New Barnes TSX Bullet?

[Trapper7]

I read in my latest American Rifleman that Barnes has now developed a new bullet that has a tungsten core. Has anybody tried them yet? Was there any particular reason they developed this bullet? What calibers are they available in?

[Varmint Hunter]

Barnes added a pointed plastic tip to their X style bullets to increase BC and to aid in bullet expansion at low velocity. What they found out was that the new bullets were too long to stabilize in standard twist barrels. The addition of the tungston core allowed the bullet to be made shorter while maintaining the original weight, thus, allowing the bullet to stabilize in standard twist barrels.

I see VERY LITTLE advantage to these new Barnes bullets and can not justify their excessive cost.

However, I expect there to be a niche market that these new bullets may just fill.

[Rocky Raab]

I agree completely.

Barnes (like any other company) isn't really in the bullet business - they're in the customer sales business.

If enough customers want something - no matter how silly that something is - a company will make it.

Another example within the Barnes line is boattail bullets. Randy knows that boattails are useless, knows that nobody really needs them on a game bullet, and knew that they'd be more difficualt and more expensive to make than flat base bullets. But customers whined and begged for boattail bullets - and Randy shrugged and made them.

The latest fad is extra long, extra heavy bullets in very fast twist barrels for very long range shooting. Never mind that 99% of all game is taken at 100 yards or less (and has been since bows and arrows were king). Customers whined and pleaded for a "long range" version of Barnes bullets. Okay.

Now, to complete this picture, the opposite effect also rules. No matter how good, how useful, how practical a product is; if not enough people buy it, it will be discontinued. The latest example? Winchester Model 70 and 94 rifles.

[Trapper7]

Are you saying that this new Barnes bullet will have better accuracy at longer range than the standard TSX because it's a shorter bullet that will stabalize better?

[Rocky Raab]

Kinda, sorta.

Barnes says that long range shooters wanted a plastic tip on the X bullet for a better ballistic coefficient. But that plastic tip on an all-copper bullet made the thing extremely long, requiring a very fast rifling twist to stabilize it. To keep the same weight but shorten the bullet, they added a very heavy tungsten core and renamed the thing the MRX (Maximum Range X).

They are in fact calling it a hunting bullet.

[Skyline]

This whole thing is catering to fads...........and currently if you do not have a plastic tip on your bullets, well they just ain't pretty enough.

The regular Barnes X type bullets are long for caliber and weight anyways due to the homogenous copper alloy they are made of....longer than conventional bullets with lead cores. The plastic tip just would make an already long bullet....longer.

The price of the newest offering, the MRX, and the packaging in 20's will ensure that I never buy any. The Regular TSX are excellent bullets and shoot well in my rifles, plus they are not as finicky as the old X bullets which just wouldn't shoot in some rifles.

Much of the hype about various designs of hunting bullet is just that.....hype...........it has everyone believing they need exceptionally high BC's, boattails, etc when the average guy still shoots his deer at a 100 yards and rarely takes (or maybe I should say isn't capable of making) a 300 yard shot. The old flat base spire point design is all that is needed for all but the ultra long range stuff and even some of those guys are finding that the flat base bullets prove to be more consistantly accurate.

But hey, if you feel you have to have pretty bullets with colored plastic tips and a boattail design go for it. Who am I to stop you. :D

[Rocky Raab]

Skyline, that's just exactly what Randy and Conni Brooks tell me - in private: "If they'll buy 'em and pay the premium to get 'em, then we'll make 'em."

I've said it over and over again (usually to great flame replies): Unless you shoot a cannon magnum, you don't need premium bullets. Hunt until you're close, then hit it with a standard core and jacket bullet. It will die.

[L. Cooper]

Yes, Rocky, but it is that "hunt until you are close" that fuels much of the "gimmicky" approach many people have to hunting. I think it is complete lack of confidence in their hunting ability that is at the core of it all.

Since so many are so unsure of themselves once they are off the pavement, they are willing to pay anything to buy tiny, theoretical advantages that will help make them "better hunters".

Of course stuff will never make them better hunters, so more stuff can be sold to the same people for the same reasons. What many gadget hounds lack in terms of getting quality in their hunting is the experience of real hunting that gets you close. How many times have you seen someone who has all the bells and whistles Cabella's has to offer, but who was incapable of any real hunting?

A life of quality comes from the experiences you have, not from the material things you own, no matter how fine they may be. Fine things are nice. I like fine things. But to begin to think that owning a specific fine thing will bring quality into your life is to head down a long, frustrating, and in the end, unhappy path.

[Trapper7]

I've been shooting the TSX the past two years and have been pretty happy with them. Before that I was using the XLC and found them to be somewhat erratic at times.

Where I hunt elk, most of our shots have been between 150- 250 yards, so accuracy is a concern.

[Skyline]

Trapper 7..........I also have good luck and accuracy with the TSX and accuracy is always a concern. But, there are a lot of people obsessing about things that make little or no practical difference with hunting rifles, and even less so under field conditions.

Most of the so called accuracy benefits are theoretical when you take into consideration what people are shooting and what they are capable of.

L. Cooper got it right in that gadgets and ultra low drag bullets do not make the hunter, especially since there are very few guys out there that are actually capable of shooting accurately at 300 yards or beyond.

I have guided a lot of hunters over the years and they have gotten worse as years progress with wanting to carry tons of useless junk, carry rifles they barely know how to shoot and certainly do not understand trajectory, bullet selection and performance. They carry way to much ammo, too many useless knives and rarely bring warm enough clothing or appropriate clothing for that matter.

Pretty plastic tip bullets with big BC's shot from ultra mags with variables topping out at 14 or even 20X are just a symptom of the insidious disease that is sweeping through the hunting community.

Yes there are a few guys out there that know what they are doing and can actually pull off the ultra long shots on big game......way out there at 600 or 700 yards. Leaving the pros and cons out of this ( whether ethically this is a good idea), there are simply too many hunters out there who couldn't hunt their way out of a paper bag and instead rely on buying things that the media hype has convinced them will make them better hunters and allow them to shoot at ungodly distances.

Sadly, on the net and these forums new hunters would quickly get the idea that everyone out there own rifles that routinely turn in groups of half an inch and you ain't worth your salt if you can't dust a bull elk at 600 paces. Why don't I see these guys.................they routinely miss moose, caribou, elk, bears, you name it................and at 100 yards or less, sometimes as close as 25 yards. But they all have the latest gear and gadgets.