Barnes Triple-Shock field test report:

TheRogue · 10-09-2005, 08:08 AM

Recovered one bullet from my wife's deer. Nasty country and vertical shooting, so it wasn't the best shot in the world, but hey, the deer was harvested after all!

Entered mid shoulder, broke the shoulder bone, broke the brisket, lodged against the skin on the bottom of the chest. Handloaded 243 winchester, 85 grain Barnes Triple Shock, near max load, never checked the velocity:

Looks just like all those perfect ballistic gelatin shapes! Performed perfectly. Shoots well out of the wife's Rem 700 BDL, I know some rifles don't like them at all. :whazzup:

TR

BrianMaguire · 10-09-2005, 10:51 AM

My Rem 700's love the barnes bullets. I get my best groups with them.

Ni! · 10-09-2005, 01:06 PM

That's a great looking result. Everything I've heard about the Barnes is that they're real finicky. Some rifles like 'em, some don't. If you've got a gun that shoots them well there's not much better bullet available.

Thanks for the report.

Ni!

TheRogue · 10-09-2005, 01:14 PM

I was concerned about the 85 grain weight. That's pretty small. But after seeing first hand what that little bullet will do, I feel much better about it.

TR

glowball · 10-09-2005, 02:54 PM

How much does the recovered bullet weigh? It sure looks good. Tell the wife congrats on the deer.

Yeti · 10-09-2005, 06:55 PM

Welcome to the Barnes believer club!

I have shot two elk and two deer with them. They truely perform as advertised! One elk was shot with a 7mm-08 at a very bad angle. Someone had wounded it and I shot it going away. Rather than trying a texas heart shot I choose to break the hip. The 140gr bullet went through the hip and stopped just short of the rib cage! That dropped the elk and I finished it with one that went from the last rib to the off side sholder. Both bullets were recovered under the skin. One weighed 137gr the other 139gr. The other elk was at @ 325yds broadside and it was a clean pass through.

As far as getting them to shoot, it just takes time and $ to play with seating depth to fine tune them.

Yeti

AnnaDraMoss · 10-10-2005, 05:25 AM

impressive wieght retention (coefficient_

goforchrome · 10-10-2005, 07:58 AM

That looks like a great result.
I have 300WSM handloads for elk using 200gr partition, 180gr partition and 180gr TSX.
They are sitting in the reloading tray and I can't decide which are going in the gun.
I know the TSX and 200gr partitions are moa or better in my rifle...I shot a legitimate .7in group with the TSX which is my best group with that cartridge.
I can't decide if the tried and true partition or the new-skool TSX will go.
Glad to hear someone had success with 7mm-08 on elk.
I think it would be my choice if I had to own 1 hunting rifle.
Good luck to all.

Hunt'nFish · 10-10-2005, 09:25 AM

Rouge,
Great report!!!
This is a case were the Barnes X bullet can really shine.

I used to love the Barnes-X bullet. But as I got more feild time with it (and especially after my buddy can back from a caribou hunt with tales of punching 4rds through one bou at 400yds before it fell over from blood loss. BTW this fella is one heck of a shooter & all where stright through the lungs), I concluded they were too much of a good thing. What? By that I mean they penetrate TOO good, and hold together TOO well and the result is they zip right through and impart very little of the bullets total energy potential to the animal. I also found they didn't give me the increase in velocity I was expecting. You see they claimed that you drop down in weight (say 180gr to 150gr) and because a lighter bullet can be pushed faster (& E=MV^2) the result is increased energy with a bullet that will hold together. Great in theory but not so in the real world. I found I was unable to load the 150's much faster than the 180's and they still just zipped through, punching nice purty little holds that resulted in minimal energy transfer. Sure they died, much like an arrow going through lung, but I want my animal on the ground NOW! Not 100yds later. So my use of the Barnes X ended and I went to bonded poly tips. So we've been using the Swift Sirrocco in the big 30cals and the results have been spectacular! And unlike the Barnes-X, we are getting very high velocities w/o going over pressure. With the Barnes I got higher than normal pressures before I got to the velocites that are considered normal for that bullet weight.

I have concluded that the Barnes-X is best for really tough animals like cape buff, rino and other BIG thick skinned critters. OR it really shines in very small calibers under tough circumstances. This shot was from a .243win and 85gr is really light, and it sounds like this bullet broke just about every bone in the front shoulder it could. A regular 85gr lead core bullet probably would have failed unless it was a tough bonded design.
This small caliber situation is were the Barnes-X can be the top choice, but most of the time it is too much of a good thing.
Hunt'nFish

REEL HANDEL · 10-10-2005, 09:53 AM

I had very simlar results on caribou with the 160 gr.X bullet in 7mm rem. Bull was lying down bullet went in low in the brisket and was on the hide on the opposite side and the bullet did not expand at all, just bent alittle, took another round to finish the job.I also experinced high pressures when working up a load. compared to the noslers that i had been using.Took one buck with the same load and did not recover the bullet and have not used them since,went back to the old stand by noslers

Hunt'nFish · 10-10-2005, 10:29 AM

ReelHandle,
I was using the 150gr BX in a 7mmRemMag and we were loading the 130gr BX in the 270WbyMag, Neither of us were impressed w/ what we saw in the feild. I liked the high BC of the BX though, but the new crop of bonded poly tips have even higher BC's.

The Nosler Accu-Bond, Swift Sirrocco, and Hornady Inter-Bond are what I consider the best of both worlds...tough bonded poly-tips. So far I'm happy and see no need for the Barnes-X. In my 7mmWSM, I'm going to give the 150gr Interbond a fair shake.

But I think that the Barnes X is right at home in the fast .234 and 22calibers. Could you imagine what a 60gr .224 out of a benchrest quality .22-250 might do??
Hunt'nFish

TheRogue · 10-10-2005, 01:10 PM

I killed my buck with a 150 gr Accubond out of a 300 Weatherby, traveling a bit over 3400 fps. Shot was 310 yards, did not recover any of the bullet. Also did not recover much of the off shoulder as it exploded after just clipping the backbone (didn't hold low enough, very very steep!). In that shot, in that situation, I would've much rather been shooting a tougher bullet, I really figured it would hold together better at that range. At 100 yards, I could understand the fragmentation and damage better, especially at that velocity.

my .02

TR

Hunt'nFish · 10-10-2005, 01:26 PM

Well it sounds like ya kill'd it just fine.
I can see why you went w/ the 150gr AccuBond, since the next heavier is 220gr (they don't offer the 180gr yet do they?).
However I don't think the results would have changed much after clipping a shoulder. But the slower impact velocity of a 180gr "might" have improved the damage situation.
Personally I think ya did about as good as you could under the circumstances.
Hunt'nFish

Troutinator · 10-10-2005, 01:43 PM

just a minor nit, in the case described originally, 100% of the potential energy was tranferred to the animal since the bullet ended up under the skin at the bottom of the chest. none of the observations made are without merit, just a point that in this case transfer of energy was complete.

Hunt'nFish · 10-10-2005, 02:17 PM

Rob,
Yes, that's why I think the Barnes-X is PERFECT in the smaller calibers like the .243win and .22-250 where bullet weight is comparitively light and bullet speed high.

Where I don't think they do well is in the tradition calibers and normal weights. Since you have a .270 Rob, the 100gr Barnes-X might make for a good elk bullet pushed balls to the walls. We all agree that the std 130gr .270 load should only be shot through a broadside elk and would blow up if a quartering shoulder shot were taken. A 90-100gr Barnes-X out of the same .270 would probably not blow up and make it through to rip apart the lungs.

Shoot after reading Rogues report on the 85gr BX in a .243win and what it did to that BIG mule deer, I'm looking at my little .243 A-Bolt in a new light.
But I don't think I'll leave my .338Ultra at home just yet.

Take care. Rob, Are you hunting this year??
Mike
Hunt'nFish

goforchrome · 10-10-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Rob,
Shoot after reading Rogues report on the 85gr BX in a .243win and what it did to that BIG mule deer, I'm looking at my little .243 A-Bolt in a new light.
Hunt'nFish

The picture is NOT a Barnes X...it is a Barnes Triple Shock.

Hunt'nFish · 10-10-2005, 04:39 PM

Yes, I know that. But it doesn't matter. An X-Bullet is still an X-Bullet wether you give it grooves or not.
Yes I know it was an attempt to reduce friction, pressure, fouling and all the other bad things associated w/ the solid copper X-Bullet technology, but it hasn't worked. I've even tried moly coating them, although that helped a little, we did get a few more fps out of them then.

I use the XB bullet term rather loosely, there's really little differance between the two. Certainly not enough to argue about.

Hunt'nFish

goforchrome · 10-10-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

. Certainly not enough to argue about.

Hunt'nFish

Alot of the members here have forgotten more about reloading and components than I will ever know.
I don't know if the desigh or alloy has changed enough to improve the performance.
Just saw the detail...
Cheers to all.

Yeti · 10-10-2005, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Rouge,

I concluded they were too much of a good thing. What? By that I mean they penetrate TOO good, and hold together TOO well and the result is they zip right through and impart very little of the bullets total energy potential to the animal.

Interesting POV. Personally, I'll take total penetration over one hole any day. My only one hole deer was not easy to track due to blood collecting in the chest cavity and not running out both sides. BTW, by definition you must have excess energy to achieve full penetration. Therfore you will not be transfering 100% of the energy to your game.

Quote:

I also found they didn't give me the increase in velocity I was expecting.

Did you expect more than the Barnes manual published???

Quote:

I found I was unable to load the 150's much faster than the 180's and they still just zipped through, punching nice purty little holds that resulted in minimal energy transfer. Sure they died, much like an arrow going through lung, but I want my animal on the ground NOW!

I would be interested to know what the wound channel on your "zip through" animals looked like. On mine there was extreme hydrostatic shock that liquified most of one lung. Unfortunately, another destroyed most of the liver after wrecking the boiler room. Are you saying that there was no damage other than the bullet holes?

The only way I have found to put an animal "on the ground now" is a hit directly to the central nervous system ie brain or spine shot. The bullet doesn't matter in these cases.

Quote:

I have concluded that the Barnes-X is best for really tough animals like cape buff, rino and other BIG thick skinned critters. OR it really shines in very small calibers under tough circumstances.

I would argue that if you are using average (7-08 for example) rounds you will benefit from a bullet exactly like the X or fail safe on elk sized game. They are designed to expand quickly at normal to high velocities and more importantly are designed to cut through game more efficiently than traditional lead core bullets.

I am not saying your experience isn't valid, just that I would not pidgeon hole these high performance bullets to the extremes.

Yeti

BTW, I like Fords!

Ni! · 10-10-2005, 10:00 PM

Quote:

The only way I have found to put an animal "on the ground now" is a hit directly to the central nervous system ie brain or spine shot. The bullet doesn't matter in these cases.

I've had three deer drop dead at the shot, and none of them were brain or spine shots. The one spine shot I made required a followup shot for the kill.

The three instant kills were as follows:

1) 150 grain Ballistic Tip in .30-06. Shot down through the shoulder into the left lung. Grenaded the lung. Instant lights out.

2) 165 grain Sierra Game King from same gun. Quartering towards me. Bullet entered the base of the neck on the left side, crossed between the shoulders and ended up under the skin behind the right shoulder. He dropped on his hooves and never twitched.

3) 55 grain Ballistic Tip in 22-250. Straight-on shot to the front of the neck. Recovered the base of the bullet under the skin at the back of the neck. Once again, dropped in his tracks.

None of these impacted the central or peripheral nervous system (although the 3rd bullet passed close to the spine). The first was a classic case of hydrostatic shock and massive damage to internal organs via fragmentation. The other two involved the neck, which, if hit squarely, is usually a very quick kill.

With all that being said, I rarely aim for the neck, preferring a side shot through the lungs and two holes for better blood trailing.

Even though I like a bullet to hold together like the Barnes does, a quick fragmenting bullet on thin-skinned game is devastating to the vitals and usually results in very quick kills even without a CNS hit.

Ni!

StickFish · 10-11-2005, 07:51 AM

Hunt'nFish

I'm with you on the bonded poly tips at least in my STW. The Scirocco in the WSM is a tad long and lots of shank ends up in the cartridge to allow the loaded round to fit in the magazine.

In the 300WSM I went to the A Frame and have gotten excellent results on the bench and in the field.

I had the same over penetration problem with the Trophy Bonded Bear Claw and I couldn't ever get Barnes bullets to shoot worth a hoot and have never tried them again.

SeanD · 10-11-2005, 08:02 AM

I just got a mule deer in eastern oregon with the 225 grain barnes TSX in 35 caliber. The one thing I was worried about with these bullets was opening up fast enough. I knew penetration would be there. Well I lung shot a muley and the performance ~2600 fps was very impressive. Big exit hole and the lungs were jelly. Awsome. And the bullets are scary accurate. I shot a group working up loads that was 0.35 inches for three .358 bullets. Barnes TSX is a winner!

Hunt'nFish · 10-11-2005, 11:15 AM

I think ya'll just need to keep using them and decide for yourself, you'll either love'em or hate'em.
I was not happy with them.

I didn't expect more velocity from them, just as much as I could get from any other bullet of same mass. And no I didn't care what the Barnes manual said, nor did I bother to purchase one. Don't need a manual to work up a load.. ya just start light and work up slowly, watching pressure data off the PBL and traditional physical case signs. I will make one observational note.... I found they really liked to be WAY off the lands otherwise pressure really spiked. I settled on a .050" off the land rule for my Barnes-X handloading. Being that far off the land DID NOT seem to hurt accuracy though. I should say I really liked the accuracy we got with them...I think the solid copper tends to spring back as it goes down the bore and engage the riflings better, especially when it left the muzzle.

Contrary to what you guys may think, I don't thing they were expanding very well at long ranges. And long range is where we typically engaged animals. Perhaps we needed to go to even lighter bullets and really pump up the velocity. But shooting a 130gr BX out of a 7mmMag at elk just didn't set well with me. These BX's LOVE velocity, and they need it to expand. Perhaps if they added a poly tip to initiate expansion they would work better.
So after much thought I concluded that our friend Elmer Keith had it right all along... big and heavy bullets of traditional construction moving fast are hard to argue with. And given the new crop of bonded bullets that appeared at the same time, I came full circle.
That's when I hung up the 7mmMag and started my love affair w/ the 388Ultra. Ya goota keep in mind we hunt some of the toughest elk in the nastiest country. Yes it's big, loud and kicks a bit but it sure gets the job done. I feel I could do just about anything with it, including running one from stem to sturn IF, and I really say IF, that were the only shot I knew I would get and the trophy were a once in a lifetime specimen.

I am a meat hunter, first and formost, so please don't flame me, but if I were finally holding my desired big bull tag, I want that big boy on the ground NOW. Meat would be second on my mind. Just being honest here.

So good luck to all ya, I've moved on to greener "bonded poly-tip" pastures. I'm still looking for one elk to do a double back flip.... I'm real close.

Hunt'nFish

Yeti · 10-11-2005, 07:06 PM

Hunt'nFish,

Thanks for the clarification. I must admit I am now at the point that I am selling my "modern" guns. A friend gave me a Ruger #1 in 45-70 and I love it! Not heavy and fast just heavy and slow. I still think it will get the job done. I am loading the Barne originals in it.

I have a box of 180 Sciracco's to shoot through my 300WM. I look forward to seeing how they shoot. I am probably going to use them on a cow (ag tag) in the next month or two. Good luck.

Yeti

Maverick Maxcat · 10-11-2005, 09:19 PM

I have had great sucess with the BTS. It is much different than the original x-bullets. Accuracy is fantastic! It is the better than anything else I've tried in my Ruger .270 Win, 5 shots into 1/2". Velocity is also increased by 80 fps over Partitions with the same load, no increase in pressure signs. I have killed several animals with different calibers, including deer, bears, elk, and moose. Pass-throughs are the rule, with a great wound channel. Bloodshot damage is limited, which is important if you actually live on game like I do. The farthest an animal has gone is maybe 30 yards. Over half were instant knockdowns. Barnes Triple Shocks and Fail Safes are the ONLY 2 bullets I consider using on game at this time. "Shocking power" only leads to meat damage. If an animal is wounded and I have to take a going away shot, I want something that will penetrate to the chest and not destroy the hind quarters. Nothing else comes close.

OuterLimits · 10-16-2005, 07:30 PM

A friend of mine went to Africa for plains game earlier this year. His PH suggested that he use Barnes Triple Shock. He used a 300 Win Mag and did very well. He was impressed by the retention weight of each bullet.

Hunt'nFish · 10-16-2005, 07:51 PM

Quote:

OuterLimits
A friend of mine went to Africa for plains game earlier this year. His PH suggested that he use Barnes Triple Shock. He used a 300 Win Mag and did very well. He was impressed by the retention weight of each bullet.

Yea, I'm sure.... I bet he never recovered a single one.
Or if he did it was a pin the shoulder shot. Africa is differant. Of course your gonna pin the shoulder on a trophy you flown several thousand miles to get in front of. I probably shoot'em over there myself.
Barnes-X's are perfect for that situation. Do you know how big a Kudo is?? As big as the biggest elk, only even thicker skinned. No, for an african hunt, I'd probably go back to my old "copper" load.
But I'll stick to my bonded poly-tips for the N.American work. Plenty tough enough and superior energy transfer.

Yeti,
The 180gr Scirroco and the .300WSM are a match made in heaven. You'll be pleased.
Hunt'nFish

slowbuilder2005 · 10-18-2005, 12:24 PM

Quote:

That's a great looking result. Everything I've heard about the Barnes is that they're real finicky. Some rifles like 'em, some don't. If you've got a gun that shoots them well there's not much better bullet available.

Thanks for the report.

Ni!

I'll bet that finicky guns aren't as finicky if one were to experiment with different powders (speeds of burn) and ...LOA. I suspect that head space is important when loading Barnes since different brands of guns ramp in the rifling (whatever the right term for that is) at slightly different rates ...but nowadays in particular, they are mighty close to the same (liability v. commercially made ammo.)

Just my guess...

Brian

slowbuilder2005 · 10-18-2005, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Hunt'nFish,

Thanks for the clarification. I must admit I am now at the point that I am selling my "modern" guns. A friend gave me a Ruger #1 in 45-70 and I love it! Not heavy and fast just heavy and slow. I still think it will get the job done. I am loading the Barne originals in it.

I have a box of 180 Sciracco's to shoot through my 300WM. I look forward to seeing how they shoot. I am probably going to use them on a cow (ag tag) in the next month or two. Good luck.

Yeti

Calculate the Taylor Knock Out Value for different rounds (caliber, velocity, etc) and you'll see that what knocks down animals is mass and diameter ...more important than velocity. Field experience tends to validate the TKOV too. I'm certain there is controversy, so have fun with it. Taylor's correlation work was on big big game and mostly focused on head or shoulder shots. There is no one answer, but it was surprising that diameter (caliber) had such a huge impact. (Pun on purpose.)

Brian

Hunt'nFish · 10-18-2005, 01:09 PM

Brian,
I'm a fan of Keith Taylor's TKO work as well. However, if you read his book, even he admits that it was designed to apply to BIG african calibers and solids inparticularly.

However the principals & theory are practical for north american use. And many writers have adopted much of his thinking in the sense of minimum energy required for the differant NA animals. (ie. 2000ft-lbs for elk, 1000 for deer.) What it needs is some sort of coefficent of energy transfer. Not easily done considering it would need to take in account the toughness of the game and velocity of impact. Interesting academic thoughts though.

So basically I stopped trying to reinvent what our neighbor in Idaho, Elmer Keith, had already knew....big & fast puts them down. Cheers to Elmer & Taylor!

That being said, I think Yeti's 180gr 300WSM match up is a good one and I wouldn't hesitate to put it up against any elk, I'd just have to limit myself to 350-400yrds. And I'd have to understand it would be operating on the edge out there. Rag or trophy, all would have be to the boiler room only.
Hunt'nFish

Ni! · 10-18-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

So basically I stopped trying to reinvent what our neighbor in Idaho, Elmer Keith, had already knew....big & fast puts them down.

I don't think this is quite correct.

If memory serves, the big debate of the time was between Elmer Keith and Jack O'Connor. Elmer preferred big and slow while O'Connor lobbied for small and fast (hence his championing of the .270 Win). With the bullet technology of the time, Keith was correct, as those bullets would often disintegrate on impact if pushed too briskly. O'Connor's theory is much more viable today with the premium bullets such as the TSX, Fail Safe, and various bonded-core bullets that hold together at high velocity, allowing smaller bullets to punch above their weight.

This article mentions the debate between Keith and O'Connor.

Here's the relevant paragraph:

Quote:

By today's standards the bullets they had weren't all that great; and the faster a bullet is going, the more it is prone to failure. Keith favored big, heavy and slow bullets because they depended less on terminal performance and were far less prone to failure. In the context of the times, I am sure I would have sided with him.

Now that's not to say that big and fast doesn't put them down. It most certainly does the job better than either big and slow or small and fast. But Elmer Keith was suspicious of velocity because of the high chance of bullet failure given the bullet technology of his time, so he advocated large bullets pushed at moderate to slow velocities.

Ni!

SeanD · 10-18-2005, 04:19 PM

Hunt'nFish is right in that the TKO formula are meant to be applied to solids on LARGE game.

I dont think any formula or energy # is at all a realistic way to predict "knockdown" power. The biggest variable is bullet performance. Energy doesnt do the killing, the destruction from the bullet does. If formulas cant take into account bullet performance (they can't) then they cant predict killing power. For instance with standard bullets moderate velocity yields much better bullet performance, penetration, and killing power then super high velocity does. Of course that depends on where you hit them too.

SeanD · 10-18-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Now that's not to say that big and fast doesn't put them down. It most certainly does the job better than either big and slow or small and fast.

Not always. Some African PH's advise slowing the big bores down to less than 2400 fps for more reliable kills on dangerous game.

Ni! · 10-18-2005, 04:28 PM

SeanD,

I hadn't heard that. Do you know why they advise that? I assume the bullets they're using are solids, correct?

I know they often advise using a .375 rather than a .458, but that's mainly because many people shoot the .375 better than the .458 due to recoil issues, not because it actually kills game better.

Ni!

SeanD · 10-18-2005, 04:31 PM

More reliable bullet performance and more penetration.