Monolithic Bullets. Your favorite manufacturer and why?

wombat13 said:

I strongly believe the TTSX is a better bullet for deer hunting than the TSX. Take a look at this cross section of .277" bullets.

BulletCross-Sections_zpse7a9fec2

• wombat13
• Nov 2, 2022

Cross sections of .277" mono-metal bullets

The hollow point on the TSX is as thin as a wire. Look how much bigger the hollow point is on the TTSX.

Note: It's been a while since I uploaded images. I can't seem to get the image in the body of the post and I don't even know if it will show up as an attachment.

Click to expand...

It showed up fine wombat.

wombat13 said:

I strongly believe the TTSX is a better bullet for deer hunting than the TSX. Take a look at this cross section of .277" bullets.

BulletCross-Sections_zpse7a9fec2

• wombat13
• Nov 2, 2022

Cross sections of .277" mono-metal bullets

The hollow point on the TSX is as thin as a wire. Look how much bigger the hollow point is on the TTSX.

Note: It's been a while since I uploaded images. I can't seem to get the image in the body of the post and I don't even know if it will show up as an attachment.

Click to expand...

I would always choose the TTSX over the TSX if I had the option. Barnes released the TTSX to address reported issues with expansion of the TSX. If all I could get is the TSX, that's what I would buy (in fact, I have some in the cabinet).

I think the TTSX may have advantages with the 30 cal and smaller diameter bullets but with the big bore stuff the TSX works pretty good as is. The hollow point can and is much larger in diameter and the pre segmented petals more prominent on the larger calibers. As mention above the 45 cal 275gr TSX I pictured in my first post expand at only ~1850 fps and given what it did to that poor raccoon managed that expansion before it exited the raccoon. I would not want a tipped version of the 275gr TSX as the polymer tip would just takes up limited space in my magazine pushing the base of the bullet into the case more and taking up valuable case volume I need for propellant.

I tried the original Barnes X bullet. I shot a coyote with a 140 gr 7mm X bullet and it punched through its neck, back of lungs, guts, then exited and re-entered its rear leg, broke it and buried somewhere in the ground. It acted like a FMJ on that smallish target. I later shot a deer with the same size X bullet and recovered the bullet (and the deer). It had expanded into the flower-shaped X that Barnes showed in its ads. However, the expansion was not even half as much as my usual load of a 140 gr. Nosler Partition.

If I am going to pay more than a dollar a bullet, I'll use what has worked for me for the last 52 years until they outlaw lead in Florida, Ga., and Ala.

mcb said:

I think the TTSX may have advantages with the 30 cal and smaller diameter bullets but with the big bore stuff the TSX works pretty good as is. The hollow point can and is much larger in diameter and the pre segmented petals more prominent on the larger calibers. As mention above the 45 cal 275gr TSX I pictured in my first post expand at only ~1850 fps and given what it did to that poor raccoon managed that expansion before it exited the raccoon. I would not want a tipped version of the 275gr TSX as the polymer tip would just takes up limited space in my magazine pushing the base of the bullet into the case more and taking up valuable case volume I need for propellant.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you are correct. I shoot the Barnes Expander MZ in my .50 cal inline muzzleloader. The hollowpoint in that bullet is big enough to use as a shot glass!

Patocazador said:

I tried the original Barnes X bullet. I shot a coyote with a 140 gr 7mm X bullet and it punched through its neck, back of lungs, guts, then exited and re-entered its rear leg, broke it and buried somewhere in the ground. It acted like a FMJ on that smallish target. I later shot a deer with the same size X bullet and recovered the bullet (and the deer). It had expanded into the flower-shaped X that Barnes showed in its ads. However, the expansion was not even half as much as my usual load of a 140 gr. Nosler Partition.

If I am going to pay more than a dollar a bullet, I'll use what has worked for me for the last 52 years until they outlaw lead in Florida, Ga., and Ala.

Click to expand...

This post is like complaining about the 1970's Citicar or Comuta-Car (lead acid battery electric cars with single-digit hp motors) and using that as a reason not to buy a Tesla. The X bullet was Barnes first foray into monolithic copper bullets. That bullet had pressure issues, copper fouling issues, and they had expansion issues. All of those issues have been over come with later generations of Barnes and other brands of monolithic bullet from other makers.

I'll stick to my statement and use bonded bullets or partitions.

I also like my old stick-shift truck with roll-up windows better than my new truck that has computers doing everything even if I don't want to do it. Newer isn't always better. (Yes, I'm a Fudd.)

Patocazador said:

I'll stick to my statement and use bonded bullets or partitions.

I also like my old stick-shift truck with roll-up windows better than my new truck that has computers doing everything even if I don't want to do it. Newer isn't always better. (Yes, I'm a Fudd.)

Click to expand...

True, newer is not always better but with your self-admitted "Fudd" attitude you wouldn't know either way.

You're allowed to mix the old and new bullets or otherwise... This year alone I have hunted and killed stuff with monolithic Barnes TSX, Maker REX, traditional cup and core Rem Core-Lokt and Hornady XTP and good old plain lead hollow points.

The hammer bullets seem to kill much faster then say the Barnes, that's pretty important to me. Tho we hunt mostly farms keeping deer on the farm is preferred, most of these farms are now surrounded by homes. That alone makes hunting difficult at times to be sure of a safe shot, worst part many of those homes are now full of anties. Don't think I have to explain these people most of us here have ran into one.

The hammer bullets shed the petals at impact and they normally 3 spread out very quickly, and the base is held together to penitent. They seem like the best mono out there well at least the idea. They dump a lot of energy when the bullet expands and sheds and those give more chance to hit something to make the animal die quicker. And the base still will keep going. Most guys I talked with said the hammers almost always leave a exit, that's a big deal to me.

I bought a box of Barnes 120 gr 7mm.
Loaded in 7mm RemMag, they put the zip in your doo daa..

Shot a deer @378 yards. DRT. Hit on left shoulder ball joint, exited on right should. Both shoulders obliterated.

Got some in 6.5mm, have shot anything, yet.

ETA: I was looking through my bullets. I have a box of Barnes .224 60 gr HP. Looked through my log and they are very accurate in my 700. No notation or memory of use on game. I may have to revisit these soon. I find none loaded.

Seedy Character said:

I bought a box of Barnes 120 gr 7mm.
Loaded in 7mm RemMag, they put the zip in your doo daa..

Shot a deer @378 yards. DRT. Hit on left shoulder ball joint, exited on right should. Both shoulders obliterated.

Got some in 6.5mm, have shot anything, yet.

Click to expand...

I already have 7mm TTSX in 120 gr and 140 gr and have the dies for .280AI. Now I just need to get the rifle.

I've never personally used any mono bullets in any 6mm, but I have used them in .224, .308, and 7mm. In those calibers I have come to prefer "standard" weight Barnes TTSX over the TSX, Hornady GMX and Nosler E-tips that I have tried as they were just as or more accurate in my rifles and seem to have equal or better expansion on game animals.

I point out that I prefer the "standard" weight (62gr in 223, 120gr in 7-08, 150gr in 308 Win, and 165gr in 30-06) since most people seem to prefer dropping to a slightly lower weight bullet for faster impact speeds but I have never found that to be necessary and the "standard" weight mono's seem to hit above their weight class when it come to using them on game animals.

@zdc1775 I concur with the standard weight analysis. Extremely impressed with 168gr TTSX in 30-06 and 120gr TTSX in 7-08. No need to drop weight just because they are monos

7-08 120gr TTSX, 46.8gr CFE223 (haven’t chronoed it), 190yards:

Exit side pictured:


Entrance:


Exit:

And that’s what I have pictured and handy. That performance is the standard performance from this bullet in elk, which is exactly what I am looking for in an elk bullet

KansasTrapper77 said:

I think the mentality of dropping the weight is twofold. Like you ever mentioned they seem to punch above their weight class so if you’re used to a lead 165 a mono 150 will probably have similar results. And since its a mono and not as dense dropping the weight gives some room back in the case for a hotter powder charge. Or at least thats my understanding for the thought process of dropping the weight with Monos.

Click to expand...

That is the mentality. But my mentality for elk is that I want 180gr-200gr magnum performance out of my 30-06 with a 168gr. And I get it. Standard weight still going plenty fast and there’s enough weight for an exit in more scenarios. I want to maximize penetration, I want an exit and to break every bone in the way. I don’t catch many TTSX and that’s what I want. I catch more 180gr Nosler Accubonds from shots inside 200 yards from my 300wsm than I do any TTSX from that 30-06

But those are my preferences, there are other dynamics others value more than me (like speed and energy)

KansasTrapper77 said:

I think the mentality of dropping the weight is twofold. Like you ever mentioned they seem to punch above their weight class so if you’re used to a lead 165 a mono 150 will probably have similar results. And since its a mono and not as dense dropping the weight gives some room back in the case for a hotter powder charge. Or at least thats my understanding for the thought process of dropping the weight with Monos.

Click to expand...

You are correct about the reasons people drop weight, but even with the slightly longer length I have never ran into any capacity issues with my mono loads. Now if I were more restrained on overall cartridge length, or it I had rifles with slower twist rates, I might consider dropping the bullet weight as well but so far that has not been an issue for me and gaining the little extra speed has not been worth the decrease in on game performance to me.

zdc1775 said:

You are correct about the reasons people drop weight, but even with the slightly longer length I have never ran into any capacity issues with my mono loads. Now if I were more restrained on overall cartridge length, or it I had rifles with slower twist rates, I might consider dropping the bullet weight as well but so far that has not been an issue for me and gaining the little extra speed has not been worth the decrease in on game performance to me.

Click to expand...

That is one of the reasons that I drop weight. My main hunting rifle is a Ruger Hawkeye which has a rather short magazine box (at least in .300WM) and .300WM itself has a short neck on the case.

What is the reason for a heavier bullet unless more sectional density is needed for deeper penetration on heavy game or less drag is needed to maintain velocity over a long-range? For hunting the most common medium-sized game in North America, whitetail, mule deer, pronghorn, etc., it seems that a sectional density of around 0.2 for copper monolithic projectiles delivers sufficient penetration. So we see 80, 100, 110, 130 grain bullets in 243, 6.5, 270, and 30 calibers for example. Is there a rationale for heavier bullets for hunting game besides much heavier game (brown bear, elk, moose, etc.)? Longer, and heavier bullets will give a higher BC, but the lighter bullets will shoot flatter until the BC is way beyond hunting bullet designs and the ranges are beyond hunting distances. Are these lighter monos failing to penetrate on game, or is there another reason people are seeking longer and heavier-for-caliber bullets?

I’m finding a lot of useful info here!!! I’m wanting to run the 90gr .257 CX in the 250 savage. I’m in Nebraska as well, and Hornady stuff is everywhere. I keeps gagging on the price tag however…

KansasTrapper77 said:

I think the mentality of dropping the weight is twofold. Like you ever mentioned they seem to punch above their weight class so if you’re used to a lead 165 a mono 150 will probably have similar results. And since its a mono and not as dense dropping the weight gives some room back in the case for a hotter powder charge. Or at least thats my understanding for the thought process of dropping the weight with Monos.

Click to expand...

It’s even more pronounced than that. Accubonds and other premium bonded bullets typically retain about 80% of their initial weight whereas monos typically retain close to 100%. That means a 150 gr mono will penetrate like a 188 gr bonded. A 165 mono is like a 206 bonded and a 180 is like a 225!

Monos also have better sectional density. They are longer for their weight , so the penetrate better.