.308win 130gr ttsx ?

[S-3 Ranch]

Thinking about going to barns ttsx 130 , anyone’s opinion on them on elk , I also hunt sheep and nilgai but main white tail and mulie , .308 130gr @ 3200 FPS gotta be 1/2 *** decent?
any better bullets for a .308 factory loads

 

[VikingsGuy]

I tried them, but couldn't get them to shoot in my tikka .308. Moved to 150 gn TTSX and the rifle LOVES those. Given that monos don't shed any weight you should still get the penetration and weight retention of a traditional 150-160gn lead bullet so should be ok.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Thinking about going to barns ttsx 130 , anyone’s opinion on them on elk , I also hunt sheep and nilgai but main white tail and mulie , .308 130gr @ 3200 FPS gotta be 1/2 *** decent?
any better bullets for a .308 factory loads

I load them in my kids' rifle for deer at about 2750fps. They kick like a .243. I'm planning on using them for my son's elk hunt next year. They'll stay over 2200fps and 1500 foot pounds out past 200 yards and that should do it.

For myself, if I were using a .308 for elk, I'd rather shoot TTSX's in 150, or 168.

 

[morley.tyler]

150's have always been my sweet spot for accuracy, energy, and speed. BC on a 130gr seems a touch low.

 

[jejack26]

Use ttsx 130 for elk very successfully

 

[D_Walt]

My son’s tikka super lite loves them with a full charge (56 grains I believe) of BL-(C)2. A touch over 3200fps. He’s killed a bunch of whitetails, hogs and Javelinas with it, if he draws an elk tag will probably use the 130.

 

[Brian in Montana]

Never tried it, but 130gn sure seems awful light for a 30cal bullet. Not that it's everything, but the BC would have to be very low. But, hey, if you try it and it groups well, and you're not intending to shoot very far, I wouldn't think there's a problem. Limitations, for sure, but everything has it's limitations. As far as the game you mentioned, elk are big, tough animals. One thing that Barnes bullets certainly do well is hold together and penetrate, but 130gn bullet is going to shed energy fast after impact. Might not be a problem, but something to consider. There's better options out there, but like I said if your gun likes the bullet, Im sure it's doable within reason.

 

[np307]

I've got a box to try out for my 30-06. I've really liked the 168s and had good success with them but I also wanted something lighter and faster for deer. BC is definitely lower but I have a personal limit of 400 yards so the 168s drop over an moa more at 400 due to velocity. 130s still moving roughly 2200 fps (1800 is minimum expansion velocity) at that distance.

 

[Redman]

I would use them without worry. I was considering them but do to availability could only find 150 and up. I use .308 150gr TTSX on everything and have never had to shoot anything more than once including a bull elk at a range people would say is to far for that round and the bullet went through the elk and is in the side of a mountain somewhere.

 

[Dougfirtree]

If someone were asking about whether their .270 was enough for elk with a 130 ttsx, would there be the same discomfort? I'm not chastising, I had the same reaction when I first considered a 130 for elk. But, then I thought about the .270, not to mention all the elk killed with 120 ttsx's from a 7mm-08, or even smaller bullets from .25-06's, or .257 Weatherbys...

 

[N2TRKYS]

60% weight retention seems to be standard with regular bullets and around 99% for Barnes.

165 grain Partition would be around 99 grains.

 

[Brian in Montana]

If someone were asking about whether their .270 was enough for elk with a 130 ttsx, would there be the same discomfort? I'm not chastising, I had the same reaction when I first considered a 130 for elk. But, then I thought about the .270, not to mention all the elk killed with 120 ttsx's from a 7mm-08, or even smaller bullets from .25-06's, or .257 Weatherbys...

130 is a more optimal weight for a .277cal bullet, that's all. There'd be some differences in performance for sure. For one I'd think the higher SD would alleviate concerns I'd have about penetration (to some extent). A 130gn bullet still wouldn't be my first choice for elk, I'd still do it, but just think there's better options.

Out of curiosity I looked up the SDs on these bullets. The 130 gn .308cal TTSX is .196. the 130gn .277cal is .242. SD is not everything, but probably that's enough to make a difference on the receiving end.

 

[Don Fischer]

If I lived in Calif, I'd be required to use Mono bullet's so, I'd leave Calif! I don't think there's any doubt 130gr Mono's from pretty much any 30 cal cartridge will kill anything just as dead as any other bullet. I don't use mono's, have never used mono's and never will use mono's. They won't do anything for me that lead core bullet won't other than cost me a lot more money! In 308 I have tried 150's, 165's 180's and 200's. Never found a good accurate 150gr load. Accuracy came in at 165gr and 180gr. 200gr never delivered the accuracy but the stuff i loaded up was defense loads for bears while out fishing in Alaska. Short range shooting but I;ve never saw a bear while out fishing! Between the 165gr and 180gr accuracy was about equal but the 180gr recoiled more so I stayed with the 165gr lead core bullet. In about 50 yrs of hunting with a 308, that bullet, what ever I used, has never failed me. If your simply wanting to try mono bullet's, go for it. If you reload to save money, greatest story ever told, shooting mono's isn't going to save you but will about double the bullet price. if price doesn't matter, go for it. You'll never know how you like them until you try them!

 

[Dougfirtree]

130 is a more optimal weight for a .277cal bullet, that's all. There'd be some differences in performance for sure. For one I'd think the higher SD would alleviate concerns I'd have about penetration (to some extent). A 130gn bullet still wouldn't be my first choice for elk, I'd still do it, but just think there's better options.

Out of curiosity I looked up the SDs on these bullets. The 130 gn .308cal TTSX is .196. the 130gn .277cal is .242. SD is not everything, but probably that's enough to make a difference on the receiving end.

It certainly helps, but as someone who has fired a bunch of different bullets (monos and lead) into water jugs, I'm always struck by how consistently they all seem end up in the 5th, or 6th jug.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If someone were asking about whether their .270 was enough for elk with a 130 ttsx, would there be the same discomfort? I'm not chastising, I had the same reaction when I first considered a 130 for elk. But, then I thought about the .270, not to mention all the elk killed with 120 ttsx's from a 7mm-08, or even smaller bullets from .25-06's, or .257 Weatherbys...

I assume 130gn in .308Win would work for elk at a reasonable distance, but there are differences (advantages) in BC, sectional density and velocity between that and a 130gn .270Win.

 

[S-3 Ranch]

It certainly helps, but as someone who has fired a bunch of different bullets (monos and lead) into water jugs, I'm always struck by how consistently they all seem end up in the 5th, or 6th jug.

Yes I saw that in field test
“Barnes says that since they do not have a lead core, they perform like a bullet 30% heavier. So, a 100 gr Barnes bullet will perform like a 130 gr lead core bullet.”

 

[S-3 Ranch]

If someone were asking about whether their .270 was enough for elk with a 130 ttsx, would there be the same discomfort? I'm not chastising, I had the same reaction when I first considered a 130 for elk. But, then I thought about the .270, not to mention all the elk killed with 120 ttsx's from a 7mm-08, or even smaller bullets from .25-06's, or .257 Weatherbys...

Same bullet , difference calibers .270 vs .308 130 ttsx

.270 excels <300 meters

 

[Dougfirtree]

Same bullet , difference calibers .270 vs .308 130 ttsx

.270 excels <300 meters
View attachment 215071

Yes, the main difference would be range (though I think you can push a 130 faster than that in a .308...)

 

[Caseknife]

I worked up loads for my hunting partner's Kimber Montana with 130ttsx and AR-Comp, very accurate at about 3100fps. He was pleasantly surprised when he shot his rifle after getting it back. I have loads worked up with my 300WSM with 130ttsx, very deadly and fast.

I like monos for a couple reasons, way less bloodshot meat, no lead shrapnel in my game meat for human consumption. Also, for the last few years I have been putting all my cutting scraps out in the field to watch the critters gather. We have a Bald Eagle nest close by and I will have sometimes up to 4 eagles feasting, it doesn't take more than a pin head of lead to be consumed by an eagle to ruin its life. I will do anything in my power to eliminate that.

 

[ImBillT]

130 is a more optimal weight for a .277cal bullet, that's all. There'd be some differences in performance for sure. For one I'd think the higher SD would alleviate concerns I'd have about penetration (to some extent). A 130gn bullet still wouldn't be my first choice for elk, I'd still do it, but just think there's better options.

Out of curiosity I looked up the SDs on these bullets. The 130 gn .308cal TTSX is .196. the 130gn .277cal is .242. SD is not everything, but probably that's enough to make a difference on the receiving end.

With a cup and core bullet I would agree 100%. Anytime you’re looking at the lighter end of the accepted weight range, you would likely get the best results with the highest SD. That’s one of the things that drives me the craziest about people saying that a 7-08 or 270 are as small they would shoot on elk when the 6.5 CM is shooting 140’s at a very similar velocity but with a higher SD. HOWEVER, with monos, most of which already have significantly higher penetration than cup and core bullets, I have to think that SD is far less important. I’ve been wrong before.