Barnes 130g TTSX or Nosler 180g Accubond for Cow Elk?

The 180, because your shooting elk.

I suppose the 130g will penetrate Elk just fine because it's a mono. I would shoot it to avoid lead in my elk meat. I think the Accubond is a fantastic bullet. I have some Nosler ammo loaded with it and it's absolutely trustworthy. But I wouldn't eat anything shot with it. No doubt it won't splatter as much as unbonded cup and core softpoints, but why risk any lead when the TTSX works flawlessly? On game meat, I use mono's exclusively.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/is-game-meat-shot-with-lead-safe-to-eat/

Whatever you feel like. 130 Barnes vs 180 AB, my money would be on the Barnes to retain more weight.

The key with the Barnes is making sure you have enough velocity for it to expand. Most reports I've read suggest that you want at least 2,200 fps to expand. Guessing the MV at 3,200 fps (based on Barnes load data), you should be above 2,200 fps out to almost 400 yards. The Barnes will have a few more inches of wind drift at 400 yards (with a 10 mph crosswind). Unless you have time to practice with the Barnes at long range, you should probably stick with the Accubond, particularly if your shots are going to be long.

As to your plan to have a Barnes loaded for short shots, I've never hunted elk, so I guess it depends on whether you think you'll have the time and presence of mind to eject the Barnes and chamber an Accubond for a shot over 200 yards.

I would use the heavier accubonds for penetration.

180 grain out of a 30-06 is about ideal for elk, and an Accubond is an excellent bullet. That'd be my pick by far.

Since the mono metal bullets hold a much higher percentage of their weight rather than have it stripped away while expanding in game, these two are both going to perform well in the role you’re asking about.

I’d use whatever you and your rifle shoot better and look forward to filling the freezer.

Stay safe.

AB penetration is superb, they make big holes and leave lots of blood to follow. Easy to tune also.
The problem with two different loads is that you will have two seperate points of impact so a scope adjust will be in order weather it is major or minor difference' they will not be the same.

I would pick one bullet, tune it to shoot were I aim it and go hunting with confidence.

The 130 gr Barnes bullet is roughly the same length as a 180 gr conventional bullet. The 130 gr Barnes bullet will still weigh 130 gr after it penetrates an animal. If you can find it. A conventional bullet will lose 25-50% of it's weight after impact meaning if recovered a bullet that started at 180 gr will weigh 90-135 gr.

You'll get equal penetration with either in this case.

A stout 180 gr load will leave the muzzle at about 2800 fps. The 130 gr load will leave the muzzle at 3200-3300 fps.

At close to moderate range the 130 TTSX will at least match the 180 gr Accubond and may be slightly better.

But those little bullets have poor aerodynamics and lose speed quickly as range increases. They are also blown around by the wind on longer shots. And they need faster impact speeds in order to expand. Usually around 2000 fps and a lot of guys like 2200 better.

In theory I like the solid copper bullets particularly if using a rifle considered borderline too small for the job. At least at ranges where they still impact with enough speed to expand. If I had to use something like a 243 for bigger game then the solid copper bullets would be high on my list. But in this case I'd still choose the heavier bullet. Now if you were talking about 150 gr copper bullets my opinion might change.

westernrover said:

I suppose the 130g will penetrate Elk just fine because it's a mono. I would shoot it to avoid lead in my elk meat. I think the Accubond is a fantastic bullet. I have some Nosler ammo loaded with it and it's absolutely trustworthy. But I wouldn't eat anything shot with it. No doubt it won't splatter as much as unbonded cup and core softpoints, but why risk any lead when the TTSX works flawlessly? On game meat, I use mono's exclusively.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/is-game-meat-shot-with-lead-safe-to-eat/

Click to expand...

Heres another part of that article to read before panic sets in.

Lots of elk have been taken with a .270 using 130gr bullets.

Your plan to use 130 out to 150-200 and 180 200-400 is sound. However, I would have the 130s loaded and the 180s as back up.

A fast shot needed at ???, 375 yards, is legitimaley covered by the 130 gr.

A shot at 100 or less, can you shuck that 180 and load a 130? How much meat is lost shooting that 180 gr at 100 yards or less?

Don't think I'd be scared to use either, I've only put two 180gr ABs into a cow elk and I caught them both. Excellent wound channels from boiler room shots though, one was under the outside hide, one was found all the way in the tenderloin at dinner later that year.


I used 127gr LRX on another one and it too moved into the freezer.

No experience with the 130 TTSX. The 180 Accubond is a great bullet. I have used it out of a 300wsm with excellent results. If you are sighted in with the AB I would use it!

I do believe that the day will come that non lead bullets will be required for hunting all game. So getting more comfortable with bullets like the TTSX is a good thing. I should start experimenting with them myself.

I plan to develop lead-free loads for all my hunting rifles. I started with a 150 gr TTSX for my .300wm. Shoots great, just like the 165 gr TSX load I developed years ago for the rifle. I just hope these perform better on game. The 165 gr TSX did not consistently open up fast enough to put deer down quickly. I went back to lead bullets. Then last year my BIL dropped two deer with the 180 gr TTSX in his .30-06. Fantastic expansion in the vitals. So I decided to give the TTSX a try. Photos of cross-sectioned bullets seem to show a much larger nose cavity in the TTSX vs the TSX. Hope to find out how they work in a couple days.

I'm not a fan of the barnes bullets so it would definitely be the accubond for me

My 300wsm shoots wonderfully with the 180gr tsx. Perhaps you should give those a try since you seem to be satisfied with that weight using accubonds. Or, maybe the longer bullet eats too much case capacity… only you would know that. Things to consider.

I have shot Accubonds in 5 different calibers and have only recovered one. It was a 110 gr. out of a 257 Weatherby Mag. The big doe was quartering to me at about 40 yards. I hit her on the point of the shoulder and she disappeared out of the scope. The autopsy showed the scapula cut completely in two leaving a gash through 5 ribs that was an inch wide and I recovered the bullet at the pelvis. The bullet weighed 67 gr. If a bullet was going to blow up it would have been that pill traveling at between 3300-3400 fps. I was impressed.

If I was going after elk I would stick with the Accubond or a Partition in a least 165 gr. Both will normally shed 35% of their weight, mushroom well leaving an impressive wound channel, and give good penetration.

troy fairweather said:

The 180, because your shooting elk.

Click to expand...

I 100% 2nd that