Barnes TTSX

[edwardm]

Anyone have a good recipe for the 150gr TTSX in a 30-06/Rem 700 with IMR-4350?

If I go with the book OAL (3.218 per Barnes), I'm 0.273" off the lands. The closest I can get to the lands is about 0.142" off. I tried some of those loads and they shot 3-4 MOA. I went and tried 3.22" and they shot better (1-1.5 MOA), but not great and not acceptable.

IMR-4350 has always worked well in this rifle with a wide variety of bullets. I'm hesitant to blame the powder, but if someone else wants to suggest another powder to try, I'll go find some and give it a go.

BTW I'm getting my distance to the lands by taking a resized casing, splitting the neck and shoulder with my rotary tool, and then slipping a TTSX in the case, gently closing the bolt, then opening and carefully removing the round, and measuring. I took the average of 10 tests and used that as my "touching the lands" measurement.

Of course if I'm stupid and missing something else, please educate me.

Oh and FWIW - after 18 test rounds this weekend, the bore looked like the inside of a copper pipe. Absolutely terrible fouling. It's all clean now, though. Gunslick Pro foamy stuff works wonders.

[Jeff213]

I like the 150gr ttsx at 3.300 oal, with 60gr of w760 from my weatherby vanguard .30-06.

Not the same powder but..

[Divernhunter]

They want .050(or more) jump for accuracy. They work better usually with more jump than you might have in a lead core bullet. Try the barnes length first before changing it. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Also not sure where you are getting your data but I do not even see a IMR4350 load in the barnes book. You NEED to use barnes data for barnes bullets. They are solid copper and not a lead core. They do not give internally like a lead core when they engage the rifling.
I have used Win 748, H-414(Win 760), IMR4064 and have had tiny groups of 5 shots out of several rifles. The book also shows loads for IMR3031, BL-C(2), AA2460, IMR4895, H4895, Varget, Big Game and RL15.

The fouling problem MAY be due to your powder selection. You will note the powders listed by barnes are a bit faster.
May I make another suggestion. When you are done with the foaming cleaner use one designed for copper fouling such as Sweets 7,62, Barnes CR-10 and others that usually contain ammonia. You may be surprised that you will still get copper fouling out of the "clean bore".
The copper bullets(barnes and Swift) both need a super clean bore to start with. The fouling from normal(copper alloy) jackets will cause them to leave a bunch of fouling they will not leave of all the "normal" fouling is not there to start with. Basically after you think the firearm is clean ----clean it again with a ammonia type of cleaner.

I have rifles that started new with barnes and have not had fouling problems with as many as 100+ shots. They clean easy and are not badly fouled. The same is true on other rifles that I do a super clean job on before shooting barnes TTSX bullets. They are the better ones. The TSX are more prone to erratic expansion issues form my experience. I load Barnes for 257R/25-06/257W/6.5X55/264Win mag/308win/30-06/300win mag/7mm-08 presently. Later I may load for 338Win mag/45-70/6mm Rem.

Also you might try the 130gr TTSX in the 30-06. It works well. Remember the barnes bullets act like a lead core bullet 30% heavier. So your 150gr TTSX barnes will act like a 196gr Rem Core-Loc or other brand. This is why the 130gr is also an excellent choice.
You NEED to push the barnes bullets fast to get constant reliable expansion. I always load to the book max and choose the best over my chrono and group size. The TTSX expand faster than the TSX and still will give you more penetration than you need.

I also have seen the factory ammo loaded with a very short AOL. It has been said the best starting point is to load them until the groove closest to the tip just disappears at the case mouth. I have loaded until the case mouth is somewhere in the last groove. Those are not crimping grooves. They are relief groves for the copper to displace when it hits the rifling. Not having them is one main reason the old X-Bullets were so temperamental.

Something else: Do NOT crimp the 150gr TTSX. Barnes suggest a LIGHT crimp on the 139gr TTSX but I have had excellent results without the crimp and deep seating them.

Try super clean barrel, Barnes data, no crimp, proper powders, and deep seating the bullets and I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the results

PM me if you want any load data or other help.

[edwardm]

I like the 150gr ttsx at 3.300 oal, with 60gr of w760 from my weatherby vanguard .30-06.

Not the same powder but..

Wow. That's a full grain over max in the Hornady book for a 150gr projectile (including their longer GMX lead-free bullet), but I'll keep 760 in mind. I'm sure it packs better than stick powder.

[edwardm]

They want .050(or more) jump for accuracy. They work better usually with more jump than you might have in a lead core bullet. Try the barnes length first before changing it. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Yeah, that's what Barnes said. .273" at their OAL seemed excessive, when they're suggesting .050 to .070.

Also not sure where you are getting your data but I do not even see a IMR4350 load in the barnes book. You NEED to use barnes data for barnes bullets. They are solid copper and not a lead core. They do not give internally like a lead core when they engage the rifling.
I have used Win 748, H-414(Win 760), IMR4064 and have had tiny groups of 5 shots out of several rifles. The book also shows loads for IMR3031, BL-C(2), AA2460, IMR4895, H4895, Varget, Big Game and RL15.

I've got a couple pounds of I4895 and a pound of H4895. I can try those next. They're just sitting around doing nothing, so I might as well use them. According to Barnes, I don't need to use their data for their bullets. From the horse's mouth:

Ed,

I have attached the load data that we have shot. The TSX and TTSX weight for weight use the same powder data. If there is a powder not included that you want to use you may use any other reliable data with an equal weight bullet.

Thanks

Ryan Banks | Tech Support/Consumer Service
Barnes Bullets, LLC

So I grabbed my Hodgdon 'book', the current Hornady, and the Nosler current edition. Each gave about the same range for IMR-4350. So I started low and worked up. Case capacity stopped me, not pressure. I tried 4064 with the GMX and got lousy groups close to max. No reason I can't try it with the TTSX if one of the 4895's lets me down.

May I make another suggestion. When you are done with the foaming cleaner use one designed for copper fouling such as Sweets 7,62, Barnes CR-10 and others that usually contain ammonia. You may be surprised that you will still get copper fouling out of the "clean bore".

I ran some Hoppes Copper solvent after the bore looked "clean" from the Gunslick. I got very faint traces of blue and went back at it tonight. Now I'm getting no blue from the Hoppes. So I think I've got all the copper out of the bore.

I'm going to take your advice. I downloaded their data 'sheet', to make sure it hadn't been updated. It lists H4895 and H414, nothing else. So for starters, I'll work up some loads with H4895 and give that a go, down to the letter. It's what I have on hand, and I haven't seen a pound of 760/H414 in a long time. That, and I'm going to order their latest book.

Thanks!

[Whiterabbit]

you might be surprised how much jump the bullet will shoot best with. It could be seriously substantial.

It is in my case.

[edwardm]

you might be surprised how much jump the bullet will shoot best with. It could be seriously substantial.

It is in my case.

I was thinking about it this morning, guzzling coffee. It makes sense that more jump is needed for the TTSX and GMX, from the standpoint of momentum (p). p = mass x velocity. The longer the jump, the greater the velocity, so the greater the momentum. The rate of change of the momentum of the bullet is equal to the force acting on it, where F=ma, by derivation.

Copper, being harder than lead, requires more force to engage the lands (I guess they call this 'engraving' the bullet), which is going to stabilize the bullet (assuming a proper twist rate). The longer non-lead bullets approach the lower limits of gyroscopic stability, though they appear to not exceed the lower threshold, so stability is harder to achieve in a typical non-custom, factory barrel. Not impossible to achieve, it just requires some tweaks to the system's variables.

So yeah, it made the lightbulb go on on my dimly lit mental arcade. Should have 10 rounds loaded up tonight and tested on Saturday. I'll report back. I suspect this is going to be an ongoing issue as the lead ban implementation looms ever closer.

[Whiterabbit]

ballistics are complicated, and the moment you try to characterize one factor without writing a book on how it impacts the remaining, you will be shot down. I recommend against trying to explain why, unless you are a ballistician. In which case you have no need to opine on an internet forum.

On the other hand, downrange performance is unquestionable. And knowing that in a particular case, an enormous jump to the lands does yield improved results, the why is not relevant. It's a data point we can characterize on our own.

And that is what is important. Because otherwise, folks will treat barnes bullets like bergers, meaning when they can't find a load that is accurate from 0 jump to .05" jump, give up and say the bullets suck. Which they don't, when loaded right in the appropriate gun.