Heavy Timber Rifle

[DiabeticKripple]

130gr TTSX over 50.0gr of Varget has been stupid deadly in my wife's 308 out to 300yds on cow elk.

 

[wmdurway]

Thanks everyone for the help and replies! I’ll start with the Varget and Barnes I have in stock and report back on velocities. If I’m not getting what I want I’ll look at the 180 AB or PTs as an alternative. Thanks again everyone and I’ll report back soon.

 

[A382DWDZQ]

You are living in fantasy land if you think you are going to get substantial wound channels from those bullets at 1500fps

Maybe we just have different criteria for a woods gun, but I generally consider that to be < 150yds. A 20” barrel at minimum book load is still going to have that 200LRX going 1700 at 200yds.

 

[wind gypsy]

I wouldn't think you'd gain anything by going heavier than 150 in monos for your application and I'd probably do the 150 TTSX if you want to use barnes.

I'm with the guys saying load 165 partitions rather than barnes though. Should get you an upgrade in terminal performance.

Iff'n I shot a 308, id have a hard time not starting with 155 scenars too.

 

[wind gypsy]

Maybe we just have different criteria for a woods gun, but I generally consider that to be < 150yds. A 20” barrel at minimum book load is still going to have that 200LRX going 1700 at 200yds.

But what benefit are you going to get from a 200 LRX @ barely adequate to disrupt velocities vs 150 TTSX at 2700 FPS?

 

[deadwolf]

I wouldn't think you'd gain anything by going heavier than 150 in monos for your application and I'd probably do the 150 TTSX if you want to use barnes.

I'm with the guys saying load 165 partitions rather than barnes though. Should get you an upgrade in terminal performance.

Iff'n I shot a 308, id have a hard time not starting with 155 scenars too.

That’s if you can find the 155s!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wmdurway]

For the 165 Partitions, do yall see a noticeable difference between the Partitions and the Accubonds?

 

[Macintosh]

Like the other poster above, Barnes told me the 168gr ttsx expands at lower velocity than the 150gr ttsx. I believe the 168gr is supposed to be similar to their LRX bullets.

Fwiw Ive been using 2000fps as my minimum expansion velocity for barnes bullets, some folks even go to 2200. 2000fps is 10% above the minimum expansion velocity that Barnes told me for the 168gr ttsx (they told me 1800). This is bc the degree of expansion at barnes minimums isnt really expanded much past caliber-diameter, as well as barnes inability to give consistent straight answers to questions like this. Ive had good results using .308 caliber 168 gr ttsx from an 18” 3006, which isnt too far from the velocities you listed from your 308. Id go with the 130gr personally if I handloaded.

 

[TAArrowood]

I have used all the Barnes in 308 as well as the Accubonds and Partitions. They all shoot well in my 308 caliber rifles, but I settles on the Barnes for a couple important ( to me) reasons. 1) never recovered a bullet from deer or elk. Always full passthroughs with super fast kills and great blood trails if the didn’t fall where shot ( most have). 2) I got tired of picking lead that had sheared of lead core bullets from the meat. Barnes, from my experience, doesn’t bloodshot meat like lead core bullets have.

 

[A382DWDZQ]

But what benefit are you going to get from a 200 LRX @ barely adequate to disrupt velocities vs 150 TTSX at 2700 FPS?

You may be right. Here is how I run through the calculations so that it’s a more balanced comparison of as many variables plugged in as possible.

With the 200LRX, Barnes load data average of minimum loads is 2,153 fps. I error on the low side because a gun might like the slower powder best, so I think starting at 2,100fps is fair. Book data is for a 24” barrel for that. Assuming a woods gun is going to be a 20”, so dropping 100fps. JBM trajectory calculator shows 1,732fps at 200yds. That is 15% higher than the minimum impact velocity on the 200LRX (1500fps). Expansion at minimum impact is supposed to be 1.7x, so 0.523 (1.7x.308) at 1500fps. 2x expansion needs 100-200fps so 1732 gets easily expanded to at least 2x (0.616). Energy at 200yds is 1,332.

With the 150TTSX, book minimum averages to 2,686, so say 2,650 (as a percentage it would be lower, 2618). Minus 100fps for 20” barrel, 2,550. That shows 2,151fps at 200yds. That is 7.5% higher than the minimum impact velocity on the 150TTSX (2000fps). Energy at 200yds is 1540.

Still some unknowns, but I think that this the frames the comparison a bit better. My personal preference is the 168 TTSX, same minimum impact as the 180 and 200, but going faster. I know sometimes people like to go heavier though, so just wanted to put it out there as an option.

 

[wmdurway]

Good evening everyone,

I finally had a chance to hit the range and wanted to follow up with my findings.

My rifle didn’t seem to like the 168 TTSX’s so I’ll stick with the 150 TTSX’s, particularly my best three batches (five in total). All batches are four shot groups at 200 yards. Bullets are seated .050” off the lands using Norma Brass and R9-1/2 LR primers.

Batch 9.1
44.0 gr Varget
Avg Vel - 2695 fps
4 Shot Group - 1.50”

Batch 9.3
45.0 gr Varget
Avg Vel - 2748 fps
4 Shot Group - 2.50”

Batch 9.5
46.0 gr Varget
Avg Vel - 2835 fps
4 Shot Group - 2.50”

Batch 9.1 is clearly the tightest, however being an all copper bullet, I really like the extra speed I’m picking up with Batch 9.5 (+140 fps). Looking at ballistics calculator, Batch 9.5 will give me the extra umph from the .308 Win to be a 300 yard rifle for a just in case scenario.

What are y’all’s thoughts? All being minute of elk, do you prefer the tighter group or more velocity? Any ideas for tweaking my next set of hand loads?

Thanks again for the feedback.

 

[Andouille]

If you really want velocity, then try 0.5-1 grain below your highest charge with pressure signs (i.e, a safe load), and load 5or so at book COAL (lots of jump) and near max COAL (minimal jump) for your gun. Test both and see if more or less jump shoots a smaller group. It's commonly said that TTSX like lots of jump in most guns.

My 18" 30-06 likes 150CX and gets around 2920fps. Plenty of speed for full expansion out to 400yds or so. Good balance of bullet weight, balistic coefficient (drop/drift), and speed.

 

[wmdurway]

Thanks for the info. The two areas I was going to start with are powder and seating depth. I was thinking about starting with .25gr increments to see if I can iron out a node, but maybe it’s better to start with seating depth keeping everything else equal.

That’s a hell of a set up in the .30-06 with the 18” barrel! Sounds like a great rifle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dougfir]

Good evening everyone,

I finally had a chance to hit the range and wanted to follow up with my findings.

My rifle didn’t seem to like the 168 TTSX’s so I’ll stick with the 150 TTSX’s, particularly my best three batches (five in total). All batches are four shot groups at 200 yards. Bullets are seated .050” off the lands using Norma Brass and R9-1/2 LR primers.

Batch 9.1
44.0 gr Varget
Avg Vel - 2695 fps
4 Shot Group - 1.50”

Batch 9.3
45.0 gr Varget
Avg Vel - 2748 fps
4 Shot Group - 2.50”

Batch 9.5
46.0 gr Varget
Avg Vel - 2835 fps
4 Shot Group - 2.50”

Batch 9.1 is clearly the tightest, however being an all copper bullet, I really like the extra speed I’m picking up with Batch 9.5 (+140 fps). Looking at ballistics calculator, Batch 9.5 will give me the extra umph from the .308 Win to be a 300 yard rifle for a just in case scenario.

What are y’all’s thoughts? All being minute of elk, do you prefer the tighter group or more velocity? Any ideas for tweaking my next set of hand loads?

Thanks again for the feedback.

Your logic makes sense to me. They're all plenty accurate for what you're wanting to do and they're all going to expand and kill beautifully at in-the-timber ranges. No doubt you're overthinking this, but since overthinking things is one of the proudest traditions among handloaders, I'd say go with the fast load. It'll be plenty versatile if you chase one out of the woods and want to shoot him from 300 yards out. Have fun!

Also, my experience loading monos is that if you start playing with seating depth, you'll often find a dramatic improvement at some point. I almost always end up more than .050 off the lands. Is the batch 9.5 load giving you any pressure signs? If not, maybe try seating that bullet a little deeper...

 

[Wolfshead]

I would also try and see what they do at 300 yds.
I agree with using the 9.5 group and playing with seating depth.
I think you may be able to get them a bit tighter.

 

[wmdurway]

@Wolfshead and @Dougfir thanks for the info. I happened to go to the range last Friday with a couple of loads right around the 9.5 batch. I played around with 0.2 grain increments and ended with good numbers at 46.4 grains of Varget.

Batch 9.5 for Reference
46.0 gr Varget
Avg Vel - 2835 fps
4 Shot Group - 2.50” @ 200 yards
ES - 13.6 fps
SD - 5.16 fps

Batch 9.9
46.4 gr Varget
Avg Vel - 2848 fps
4 Shot Group - 1.25" @ 100 yards
ES - 14.1 fps
SD - 5.5 fps

As you can see, a little bit more speed with nearly identical metrics.

Regarding seating depth - What do you recommend?

Everything I load with Barnes is at 0.050" off the lands. Do you adjust in +/-0.005 - 0.010" increments in both directions? All other factors constant of course.

Example:
Inches off the lands
0.060
0.055
0.050
0.045
0.040

Too tight / loose?

 

[Diamondback]

From off the Barnes website on what they recommend.

All copper bullets want a BIG JUMP! This is the point where your load development should begin. You can then later test different seating depths and find a “sweet spot” that your particular firearm prefers. We suggest working in at least .025” increments as follows seating the bullet deeper to allow a further jump. Your test plan could look something like this:

• 1st group- .050” jump
• 2nd group- .075” jump
• 3rd group- .100” jump
• 4th group- .125” jump
• 5th group- .150“ jump

 

[wmdurway]

Thanks for the info @Diamondback

I probably should've started with the Barnes website lol

 

[Dougfir]

From off the Barnes website on what they recommend.

All copper bullets want a BIG JUMP! This is the point where your load development should begin. You can then later test different seating depths and find a “sweet spot” that your particular firearm prefers. We suggest working in at least .025” increments as follows seating the bullet deeper to allow a further jump. Your test plan could look something like this:

• 1st group- .050” jump
• 2nd group- .075” jump
• 3rd group- .100” jump
• 4th group- .125” jump
• 5th group- .150“ jump

As recommended, I've generally adjusted in .025" increments. I won't be at all surprised if the OP finds that seating the bullet .025 deeper tightens those groups, though it doesn't always work.

 

[wmdurway]

Thanks for the input everyone.

One last question on seating depth. Seating the bullet in further will ultimately increase the pressure, as there is less cartridge capacity.

Since I’m already at near max, any chance I will run into pressure signs with the new seating depth?