130 TTSX loads for 308 win

[westernbowhunter]

Anybody try any loads with H4895 and 130 TTSX in .308 Win. ? Looking at data from Barnes over the last 10 years they've adjusted charge weights quiet a bit.Just looking for some guidelines on what people might have tried. Thx in advance

 

[Tod osier]

I have done a bunch of reduced rounds with that combo for my son, from about 75 up to 95 percent max. They have all been plenty accurate for a kid. Sorry no real help.

 

[westernbowhunter]

I have done a bunch of reduced rounds with that combo for my son, from about 75 up to 95 percent max. They have all been plenty accurate for a kid. Sorry no real help.

You mind me asking what you found for max loads and where ? The old Barnes manual says 50.0 grains max and the latest online stuff says 46.9 max. Just trying to make sense of it all and where to start....

 

[Tod osier]

You mind me asking what you found for max loads and where ? The old Barnes manual says 50.0 grains max and the latest online stuff says 46.9 max. Just trying to make sense of it all and where to start....

I used the new Barnes and the Hodgdon manual, both online. The Hodgdon number is higher, if I remember right.

 

[westernbowhunter]

I used the new Barnes and the Hodgdon manual, both online. The Hodgdon number is higher, if I remember right.

OK thanks. I'd planned to go with an average of the two and chronograph everything as I go.

 

[MThuntr]

OK thanks. I'd planned to go with an average of the two and chronograph everything as I go.

So you're just going to randomly pick a charge between the 2 max loads and say good enough? That's a good way to potentially mess up a rifle

 

[SDHNTR]

When I started reloading, I found the variance in manuals incredibly frustrating. It seemed crazy to me that after so many years no one had figured out a better and more uniform way of communicating load data. There are just too many variables and too may different rifle configurations. What I learned is that max loads don't mean jack squat. You simply have to learn to read pressure signs and find your own max.

 

[westernbowhunter]

When I started reloading, I found the variance in manuals incredibly frustrating. It seemed crazy to me that after so many years no one had figured out a better and more uniform way of communicating load data. There are just too many variable and too may different rifle configurations. What I learned is that max loads don't mean jack squat. You simply have to learn to read pressure signs and find your own m

So you're just going to randomly pick a charge between the 2 max loads and say good enough? That's a good way to potentially mess up a rifle

No.I'm going to pick something in the middle and use as a reference for a max load.Then I'll work up to it using my chronograph and watching for signs of pressure like I've been doing for 35 years.Just thot somebody might have gone through the same components and maybe would share their experience.

 

[westernbowhunter]

When I started reloading, I found the variance in manuals incredibly frustrating. It seemed crazy to me that after so many years no one had figured out a better and more uniform way of communicating load data. There are just too many variable and too may different rifle configurations. What I learned is that max loads don't mean jack squat. You simply have to learn to read pressure signs and find your own max.

Exactly.My confusion is why barnes listed a max load for the same components 10 years ago that was 3 grains lower than they list now.

 

[westernbowhunter]

About as confusing as the way I post comments LOL Hopefully everybody understands what I intended to say

 

[SDHNTR]

Probably because

Exactly.My confusion is why barnes listed a max load for the same components 10 years ago that was 3 grains lower than they list now.

Probably because they used different rifles in determining each set of data.

 

[westernbowhunter]

Probably because

Probably because they used different rifles in determining each set of data.

Probably.Just like you said.Max loads don't mean jack squat. Just sort of a reference point to work around.

 

[SDHNTR]

One of these days, someone should figure out a standardization. Something like an IBO rating like archery companies have on their bows, where it means a standard. IBO shows how fast a manufacturer’s 70# bow shoots a 350 gr arrow. That’s useful info!

Why can’t we have a similar standard with max ammo loads? Tie it back to the firearm’s CUP recommendation. I gotta think that if someone really put enough thought into it they could figure it out. But old habits die hard in the Hunting Industry, and we are far too willing to accept the status quo. Kinda like no one can seem to figure out how to make a reliable long range scope for a pound or less. We as consumers just accept the status quo. We can send men into outer space and back the same day, alive, with a multitude of super light and strong materials available, but we think 28 oz+ scopes are ok? Makes little sense to me. Where’s our industry’s disruptors?

 

[claybreaker]

Since the Barnes bullets (TSX, TTSX,...) are solid copper (or solid copper alloy) and not a copper jacket over a lead core, they don't deform in the rifling as easy and pressures may be higher. I would tend to follow Barnes for Barnes bullets. As always... start low and work up.

 

[westernbowhunter]

One of these days, someone should figure out a standardization. Something like an IBO rating like archery companies have on their bows, where it means a standard. IBO shows how fast a manufacturer’s 70# bow shoots a 350 gr arrow. That’s useful info!

Since the Barnes bullets (TSX, TTSX,...) are solid copper (or solid copper alloy) and not a copper jacket over a lead core, they don't deform in the rifling as easy and pressures may be higher. I would tend to follow Barnes for Barnes bullets. As always... start low and w

Why can’t we have a similar standard with max ammo loads? Tie it back to the firearm’s CUP recommendation. I gotta think that if someone really put enough thought into it they could figure it out. But old habits die hard in the Hunting Industry, and we are far too willing to accept the status quo. Kinda like no one can seem to figure out how to make a reliable long range scope for a pound or less. We as consumers just accept the status quo. We can send men into outer space and back the same day, alive, with a multitude of super light and strong materials available, but we think 28 oz+ scopes are ok? Makes little sense to me. Where’s our industry’s disruptors?

I think the truth lies with the dollar. Handloaders are definitely a minority.They make piles of money on factory ammo so why cater to a small percentage of their market. Hopefully they'll live to regret it one day.

 

[westernbowhunter]

Since the Barnes bullets (TSX, TTSX,...) are solid copper (or solid copper alloy) and not a copper jacket over a lead core, they don't deform in the rifling as easy and pressures may be higher. I would tend to follow Barnes for Barnes bullets. As always... start low and work up.

Guess my deal was with the changing of charge weights. I've used their old data with varget and w748 with the ttsx and worked pretty much as expected. I'll just rely on the usual pressure signs and my chronograph and go from there. Thx for the reply

 

[claybreaker]

Guess my deal was with the changing of charge weights. I've used their old data with varget and w748 with the ttsx and worked pretty much as expected. I'll just rely on the usual pressure signs and my chronograph and go from there. Thx for the reply

I gotcha, seeing max data for the same components change over time is not reassuring. Makes me wonder did they get it wrong before? (what else did they get wrong), did lawyers get involved, surely the powder didn't change. I, like you work it up and check for pressure signs... especially as you start to approach max.

Be Safe,

 

[bbassi]

Probably because

Probably because they used different rifles in determining each set of data.

Probably because their lawyers put the fear of God into them is the more likely reason.

 

[General RE LEE]

I load the 130 grain TTSX over 42.2 grains of Ramshot TAC. I get a little over 3,000 FPS out of a 22” barrel Tikka. Kills deer like lightning.

 

[35WhelenAI]

The thoughts you guys are sharing all have merit. Different lots of powder change in 10 years for instance. I replaced a pound with a new pound of powder, velocity was very different with identical components and the identical chronograph. Powders that come to mind from experience are IMR 3031, H4831 and WW748. Velocity was very different. I wondered what was wrong. After a number of shots, I realized it wasn't me it was the components. For me, it's easy to see how charge weights change over the years even from, let's say, one Barnes manual to the next. There is no recipe or manufacturing method that can keep everything exactly repeatable. Reloading isn't an exact science, it is an art. Start low and work up, gain knowledge while you follow established guidelines for safe load development.

Something to consider, if you are able check the lot numbers on the powder. Buy multiple pounds at a time for example, it lasts a long time when stored like it should be. Experience shows if the rifle is not a lousy shooter, most load manuals are pretty good showing which powders can get you where you need to be for velocity. As you work up the load you can dial almost any powder in from my experience.

I've been using IMR 4320 in the 30-06 with a 130 TTSX for antelope to elk. It's my son's rifle, the bullet flat gets the job done. They don't make 4320 anymore. In load development I worked up loads with IMR 4064 and Varget as well, part of the comparison process. I chose 4320, but they all shot well. When the 4320 is gone it's business as usual, just switch to a different powder.