger diameter bullet does more damage. Recall the frontal area of a bullet (a circle) increases with the square of the diameter (A = (3.1416/4) X D2) so small caliber increases make significantly larger wound channels (increases with the square of the diameter, not proportionally). If you're looking for pure penetration (brain shots) yes, a 160 solid from a 6.5mm will out penetrate just about any other bullet of any caliber of the same shape, fired at the same velocities. But it won't do nearly as much damage (wound channel size) as a .375 or a .458.

 

[enysse]

I agree with you Stocky, that is a fine explanation....Great job!

 

[Diamondhitch]

I disagee for a few reasons. We actually had a good discussion about bullets construction over Christmas.

1) a bullet stump does perform like a solid, at half the original weight mind you. My experience with solids is this, I have shot many coyotes with .22LR hollow points and invariably they are dead when I get walked up to them, they may very well be dead when they hit the ground. I have shot many coyotes with .22LR solids as well and almost invariably I walk up to the snarling coyote and fire a second into their heads. I learned the hard way about the poor killing power of solids compared to expanding bullets on them the 1st time I used them. I shot a coyote which dropped in its tracks. I proceeded to walk up to it but part way there a couple grouse flushed and landed in the trees a short distance away so I followed. A good while later I returned to the coyote with about 6-8 grouse. The coyote was weak but needed a shot in the head to finish him, he was dying no doubt but no where nearly a quickly as he should have. I have no experience with solids on large game other than the failed Barnes which yielded the same result on the aforementioned elk. They do out penetrate expanding bullets and I see their value on extremely large bodied, large boned, thick skinned game but a large expanded surface area causes a much larger shock wave and subsequently far more damage to the animals vital organs.

2) Bullet construction has changed dramatically. The best bullets available in 1900 for lets say .30 cal would need to weigh 220gr to perform as well as a bullet weighing 180gr in the 80s which, with the new bonded core and other technologies, would perform as well in a 130gr offering. Quite simply a bullet that holds nearly 100% of its weight and mushrooms as designed is a devastating killing machine. Anyone who has had a bullet tumble or fail to expand can attest to the poor performance of an unexpanded bullet. That makes for some long tracking jobs with poor blood trails.

3) One look at ballistic gelatin will dispel the previous comment about a .25 cal hole not being large enough to cause enough damage. The bullet path of a solid is basically a slot in the gelatin slightly larger than the bullet while an expanding bullet leaves a large bell shaped hole in the gelatin many times the diameter of the bullet. The shockwave caused by the expansion of the bullet and the disturbance of the greatly expanded mushroom causes far more damage than the direct contact of the bullet itself on vital tissue.

I am not saying we should all rush out and shoot .25 cal at everything with a heartbeat but with the right bullets it is certainly a responsible and ethical caliber for elk at moderate ranges.

 

[Stocky]

Here's a .257 Weatherby in Gel:

7mm Rem Mag in Gel:

Huge difference.

 

[Diamondhitch]

Here's a .257 Weatherby in Gel:

7mm Rem Mag in Gel:

Huge difference.

Good videos and with or without seeing the videos I agree the 7mm is more powerful. One thing to consider when comparing these 2 videos is zoom level though. Yes the shockwave from the 7mm does exceed the size of the screen but it is also zoomed in closer than the .257, they aren't nearly as far apart as it 1st appears.

My point was not that the .257 WBY is better or more powerful than any other rifle but simply that it was adequate. If we want to simply look at total shock and awe then we all need to shoot .50 BMGs at everything we hunt since they are definitely more powerful and certainly enough muscle to get the job done.

But this is just my opinion.

 

[Stocky]

Didn't Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith go on like this for like 20 years?

 

[BRICKBURN]

Didn't Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith go on like this for like 20 years?

Way longer than that. I heard they worked it out in the end at the OK Corral or some place like that.

 

[Diamondhitch]

Way longer than that. I heard they worked it out in the end at the OK Corral or some place like that.

I challenge you to a duel varmint!!! LOL

 

[sestoppelman]

Didn't Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith go on like this for like 20 years?

Some say they literally hated each other. Two totally different schools of thought, they had. Both were right and both were wrong at times. The old cowboy and the college professor. Both took truckloads of game with their respective favorite rounds. Keith opined that the .270 might be damn fine coyote medicine! But not for much else. A real character.

 

[Diamondhitch]

Some say they literally hated each other. Two totally different schools of thought, they had. Both were right and both were wrong at times. The old cowboy and the college professor. Both took truckloads of game with their respective favorite rounds. Keith opined that the .270 might be damn fine coyote medicine! But not for much else. A real character.

LOL I knew I liked O'Connor!

 

[1ObsessedHunter]

Didn't Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith go on like this for like 20 years?

I think you also need to through Roy Weatherby in that mix. He and O'conner went at it all the time regarding the effects of velocity and lighter bullets on game.

 

[Stocky]

In truth I'm a jack O'Connor fan, no so much an Elmer fan. From age 16 to age 20 something, including four years at the University of Wyoming, the only rifles I had were a 25.06 Model 70 and a Mohawk 660 in 6 mm Rem.

I guess you could say I'm not talking theory about them, but hard use every day I could, which was almost every day. Woodchuck back east, prairie dogs, jack rabbits, coyotes, mule deer, pronghorn prairie goat, a few cow and a bull elk and a badger that I recall killing with that M70. No way you would've convinced me it was not elk medicine.

For varmints my favorite load was 60 grains of 4831 with 100 gr Sierra Spitzer; Elk and deer was definitely either the 115, 117 or 120 gr Partition, depending on which year it was and what Nosler was putting on shelves in .257 at the time, during the transition from the machined semi pointed partition to the swagged pointed ones. None of them ever let me down.

Then when I got a real job I bought a 270 and hunted with it for a few more years. I did notice it killed "better" than the 25 or the six mill, but trust me when I tell you if I or my wife had that 18 inch barreled Mohawk 660 and a big muley or elk stepped out, he was meat. My favorite game load back then was with the 105 grain Speer semi spitzer with 42 grains of 4831 if I remember correctly.

I just noticed that heavier bullets usually punched right through a big muley, whereas the lighter 100 gr pills did not. Plus, I had loaded some 100 grain Sierra BTs for one of my professor's 257 Ackley improved, and he complained of the lack of penetration on antelope he shot in the knuckle and wounded, so I didn't want any part of the lighter bullets on big game after that.

Recently, I've had the opportunity to kill a few more elk. One was with a 308 Winchester and 165 Hornady Superformance loads. To say I was not impressed with the penetration of those spire points is an understatement, The high lung shot did just fine but the going away shot at the base of the tail blew the bullet completely apart on the spine. All I found was little pieces with the copper base resting right up against a slightly cracked vertebrae. But the elk was dead nonetheless.

A nearly identical broadside shot earlier that year with a 300 Winchester short mag and 180 Fail Safes blew out the far shoulder and my guide said it kicked up stones behind him. I think he took about two or three steps before he fell over. Big difference in bullet performance from the .308 Hornady.

This year I shot a huge nontypical bull elk with a borrowed 308 Winchester and 150 CoreLokts. I shot that animal 4 times in about a minute, all right in the heart/lung region, before he tipped over. No, he wasn't going anywhere far away after the first shot, but he just would not call it quits. I owe better to an animal that I choose to harvest than that.

These more recent experiences tell me I want no part of anything smaller than a 150 grain .270 on any elk in the future. Frankly, after looking at the thickness of an elk's shoulder bone, it's 300 mag or better, Barnes or Nosler Partition, for me from now on. Certainly a 180 grain 30.06 would be my personal minimum.

 

[Stocky]

I guess my point of this entire diatribe is the fact that what I thought I knew about elk bullets back in the day wasn't exactly correct. Maybe some animals are simply tougher than others I don't know, but obviously my opinion has matured over the years, tempered by a couple less-than-ideal experiences, towards bigger heavier, better constructed bullets.

In other words, once you get into game the size of a Rocky Mountain Elk, I think it is only prudent to put a little more thought to the adequacy of what you intend to throw at them, especially if you encounter a tough one.

 

[enysse]

I agree with Stocky, I recently cleaned up my .243 Win that I used for deer hunting for the last 10 years, not because it didn't kill, but for the fact I had to pick my shots. I decided my 7X57 or 7mm Rem Mag or 30-06 would be more appropriate.

 

[colorado]

I guess I'm a fan of bonded/partition bullets for North American Game. I think a 120g Partition would be a fine bullet for elk in your 257 Bee, the new LR Accubonds look good too, but I'd be nervous about them holding together on a close shot at 257 Bee velocities. A-Frames are great except for their "barn door" BCs. I do shoot the 570g TSX in my 500 Jeffery but they open up real well, and well they start at 50 cal so they don't need that much expansion lol ...

 

[Diamondhitch]

I started hunting with a 7mm shooting 160gr handloads. My 1st elk took the 1st shot in the ribs and started to sprint toward cover. The second caught up to it in the back of the lungs. I fired my last shot through the lungs, reloaded and fired another through the lungs before it fell. 2 of us armed with my 7mm and a 30-06 with 180gr loads both emptied our guns into a moose at 75yds reloaded, each fired 2 more into him then my buddy said stop shooting, just let him die. He stood there for what seemed like an eternity before falling over. The 1st shot killed him the rest seemed to do nothing. Some animals are definitely just tougher than others.

Waterbuck DRT to the .257 wby, Whitetail sprinting 150yds with the same hit from a .338 Lapua as well as the opposite result for each rifle as well. Elk shot end for end at 507yds with a 130gr .270 round breaking the sternum and a hind leg, and on and on.

In my experience with a solid hit the blausers kill no more quickly than a moderate caliber and with the best penetrating expanding bullets on the market (Barnes), size is less of an obstacle than it used to be. The 2 reasons I don't shoot Partitions despite believing that they are one of the best 2 bullets on the market is a bullet test from years ago which showed that Barnes were by far the deepest penetrating with 2/3 the wound cavity of the partition and as big or bigger than the rest of the bullets tested. Partitions and A-frames performed almost identically causing by far the largest wound channels and out penetrating all others with the exception of the Barnes.

IMO Barnes make a gun just a little bit bigger than it would be with traditional bullets.

 

[enysse]

Well I was using 100 gr. Power points in the .243 Win, one shot to the ribs or even front shoulder, and that deer never made it 200 yards (most 100 yards) and I shot some big bucks. Well the two shoulder shots didn't penetrate and I had to fire a finishing shot, but the lung hits, they were dead in 1 minute, lungs exploded.
Elk in Montana one 130 gr. bullet to the lungs DRT, 270 Win., Barnes X bullet. I do like the .270 Win
Everything I have shot with the 7mm Rem Mag has been killed very quick and you can see it almost immediately, but then again I'm using core lokt, Interbonds, Accubonds and Swift A. I like expansion over penetrate most if the time. Africa is a little different story, but not for plains game.

 

[Norwegianwoods]

After my years of hunting I have come to the conclusion that I prefer penetration over expansion by far. Specially after about 20 years of experience of using tracking dogs to track wounded animals.
In fact I would rather use a rather flat round nose solid or a flat nose solid than a bullet that expands quickly. Even on deer. The exception is when a slow cartridge/load is being used.
I feel confident about placing my shots where I want them and I don't want to worry about not getting enough penetration.

Many years ago I used a 80 grain round nose solid in my 6.5-06 on Geese and Fox. Once when out hunting fox I got a quick chance on a Roe deer and decided to use the bullet in the chamber and not switch to my deer load in my pocket. I shot it in the lungs without any bones hit and it dropped on the spot.
This intrigued me as I expected it to run for some distance before it dropped.
Curiosity got the best of me and I continued to use that bullet for the rest of the season, and I ended up shooting 18 Roe deer and 4 Red deer with that bullet in my 6.5-06 that season. All one shot kills. One Roe deer ran 50 meters, one Red deer ran 20 meters and the rest was DRT with all shots to the shoulder and lungs. The distances varied from 20 to 250 meters.

22 animals is far from giving a conclusive answer. Maybe speed combined with the rather flat round nose resulted in a massive vascular shock wave to the vitals of the deer.
My experience so far with the 120 grain TTSX bullet in my 6.5-06 is very similar. Most animals are DRT and very few run 20-30 meters before they drop. And the bullet does this with low bullet weight at high speeds, with great penetration and it gives little damage to the deer body.
When I used the 120 grain Swift A-frame bullet I had similar results. But when I tried heavier standard cup and core bullets in my 6.5-06 the result was erratic.
Always lots of meat damage, but sometimes the deer was DRT and other times they ran 100-150 meters with perfect shots to the shoulder.
Totally opposite of what I expected.

From my experience of using tracking dogs tracking animals other hunters wound, it doesn't matter so much how large the caliber of the bullet is, or even most of the time how much it expands if the shot is bad.
And an exit hole always makes the tracking easier and most of the times faster.
I can't remember any tracking jobs I have done has been the result of a well placed bullet that didn't expand much, but I remember a few being the result of a well paced bullet being to soft when hitting bone resulting in poor penetration and very long tracking jobs where I needed to finish the job.

All that said, I do think that the TSX and TTSX bullets need some speed to perform their best and they are not the best bullets for slower cartridges.
Because of this I prefer the TSX/TTSX bullets to be light for their caliber.
Specially when using non-magnum speed cartridges I prefer to use a light TTSX bullet to get as much speed as possible and having the polymer tip to help with the expansion.