708 120 barnes ttsx

[b0nes]

Anyone ever tried this bullet in this caliber? Thinking of buying some of these for my deer/ back my dad up on elk round. My dad loads some 139 sst with a stout load of imr 4350 but in a 7 pound fully loaded rifle it tends to beat the crap out of your nose. Thanks in advance.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

I run the 145lrx out of mine with good results (shoot it from my 280ai too). your nose shouldn't be beaten up with good form, shoulder can get sore on guns with poor recoil pads but a slip on one softens up range time if that is the case.

 

[b0nes]

Well there's a couple things that are working against me, it's a youth stock so my ol lady can use it also. I also have a lower end vortex on it with fairly short eye relief. The scope thing I will address next year but I'm also looking for a little lighter recoilling round. I figure the 120 barnes should penetrate as well as any 140 also.

 

[JWP58]

Maybe trying a slip on recoil pad would help as they usually add length of pull.

 

[N2TRKYS]

Do you gain much in recoil reduction with the Barnes, due to the fact that you have to run them fast?

 

[GKPrice]

Maybe trying a slip on recoil pad would help as they usually add length of pull.

I agree - Limbsaver makes a very nice slip on pad that will give you an 1" or so plus a nice soft landing for your shoulder/nose

 

[GKPrice]

Do you gain much in recoil reduction with the Barnes, due to the fact that you have to run them fast?

you're probably right - seems like that would be close to a wash to me but then 20 grains of Newton's law is 20 grains and loads for that would most likely be pretty fast powder

 

[b0nes]

Out of a 16 inch barrel my dad's load shoots a 139 right at 2850, if I went down to a 120 and ran them the same speed just by the math it would be around a 15 to 20 percent recoil reduction without sacrificing penetration. I would lose about the same percentage of energy but this rifle is so light that it's only a 350 yard gun. I would imagine my kinetic energy would be well over the 1000 ft lb required for deer at that range. I'm mostly interested in on game performance from anyone that has used this bullet. With this load it doesn't drop below the minimum opening velocity or 1000 ft lb until 600 yards +-. But math and personal on game experience are often 2 very different things. Maybe I will just load them and and give a review this fall on performance.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Nope haven't run that one, I have the LRX and it performs well. I expect any of the TTSX to perform similar. Generally you are talking 12ftlb vs 14ftlb of recoil energy if you download the 120 to the same 2850fps in a 7lb gun, not enough to matter either way in my head. The 120s should work fine if that is what you want to use. I just shoot the 145s since I run the same load for pronghorn thru elk, I just adjust distance I'll use them accordingly to keep the ftlbs of impact higher for elk. Also my own personal view on looking over expansion photos for the barnes tipped bullets is I'd like to have them hit at 2100-2200fps+, lower than that and I don't like what I saw in terms of expansion.

 

[b0nes]

This is exactly the type of barnes info I was looking for, at 400 yards it drops below your velocity requirement. Maybe I will just pack my 270 wsm this year and suffer the weight on the pack.

 

[sneaky]

I've killed plenty of deer with the 120 TTSX bullets out of my 7-08. Sledgehammered every one of them. For a backup shot on an elk, I wouldn't hesitate to use them. As an initial shot on an elk? I would do the 140 TSX or TTSX over the 120. The 120 recoil is so light it's worth it.