Sierra Heavy TMK 6MM Testing

[Ajsomp]

Any news on the .25?

They mentioned they don’t have settled weight yet. They said they are sending them out to have people test them before they finalize

 

[Halligan]

I stopped by the booth as well and was pleasantly surprised to see them actively showing the ballistics gel results they've achieved with multiple TMK calibers/weights out to range. Additionally, when I asked about factory offerings of the TMK, they wouldn't say, but their non-verbal reactions told me "stay tuned".

Interestingly, seems their terminal performance design rational for the different lines are as follows (yardages change with cartridge but this is the gist)
TGK- 400-500 and In
TMK- 800-1000 and in
Matchking X- Way way wayyyyy out there

 

[jonnyviceroy]

I stopped by the booth as well and was pleasantly surprised to see them actively showing the ballistics gel results they've achieved with multiple calibers/weights out to range. Additionally, when I asked about factory offerings of the TMK, their non-verbal reaction told me "stay tuned"

Their response to people praising the tmk for hunting has been very interesting to note in comparison to Hornady if you mention hunting with the eldms. Makes me just want to reach for the green boxes even more.

 

[alexnelon]

I stopped by the booth as well and was pleasantly surprised to see them actively showing the ballistics gel results they've achieved with multiple calibers/weights out to range. Additionally, when I asked about factory offerings of the TMK, their non-verbal reaction told me "stay tuned"

Regarding factory loaded TMKs, I wonder if it will go similarly to how Cliff Gray thinks scope changes will go, where they change things behind the scenes without calling attention to it.

Sierra spent so long saying that match bullets aren’t for hunting, I’m interested to see how they handle the about-face without uproar from the traditionalist guys.

 

[Halligan]

Regarding factory loaded TMKs, I wonder if it will go similarly to how Cliff Gray thinks scope changes will go, where they change things behind the scenes without calling attention to it.

Sierra spent so long saying that match bullets aren’t for hunting, I’m interested to see how they handle the about-face without uproar from the traditionalist guys.

I don't think you're off the mark here, but I think Sierra is very aware of the rise of data-based consumer groups, who seek out information from places like here, making that about face much easier to do in a more public fashion. Simply, they can point the fud lords to the kill threads and say "look, a jury of your peers field tested it and it works".

This is in stark contrast to the scope companies who, if they make the changes necessary to reasonably hold zero, would have to admit they had been knowingly making a subpar product.

In short, Sierra is in the boat of "we didn't originally design it for this, but the evidence shows we should market it this way now" vs. say (Insert whatever scope brand) who would be in the "we told you our product was great and amazing and purged with unicorn farts, but we kinda sorta forgot to make things stay put, so we fixed it... after denying there was problem" boat.

 

[Ajsomp]

I stopped by the booth as well and was pleasantly surprised to see them actively showing the ballistics gel results they've achieved with multiple TMK calibers/weights out to range. Additionally, when I asked about factory offerings of the TMK, they wouldn't say, but their non-verbal reactions told me "stay tuned".

Interestingly, seems their terminal performance design rational for the different lines are as follows (yardages change with cartridge but this is the gist)
TGK- 400-500 and In
TMK- 800-1000 and in
Matchking X- Way way wayyyyy out there

I asked about a TMK in the 140 range and was told unlikely given the match king x. When I brought up expansion velocities for the bullets at lower velocity, he said matchking x hands down. So now that has me wondering what testing they are doing behind the scenes

 

[Gstew1930]

Regarding factory loaded TMKs, I wonder if it will go similarly to how Cliff Gray thinks scope changes will go, where they change things behind the scenes without calling attention to it.

Sierra spent so long saying that match bullets aren’t for hunting, I’m interested to see how they handle the about-face without uproar from the traditionalist guys.

I dont think they will due to legal reasons

 

[jonnyviceroy]

I asked about a TMK in the 140 range and was told unlikely given the match king x. When I expansion velocities for the bullets at lower velocity, he said matchking x hands down. So now that has me wondering what testing they are doing behind the scenes

When I talked to some of the guys at sheep show they brought up “down-loading” loads for ballistic tests and wouldn’t say a specific number of how low of velocity they were seeing expansion but he made sure to emphasize “very low” repeatedly

 

[nm.otter]

When I talked to some of the guys at sheep show they brought up “down-loading” loads for ballistic tests

...standard stuff, allows more repeatable science using indoor ranges.

 

[Kjc103]

I stopped by the booth as well and was pleasantly surprised to see them actively showing the ballistics gel results they've achieved with multiple TMK calibers/weights out to range. Additionally, when I asked about factory offerings of the TMK, they wouldn't say, but their non-verbal reactions told me "stay tuned".

Interestingly, seems their terminal performance design rational for the different lines are as follows (yardages change with cartridge but this is the gist)
TGK- 400-500 and In
TMK- 800-1000 and in
Matchking X- Way way wayyyyy

I would think the TMK would actually be the better option for those longer ranges. Better bc, the tip seems like it would allow it to expand at lower velocity as well.

I wish there was more out there on the MKX. The 142 has ballistically and accuracy wise, been awesome for me out past 1,000 yards.

No idea yet how it does terminally and it’s hard to find any reports on it.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

I would think the TMK would actually be the better option for those longer ranges. Better bc, the tip seems like it would allow it to expand at lower velocity as well.

I wish there was more out there on the MKX. The 142 has ballistically and accuracy wise, been awesome for me out past 1,000 yards.

No idea yet how it does terminally and it’s hard to find any reports on it.

I am super curious to see what a sectioned mkx would look like. Multiple people at Sierra acknowledged the TMKs capabilities and said they still think the mkx would outperform terminally. To what metric they may be referring to I’m not sure. Still makes me very curious but like you said I don’t know anyone who’s killed with one personally yet.

 

[Kjc103]

I don't think you're off the mark here, but I think Sierra is very aware of the rise of data-based consumer groups, who seek out information from places like here, making that about face much easier to do in a more public fashion. Simply, they can point the fud lords to the kill threads and say "look, a jury of your peers field tested it and it works".

This is in stark contrast to the scope companies who, if they make the changes necessary to reasonably hold zero, would have to admit they had been knowingly making a subpar product.

In short, Sierra is in the boat of "we didn't originally design it for this, but the evidence shows we should market it this way now" vs. say (Insert whatever scope brand) who would be in the "we told you our product was great and amazing and purged with unicorn farts, but we kinda sorta forgot to make things stay put, so we fixed it... after denying there was problem" boat.

Correct me if I’m wrong….but wasn’t what we now call the TMK…..originally what the Game King was? I’m under the impression the old Game Kings were just tipped matching…..aka TMK’s.

If so, it seems like they’re just going ba k to their roots from decades past.

 

[Kjc103]

I am super curious to see what a sectioned mkx would look like. Multiple people at Sierra acknowledged the TMKs capabilities and said they still think the mkx would outperform terminally. To what metric they may be referring to I’m not sure. Still makes me very curious but like you said I don’t know anyone who’s killed with one personally yet.

I almost did.

My 6.5 creedmoor barrel started going south a couple weeks before my hunt. I ended up using a .308 with 168 TMK. It was violent and effective as hell but would have been nice to see the 142 MKX in action.

 

[BCsteve]

Correct me if I’m wrong….but wasn’t what we now call the TMK…..originally what the Game King was? I’m under the impression the old Game Kings were just tipped matching…..aka TMK’s.

If so, it seems like they’re just going ba k to their roots from decades past.

The Gamekings are lead tip bullets and were never tipped until they came out with the Tipped Game king. Just like the Tipped Matchkings are, well....Matchkings with a tip.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

I almost did.

My 6.5 creedmoor barrel started going south a couple weeks before my hunt. I ended up using a .308 with 168 TMK. It was violent and effective as hell but would have been nice to see the 142 MKX in action.

One thing I was thinking about is that as far as I understand optimizing for bc can seem to have an inverse relationship on terminal performance and vice versa. Makes me wonder if they did compromise on the bc of the mkx in favor of a balance of terminal performance as the lower bc is the main complaint against the mkxs

 

[Kjc103]

One thing I was thinking about is that as far as I understand optimizing for bc can seem to have an inverse relationship on terminal performance and vice versa. Makes me wonder if they did compromise on the bc of the mkx in favor of a balance of terminal performance as the lower bc is the main complaint against the mkxs

I think you are correct.

In another thread, a guy was comparing the 107 MKX to the 107 matching.

They were the same profile, with the only difference being a larger opening at the tip, thus the lower bc.

Enter, heavy weight TMK’s which this thread is about. Presumably, the best of both worlds; bc and terminal performance.

 

[Fabel.52]

I am super curious to see what a sectioned mkx would look like. Multiple people at Sierra acknowledged the TMKs capabilities and said they still think the mkx would outperform terminally. To what metric they may be referring to I’m not sure. Still makes me very curious but like you said I don’t know anyone who’s killed with one personally yet.

I can’t find the video now but long range hunting group on youtube did some testing of the X and he said the neck was several inches long of the top of my head around 4 inches maybe compared to the tmk which expands almost immediately.