LRX

[Forest]

Can anyone confirm the difference between the barnes ttsx and the lrx?? I just watched a video that they will perform identical but the lrx has a much better bc and therefore shoots flatter. So my question is if they perform exactly the same, but the lrx will shoot better, why do they even still make the ttsx?? Why would a guy not just go straight to the lrx??

 

[TauPhi111]

The LRX line of bullets have lengthened ogives and boat tails compared to the TTSX line of bullets that gives them their higher BC. Barnes states that they have also designed them to expand down to 1600 fps, although I have never seen that proven from on game photos (its hard to catch a Barnes bullet with an animal). The lengthening of the bullet requires faster twist rates that may not be common in many rifles, but people who shoot long range often choose a barrel with a faster twist rate knowing that they want to shoot long, high BC bullets. For example, their 7mm 168 gr LRX requires a 8 twist, but it is pretty common to find 9 or 9.5 twists on most 7mm rifles. So they really are a purpose built bullet. The TTSX line is designed to stabilize with most standard rifle twist rates

 

[Burnt Reynolds]

I've often wondered if I would ever bother with ttsx's in my 10 twist 270. The LRX's shoot great out of that rifle (Baco featherweight). Had it out to 550 on steel and have zero complaints. Doubt I'll ever try anything else.

 

[Forest]

Twist rate issue makes sense, didnt realize it would be that different. Ive read in places that it expands at slower speeds than the ttsx. But have also read its identical. So apparently the jury is still out on that one...

Sent from my SM-G920R7 using Tapatalk

 

[.270]

I agree with BR, my .270 1-10 loves the 129 lrx with H4831. I have read the same thing about the lrx expanding at lower speeds then the ttsx but I haven't seen anything from barnes to back it up.

 

[TauPhi111]

Rarely ever do you see a 270 with anything other than a 10 twist so I'd be willing to bet they designed it for that. Also why there are no heavy 270 LRX bullets. They seemed to have designed some other LRX bullets for slower twist rifles, i.e. the 7mm 139 gr, 338 250 gr, etc.

 

[Forest]

I agree with BR, my .270 1-10 loves the 129 lrx with H4831. I have read the same thing about the lrx expanding at lower speeds then the ttsx but I haven't seen anything from barnes to back it up.

Just curious, what kind of speed are you getting with that setup?? Barrel length?

 

[.270]

I am getting 3175 with 62 grains of H4831 with a 24" proof barrel.

 

[gbflyer]

The 175 shoots nice in my 300 H&H. 2990 with Reloder 22. Never tested on its intended medium so no opinion on performance.

 

[Tahr]

I'm shooting the 129 LRX at 3250fps out of my 10 twist 270wsm (22" barrel, and suppressed). Have shot a few deer with them out to 450 yards and they have worked well. Their performance and wounding indicate that they are a bit softer than the TTSX.

Here's the exit from an angled shoulder shot at 458 yards. Penetration certainly isn't a problem with them.

 

[Tahr]

Here's the entry wound (the deer in the above pic).

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Not just twist rate but also COAL and mag/throat restrictions needing the shorter bullet in some guns.

 

[TauPhi111]

Not just twist rate but also COAL and mag/throat restrictions needing the shorter bullet in some guns.

Ah yes I forgot about that as well. That's why they make the 165 and the 168 30 cal versions of the TSX and TTSX. The 168 are actually for the 308 and 30-06 while the 165 is for the 300 WM and WSM that often require a shorter ogive in many guns

 

[Forest]

Ah yes I forgot about that as well. That's why they make the 165 and the 168 30 cal versions of the TSX and TTSX. The 168 are actually for the 308 and 30-06 while the 165 is for the 300 WM and WSM that often require a shorter ogive in many guns

Interesting I never thought of that making a difference!

 

[TauPhi111]

Interesting I never thought of that making a difference!

Yes. Last I spoke with Barnes, they told me the 168 was also supposed to expand at a lower velocity as well since it was designed for a less powerful cartridge. I believe they said 1500 for the 168 and 1800 for the 165. I shoot the 168 in my 06, and i intend one day to test their claim by loading that bullet in my 300 Blackout and shooting it into some water jugs at about that speed. That said, if you want to shoot a 165ish bullet out of your 30 cal and your mag can take the ogive length, shoot the 168.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Do a search on the net for the expansion and those lower velocities, I am not that comfortable with them, I've always tried to hit with 2100+ (I shoot the 145LRX) and haven't ever had a bullet to recover but its served me well for over a couple dozen critters.

 

[Forest]

Do a search on the net for the expansion and those lower velocities, I am not that comfortable with them, I've always tried to hit with 2100+ (I shoot the 145LRX) and haven't ever had a bullet to recover but its served me well for over a couple dozen critters.

Yeah thats my main concern with any of the copper bullets. And also why the lrx seems like a much better option if it matches the gun...

Sent from my SM-G920R7 using Tapatalk

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Push'm fast (don't run too heavy for caliber) and limit distance to resonable impact velocity, if your velocity is low chances are your energy is low too in all but the larger calibers so sorta a mute point if you put merit in keeping energy up.

 

[Oncorhynchus.nerka]

Have any of you had any issues with stabilization for the LRX bullets? I shoot a 270 with a standard twist (1:10). I ran the numbers through Bergers Stability Calculator and it suggested a marginally stable bullet at sea level. As I hunt along the Oregon coast at low elevation, the fear of a unstable bullet has kept me from switching... But on paper they look great!