Copper bullet surprise

[beagleye]

I have been worried about switching to copper bullets. I shot just my second deer with them yesterday. It performed better than I hoped.

I used 51 grains of Varget under a 150 grain federal HP copper bullet in a 30-06. The book says 2500FPS, so a pretty mild load. Which checks out with mild recoil. The shot was 100 yards, so slowed down yet more. The shot was front quartering. So this seems like a scenario for bad expansion, no blood trail, I'll admit I was worried.

But the buck ran 100 yards. The front organs were like stew. The bullet stopped under the hide on the rear hip. The near shoulder had a hole bigger than a golf ball. That's reassuring.

 

[elpac3]

Made the switch to Barnes TTSX on my .270. The copper bullets tend not to shed weight as they penetrate and open up like a high speed drill

 

[rockquarry]

I've never tried them for deer hunting, but I've had very good results with the Barnes TSX and TTSX bullets on elk. I've used them in a .270, a 7x61 S&H, and a .308. I've recovered only three bullets; recovered weight has approached 100%, with one being exactly 100%. Four petals open and peel back perfectly, looking like an advertising photo. I'm sold on the Barnes for game use; very accurate and easy load development.

In my experience, the Barnes copper bullets work identically to a Nosler Partition as far as terminal performance. Very little in the way of bloodshot meat, but deep penetration. However, I've found that about half the rifles I've tried Partitions in don't shoot them as accurately as I like. I haven't had that problem with Barnes.

 

[elpac3]

Had the same issue with the Nosler partitions. Did not shoot as accurately as the ballistic tips - accubonds or the Barnes TTSX.

Worked up a nice load for the .270 and the TTSX with reloader 16. Got a little extra speed with sub MOA results.

 

[twodog max]

Two things turn me against the all copper. First the cost and secondly from years ago the copper fouling. I have shot them in several different rifles and never found that they matched the accuracy of ordinary lead core bullets. Admittedly I have not tried them in a long time and am unlikely to as I have enough lead core bullets on hand to long outlast my need for any more bullets.

 

[Rpg]

I tried the Barns copper bullets years ago and didn't like them.

For my purposes, the problem with Barns copper bullets was that since copper is not as dense as a traditional bullet using lead (they are longer than lead) you may not be able to load them.

Copper bullets take more space in the case than lead bullets. This means the hand loader may be faced with the temptation to compress the powder under the copper bullet to get them to come in at recommended OAL. I don't recommend this practice, since it's rare that reloading manuals provide info on compressed loads.

 

[rockquarry]

Two things turn me against the all copper. First the cost and secondly from years ago the copper fouling. I have shot them in several different rifles and never found that they matched the accuracy of ordinary lead core bullets. Admittedly I have not tried them in a long time and am unlikely to as I have enough lead core bullets on hand to long outlast my need for any more bullets.

I've used many of the Barnes, mostly for load development and group shooting over many years in a variety of rifles. They copper foul a bore no more than conventional jacketed bullets. Yes, they cost more than many other bullets, but for some, the accuracy and performance are worth an extra dime a bullet.

 

[rockquarry]

I tried the Barns copper bullets years ago and didn't like them.

For my purposes, the problem with Barns copper bullets was that since copper is not as dense as a traditional bullet using lead (they are longer than lead) you may not be able to load them.

Copper bullets take more space in the case than lead bullets. This means the hand loader may be faced with the temptation to compress the powder under the copper bullet to get them to come in at recommended OAL. I don't recommend this practice, since it's rare that reloading manuals provide info on compressed loads.

What you refer to as "recommended OAL" is simply a guide. The actual and ideal OAL will vary from rifle to rifle, depending on both the throat length and the the maximum OAL dictated by magazine length.

Any competent and experienced handloader (probably not those with a YouTube education) can safely and effectively deal with compressed loads. They are not a hindrance as you suggest. As for determining the best OAL, I treat the Barnes copper bullets no differently than conventional jacketed bullets. It's seldom that shooting groups with three different OALs won't result in the best OAL for your load in your rifle, keeping in mind the possible restriction imposed by magazine length. Always use an optimum powder for your load, not just a powder you have on hand.

 

[IAM Rand]

My dad started out on Barnes many years ago. I have carried on. I use TTSX and the LRX in 270, 7mm, and 300WM. I just recently started with Lehigh Controlled Chaos in my 6ARC with amazing accuracy and stopping power. Dropped a small-med 4 point deer(8 point for you back east boys) like a much bigger caliber.

I am not looking to see what I can do with Lehigh on my other calibers. Bad thing is they are not cheap. Building a sub moa load could easily cost several hundred dollars a caliber. In the end it might be worth it.

Still like the Barnes Bullets though.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

I have three different Varmint Grenades, not as accurate as normal poly tipped bullets. Every Combination was way over 1 MOA.

Since Ohio still allows lead for hunting, I load all my 22 Center Fire cartridges with a poly tip. 22 Hornet 35 gr Hornady V-Max, 221 Fireball and 22 Bench Rest with 50 gr Combined Technolgies BT, 223 REM with 50 grain Sierra Blitzking & Hornady V-max, 22-250 with 50gr Nosler BT and a different 223Rem in a Savage 12 with 74 gr A-Max loaded long. 3" groups at 1000 yards. All of these are way below 1 MOA!

Ivan

 

[Skeet 028]

I always use a load that I am happy with. I have quite often found the right OAL using 3 different load lengths. In fact the best you have loaded will usually show up with the three rounds. I seldom load the hottest/fastest loads....and my best handload will show up at 75 yards by shooting closest to point of aim. I wasted enough bullets powder primers and barrels by changing constantly. Heck one load in one rifle will vary a bit dependant on temp, barometric pressure and even lighting. I've never even had a load change poi significanty with even a change of primer...even change of cases don't mean too much except in the very high intensity/pressure rifle loads. In handgun loads I almost never shoot max loads anyway...really no need to. For Me. I've been using the same 30-30 load in 5 different rifles for over 40 years. They al shoot accurately enough to trust in to get my deer.. 2 lever guns...2 bolt guns...and a 14 inch Contender. But then...for game shooting I don't NEED to shoot 500 yds anymore. It's not a bragging game ya know?

 

[twodog max]

I've used many of the Barnes, mostly for load development and group shooting over many years in a variety of rifles. They copper foul a bore no more than conventional jacketed bullets. Yes, they cost more than many other bullets, but for some, the accuracy and performance are worth an extra dime a bullet.

Not so fast there. Just checked prices on copper versus lead core bullets, Hornady, in 270 and 30 cal. The copper Barnes bullets were 50 cents more per bullet or more depending on the bullet. Often double the price. I call that a significant difference.
As far as copper fouling all I can report is my experience and it was much worse. Of course Barnes may have developed their very good copper solvent just because they have a good heart or perhaps it proved a necessity

 

[rockquarry]

Not so fast there. Just checked prices on copper versus lead core bullets, Hornady, in 270 and 30 cal. The copper Barnes bullets were 50 cents more per bullet or more depending on the bullet. Often double the price. I call that a significant difference.
As far as copper fouling all I can report is my experience and it was much worse. Of course Barnes may have developed their very good copper solvent just because they have a good heart or perhaps it proved a necessity

I have a good supply of these bullets, all purchased before the shortages several years ago. I'm not up on current prices, but I believe what you're saying. These are hunting bullets. If I'm on an expensive hunt and a good, accurate bullet costs $.50 more than a lesser one, I doubt I'll notice the difference in the overall cost of the hunt.

When Barnes initially came out with the first copper "X" bullets twenty or so years ago, there were reports of excessive copper fouling. I used some of these and don't recall any such problem. However, the alleged excessive fouling complaints diminished or went away altogether with the TSX bullets. As I mentioned earlier, I've seen no more copper fouling with the TSX and TTSX bullest than with other jacketed bullets of conventional construction. I've used them in three calibers and eight cartridges.

You'd need to try them for yourself to verify this and then share your results. Good luck

 

[OutWest50]

I have used Barnes TSX and TTSX for a number of years in 243 Win, 280 Remington, 7MM Rem Mag, and a 300 Weatherby Mag. In my case I have found them to be extremely accurate and perform very well on hogs, antelope, deer, elk, and oryx. In fact, I no longer load any bullet than the TTSX for hunting loads.

In my experience, as opposed to the older generation "X" bullets, the groove bands on the TSX and TTSX minimize copper fouling and reduce friction (and pressure) that may result from the longer bullet length as relative to lead core bullets. In any case, I only reload with Barnes published data and follow load development guidelines when working up a new load for a particular rifle. The Hornady O.A.L guage is a very handy tool for precisely setting your bullet seating depth.