145 LRX vs 150 TTSX in 280 AI

[Nhenry]

Barnes claims their 139 .284 LRX is their best bullet. I'd personally go with that.

Aside from the options listed, I've had great results with the 120 TTSX in my various 280 AIs. 3400 fps with H100V or IMR 4350 and less than 20" low at 400 yards with ample velocity and adequate energy for even elk. Monos going fast, man.

 

[Art Fern]

I got a Kimber Hunter this year in 280Ackley. Worked up loads for it shooting 150TTSX and 55.5gr of IMR4350. Getting a MV of right at 3000fps.

Shot my first antelope this year with that load, 345yd frontal (slightly quartering) shot and that bullet exited just in front of the back hip. Have shot a few whitetails with it as well and also had great results, as I’ve always seen from any Barnes load. TBH unless you’re shooting very far I don’t think you’ll see any difference between the 145LRX and the 150TTSX. At 500 my TTSX should still be going over 2,000fps which is plenty to expand, though to be honest I would’ve probably went with the LRX if they hadn’t been sold out everywhere at the time.

I stocked up on the TTSX for the same reason. I’m starting to see LRX more often now.

Thanks for the load data. That’s a god starting point for me. Good to see that velocity.

 

[Art Fern]

Take a look at this

This has proven to be a deadly combination for North American big game. Your 280 can launch it faster!

Nice group! I didn’t realize until a few months ago how much more accurate hand loads can be over factory ammo. I’m excited to start hand loading.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Are you getting 3130 fps with a 280 AI?

Yes in a 24" barrel running at max pressure, it just happened to be where a really accurate node was, I wouldn't chase that velocity specifically cause doesn't take too much more pressure to go through primer pockets quickly if you get a slightly faster batch of powder.

At 500 my TTSX should still be going over 2,000fps which is plenty to expand

Just my person option but I would say marginal rather than plenty with TTSX.

 

[35WhelenAI]

My experience with the heavier weights of Barnes in any caliber is they just aren't needed. My data points are a 130 TTSX from an '06 taking elk cleanly and quickly the same as the 180 XBT from 25 years ago taking elk from a 300 Win Mag. As well, the .270 Win with a 110 TTSX vs the 130X or the 35 Whelen with the 200X/TTSX doing the same job from any angle as the 225X/TSX or the 250X.

Get yourself around 3000 fps mv or more and whatever Barnes bullet weight(s) do that is your huckleberry out to the 400 +/- yard range you mention in the opening post with extra margin of velocity for expansion.

Question... I hear a lot mentioned with respect to Barnes minimum expansion velocity peeling back the tips a little bit. Anyone recovered a bullet from a dead animal where that was the case?

 

[Fotis]

Nice group! I didn’t realize until a few months ago how much more accurate hand loads can be over factory ammo. I’m excited to start hand loading.

Thank you. Yes you can control a whole plethora of variables with handloading.

 

[williaada]

I am running 150gr TTSX out of a .280ai with H4831sc at 2875. I have taken both deer and elk out 450yrds no problem. I could not get the LRX when I started loading now seeing them in different spots.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Question... I hear a lot mentioned with respect to Barnes minimum expansion velocity peeling back the tips a little bit. Anyone recovered a bullet from a dead animal where that was the case?

Yes, I searched them out years ago when I was making personal decisions on velocities but more recently in a thread on here someone posted a recovered bullet that had just peeled back a little bit and was inline with what I had previously seen in recovered/captured bullets. Conservatively speaking the TTSX bullets peel back much better at 2200fps imho and I personally have zero interest in hitting an animal with the minimums unless its a follow up shot on a wounded animal.

 

[180ls1]

Why isn't the 160CX a consideration?

 

[35WhelenAI]

I don't see why the 160 CX couldn't be a consideration, in the sense that it would match the criteria for a mono. It has a very good ballistic coefficient however, the long legged 160 CX is going to take up some powder space based on my experience with the 160 gr Barnes X in the standard .280 Remington. I suspect the 160 CX is could be even more of a powder intruder.

The rifle (factory Kimber) probably has a standard 280 AI chamber and magazine space is going to be "limited" with respect to OAL falling in standard length range.

There's no need to run a 160 gr mono in a cartridge based on a standard case shooting a .284 bullet IMO and IME. More velocity can be had with the 139 CX and the 150 CX. That will likely more than offset the ballistic coefficient, but I haven't run the numbers.

 

[180ls1]

I don't see why the 160 CX couldn't be a consideration, in the sense that it would match the criteria for a mono. It has a very good ballistic coefficient however, the long legged 160 CX is going to take up some powder space based on my experience with the 160 gr Barnes X in the standard .280 Remington. I suspect the 160 CX is could be even more of a powder intruder.

The rifle (factory Kimber) probably has a standard 280 AI chamber and magazine space is going to be "limited" with respect to OAL falling in standard length range.

There's no need to run a 160 gr mono in a cartridge based on a standard case shooting a .284 bullet IMO and IME. More velocity can be had with the 139 CX and the 150 CX. That will likely more than offset the ballistic coefficient, but I haven't run the numbers.

Got it. Yeah, probably better for the 7prc but I did see the 175lrx thrown in the mix. However, it is interesting to see the lack of love for the CX. Having the 4dof data makes things nice but I am guessing there is dislike carrying over from the GMX.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Got it. Yeah, probably better for the 7prc but I did see the 175lrx thrown in the mix. However, it is interesting to see the lack of love for the CX. Having the 4dof data makes things nice but I am guessing there is dislike carrying over from the GMX.

175 was mentioned (for the record the larger 7mm LRX is actually a 168, the 175 is a 30cal in LRX) but that was it. Those of us loading for it were advocating for the 139 or 145LRX. If you are partial to hornday then look towards the 139CX most likely, maybe play with the numbers on the 150CX. For barnes I don't personally think the 150TTSX makes sense with the similar weight LRX offerings: 139LRX or 145LRX. Impact velocity is the key player in monos so unless you have a caliber that can start those heavies off fast still they often don't pencil out well when you are keeping performance on game in mind.

 

[VernAK]

Left bullet is from 270W LRX 129gr from a large bull caribou quartering on at 80 yards. Hit front shoulder and found shank in opposite rear quarter. DRT.

Second bullet is also from my 270 Kimber MA and it's the 130TTSX from a whitetail buck at 350 yards. He was shot in the end of the nose exiting lower jaw and reentering high in the neck and traveling down to take the top off the heart. DRT

 

[35WhelenAI]

Those first two are the epitome of what to expect at close range with the LRX and extended range with the TTSX. LRX has a lower velocity expansion threshold, as has been discussed and I have read enough times of petals coming off at short range/high velocity.

I'm curious, what is the MV of that 129 LRX in your picture and the 130 TTSX? I'd like to extrapolate the numbers based on yardage, would be a really good indicator for a lot of us "users" as legit expansion characteristics in the real world.

 

[VernAK]

Both around 3150 MV......

The bullet on the far right is a TSX 250gr .366 out of a 9.3x62 double lung on a very large, wounded bull moose at 380 yards.

 

[Kurts86]

I’ve shot a lot of animals with TTSX and LRX bullets and I don’t see any reason to not pick the LRX for its lower opening velocity.

The LRX is a generational step forward over the TTSX and the LRX is the best commonly available mono on the market.

I would pick the 139 gr LRX over the 145 gr LRX because it does better with 1-9 twist barrels. The 145 LRX is finnicky in my experience unless you have a faster barrel and speed is always your friend with mono’s.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

LRX has a lower velocity expansion threshold, as has been discussed and I have read enough times of petals coming off at short range/high velocity.

I’ve shot things close range >3000fps impact with the 145lrx, no idea if pedals came off because I have never recovered one. But things die as expected even if pedals were lost so I have no concerns.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Copper user for almost 25 years.

First off, always check your twist rate vs the bullets of choice and go from there. Second, lighter and faster is always a good answer with monos.

I killed a LOT of stuff with Barnes and the 139 LRX would be my choice. My two buddies that have 280AI like RL16 as powder of choice. H4350 if you can’t find Alliant.

I personally like Hammer bullets better than Barnes. I’ve found them easier to load. Terminal performance has been outstanding. During the reloading shortage when Barnes were hard to get I was buying Hammers and they would arrive at my door in days.

Not saying Barnes is a bad choice.

Treat monos like a broadhead and try to put them in the heart/vasculature bundle/low lungs. High lung shots may leave you disappointed. We’ve killed everything from pronghorn to elk with .243 to 338-06. The .243 on elk was deadly.

 

[35WhelenAI]

The praise, and the tarnish on the LRX is they carry velocity better, they expand better at long range, however they are finicky because of their length and will lose petals (no issue, IMO) on high velocity impacts. TTSX, for what it's worth, isn't finicky across any number of calibers in my experience and it's rare to lose a petal.

I agree, if you don't recover one, you can't see if the petals come off.

With visual evidence presented above, and stories I've heard of other folks that recovered them, it's theme on the LRX vs TTSX.

As an example, If the LRX has a 300 FPS lower expansion threshold, to my mind at close range, it would take 300 FPS less than the TTSX to lose petals.

The LRX name itself implies it is optimized for that long range. To lose petals at short range would be an expected occurrence.

Hammers are good bullets from all counts. I have some .358 200 grain Hunters loaded for the 35 Whelen AI and look forward to seeing their comparison in velocity and accuracy to the Holy Grail of elk bullets, the .358 200 TTSX.

 

[Jason Snyder]

It’s ironic the concern with Barnes is if they lose their petals, when the Hammers are designed to.

Edit: with the Hammers we’ve killed a pretty good pile of critters with a 6.5 CM, .280 Rem and .300 Winny. Elk, deer and bears.