30/06 & 150 grain Barnes TTSX bullets

[bobcat]

I'm wondering if anyone has tried this combination? It seems that at over 3000 feet per second, and 90% weight retention, it would work well for anything from antelope to elk. Or, maybe even the 130 grain? Probably could push it to about 3200 fps? Recoil would be relatively low. Only downside I can think of is either one is probably not the best bullet for extreme long range, but out to about 450 yards I would think they'd do just fine.

[castnblast]

I've had decent success with the non tipped 150 gr TSX in 30/06 on two bucks...one whitetail and one muley. Shot a bear at 200 yd last year with same load while deer hunting.

Recovered one bullet from 380 yd shot on muley and had almost full weight retention.  Didn't expand as much as I expected. Probably due to the distance. Dunno. I've attached a pic for you.

I will say that these group a bit tighter than the 165 gr partitions I shot for years. Haven't shot an elk with these but several buddies have.

[Mossy]

Can't help with the grain but a buddy swears by that bullet. He shoots 168 in his 06 though

[Utah]

My Sako A7 loves them pushed by H4350 @ 3040fps.   Most accurate -06 load I've ever shot.   An Elk and 3 deer sure didn't like it.  I'd shoot them at game as far as your comfortable.  Expensive bullet to practice with longrange. Tack driver in my set up.

 

[Reidus]

I think with the ttsx's you can get away with a lighter bullet due to their expansion, penetration and weight retention. I wouldn't hesitate to use the 150's in an '06 for elk and get a little flatter trajectory out to 450. I shoot the 165's in my 300 wsm and I've shot deer from 40 yd to 400 yard. Not a lot of expansion at 400 but dead is dead.

[bearpaw]

I'm wondering if anyone has tried this combination? It seems that at over 3000 feet per second, and 90% weight retention, it would work well for anything from antelope to elk. Or, maybe even the 130 grain? Probably could push it to about 3200 fps? Recoil would be relatively low. Only downside I can think of is either one is probably not the best bullet for extreme long range, but out to about 450 yards I would think they'd do just fine.

I like shooting light for the caliber TTSX's. At close to medium ranges I think the 150 or 130 TTSX with the increased speed will be more deadly than heavier bullets. However, the smaller bullets run out of energy quicker at long range. I would not be afraid to use the 130 TTSX out to 400 yards and possibly 450 after seeing how they do at 300-400. At some point they are not going to be traveling fast enough for good expansion. With a 200 yard sight in the 130 TTSX will only be 6.1 inches low at 300 yds. That's pretty flat for an 06!

[RadSav]

I think at 450 the 150 grain from the 30-06 is really pushing it.  Especially if hunting small animals like antelope.  I've seen two animals taken with the 120 grain from a 7 Rem Mag at just over 450 and performance really wasn't all that great.  Penetration was still good, but shocking how long the recoveries were.  And that is at 7RM velocities!  I guess some guys like to blood trail when shooting the rifle.  Me...not so much.  I'd probably work darn hard to put it into the shoulder bones beyond 350.  Never as easily done as said though.

On the plus side I do think the TTSX gives a better blood trail to follow than about any other bullet I've seen.  Just IMO blood trails are for archery.  Guns are for lowering the hammer of Thor.

[Come Get Some]

Agreed RAD. I prefer heavier bullets especially for long range. Look at the effects that a small amount of extra tip weight makes in arrow flight at longer distances. Add speed in rifle bullets and kinetic energy at long ranges ..You also get less damage and better bullet retention. Although when shooting smaller game such as antelope you will rarely recover the bullet. Typically more stable flight. I shot an elk with my 06 years ago. 180 Gr sierra boat tail hand load. 612 yds. Dropped it in its tracks. Good rest, great conditions, But a definite hammer of Thor result and virtually no damage.

[Stein]

I use the 168s on everything and have zero complaints.  150 seems light, but that is just a feeling backed with no data.

[RadSav]

I use the 168s on everything and have zero complaints.  150 seems light, but that is just a feeling backed with no data.

Other than BC the weight issue sort of gets thrown out the window with Barnes.  Because it maintains so much of it's weight and expands in leafs the 150 usually out penetrates most 168 bonded bullets and most 180 grain cup and core bullets.  But monolithic bullets really need a good bit of muzzle velocity to perform on an even stage with regards to terminal performance.  This is why most suggest dropping down in weight when using Barnes at any distance at all.  And even then most cup and core designs will really increase terminal performance beyond 450 yards unless you are good enough to guarantee pounding the heavy shoulder bones.

I shoot 110 grain TTSX out of my .270WSM.  It is scary fast!  I would not hesitate to shoot an elk with that round.  It's spectacular at to 400 yards.  But when hunting deer in an area I think I may end up taking a 500 yard plus shot...I always carry a second round and extra chart to maximize those longer shots where the Barnes just fails to give what I consider ethical performance.  I do the same with my 7mm even though my 0-400 round is Accubond instead of Barnes.

I am also a big fan of the 308 WIN carrying it on the majority of my rifle hunting since the early 80's.  After watching the performance of the Barnes at those velocities I refuse to run any monolithic bullet in the 308WIN.  Not that much difference in velocity between it and the 30-06.  So on that I agree with Bearpaw if choosing the Barnes for that round - 130 or 150 grain would be my choice.