.270 110gr TTSX

[LB 270]

Hi Tako,
What type of ammo did you shoot last year? I'm just wondering cuz I may be missing out on a better thing. I'm happy with what I'm shooting but if these are better then maybe.....

[Tako]

I started out asking for load data or info on the bullets, not a judgement of my own shooting ability or a performance evaluation of the 270. I guess I asked too much. I should have known better than to ask a question about guns and ballistics. Opinions are like arseholes I guess, everyone's got one....but.....well whatever. Forget it. A guy asks a decent question and gets bullied for it. To hell with it. I'll just post the friggin results

[Tako]

Originally Posted by LB 270

Hi Tako,
What type of ammo did you shoot last year? I'm just wondering cuz I may be missing out on a better thing. I'm happy with what I'm shooting but if these are better then maybe.....

140gr hornady interlocks. Nothin wrong with em. But a TSX is a premium bullet that will kill better in smaller sizes. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. But hey, these guys are the experts

[Rackmastr]

I could care less what you hunt with or choose to hunt with....I was merely pointing out the numbers game.....

But hey...just cause everyone can find a ballistics calculator on the net doesnt mean everyone understands it...

[LB 270]

I'm shooting the Hornady interbond light mag's in 130 gr, and I thought this was just about as light as I would go on Moose. My opinion. I'm interested in the results that you get when you try them out. I probably wouldn't shoot at anything at 400 yards but it is great info.
Thanks

[Outcast]

IMHO this thread has gone astray. I think that Rackmastr was merely trying to point out the fact that by your initial statement of 5" drop at 400 yards this is possible with any rifle cartridge bullet combo you just need to change your zero.

Maybe you (Tako) were on a different train of thought and should have looked into what the Rack was trying to get at.

If you wish to compare trajectories of different bullets through your rifle take a common zero, eg. 200 yards, and run the program or shoot them on the range out to 400 yards and see the differance for yourself. This would be the ultimate test and hone the skills at the same time.

As for the performance of the bullets I will not comment as it seems throwing your opinion into this thread is equivelant to tickling a Rattle snake under the chin.

There are many educated people on this forum in which I have obtained a great ammount of info and the slagging antics and defensive nature you have shown will not get you the info you are looking for.

As the old saying goes...We were given two ears and only one mouth......

Darn!!! gave my opinion again

[spurly]

well said. when asking for an opinion , you dont always get what you would like to here. new isnt always better, do some tests on wet newspaper or some other type of media, dont use animals for test media.

[Tako]

I didn't get an opinion, I got speculation. I guess I really do need a magenuhm to hunt big game.
Outcast, appreciate the post.
I will be shooting these, and I will make sure to report on them for all to see.

[Dick284]

Mrs. D can attest to what 100grain Plain jane Barnes X originals(now discontinued) can do in a 270Win.
She has taken 3 moose, and countless deer with this bullet over the years.
They perform almost identical to a 130grain Nosler Partition when impact energies are similar (I did expansion and penetration tests years back) You guys have to remember that the Barnes bullets are of monolithic design which means they have no core to loose, weight retention is typically 90% to 100%, while a Nosler Partition typically will retain from 60% to 70% of it's original weight.
As for all the ballistic mumbo jumbo, unless you have a chronograph, and a range out to 500yards speculating on what if's and could have been's, is pointless.
Yes a 110gr. TTSX will kill moose if loaded in a 270Win. it will smash deer like the hammer of Thor, it will take black bear, and just about any other critter you would ever be able to legally hunt in Alberta.(usual conditions and disclaimers apply)
FWIW:
A 110gr .277 TTSX with a BC of 0.377 leaving the muzzle at a conservative 3400fps and sighted to be 2.5" high at 100yds will be 9.75" low at 400yds, and still packing 1400ftlbs of energy.
A 130 Partition with a BC of 0.416 and leaving the muzzle at 3100fps, sighted in for the same 2.5" high at 100 will be 14" low at 400 and carrying 1440ftlbs of energy. See there aint no diffrence in retained energy to 400yds, but hmmm 4.25" more drop for the same sight in parameters.
Not like to many of us can probably tell 4 or 5" at 400 yards, but all the theories about what a 110gr. TTSX will kill is so out in left field it's ridiculous.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Tako

I know you're using a ballistic calculator. You're not the only person who can find one on the net

Everything posted so far is semantics and guesswork. When I loaded my 140s, the ballistic calculator said I would drop 6" @ 200m (POI 4.5" low) from a 1.5" zero and in the real world the drop is like I said, 3.5" So forgive me if I don't believe the calculators all that much. The only thing that REALLY matters is actual range results.

If anyone has some real data for these bad boys, I would love to hear it. Thanks

I've killed deer out around the 400 yard mark and further in the past, and can tell you that I would not go anywhere near a 110 grain bullet if I were to plan on doing it again.
get the weight up on the bullet and use a range finder if you want to get out there, don't P&&s around with lightweight bullets. I like the heavier bullets, but that is just me.
That is my opinion, one that was formed from actual field tests....
Cat

[catnthehat]

I should add to the above post that although I have used Barnes bullets in the past, and load some for other hunters, I do not use them as a rule myself.
Everything I shoot at dies quite fine with a cup and core bullet at appropriate speeds for the cartridge/bullet combination- but then, I don't use the same rifles that are popular with many hunters either....
Cat

[Reeves1]

I tried some 100g in my BAR and they were so-so @ 100m. At 200m they were all over the paper.
Ended up with 130g BTSP and they are tight @ 200m now.
I guess what I'm saying is, your gun will likely perform well with something other than a light round.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by DAVE

Sorry do not know anybody that hunts with a 110gr in a 270

I use 100 gr in my .270.... for coyotes not moose. I have no idea why a person would select 110 gr for that task, and be hungering to take 400 yards shots with it.

[Tako]

400 and moose were coincidental thoughts. Would I shoot a moose standing broadside at 400m unalarmed with a 110gr copper soild. You bet. But I can sure as hell get him closer than that. 400 is more of a distance to max out at, and being able to hold on body @ 400 without giving up much anywhere else is a safer way to hunt. As long as you can make bullets go where you tell them, that is. From what we can gather, that bullet with that energy at 400m will lay a deer out flat.
Thanks for the post Dick, reaffirms what we have already speculated on. I like that, usual conditions and disclaimers apply, lol
I'm firing them out of a Tikka T3 S/S so I don't think we'll have a problem with accuracy unless the wind is ridiculous.

[Dick284]

The TTSX's are not in any way similar to a 110gr. SP bullet. So dont use them as a yard stick.
Read my post, they kill moose for my wife no problem. Bullet construction plays a way bigger factor in caliber and bullet choice than ever before. The old Imperial catalogue prefered caliber list from 30 years ago is totally useless with the advent of controlled expansion and monolithic designed bullets.
The rules regarding bullet selection has changed and a new set of parameters exist in choosing bullets. Even at the Barnes website they discuss going down one or 2 bullet weights to acheive similar results as with cup core bullets.
The rule of thumb with the Barnes bullets is take what you usually use and drop down ~25% in weight to acheive similar results.

[gube]

Originally Posted by Tako

Like I said, we're gonna play with it. I don't see how changing my zero @ 100 affects the overall drop though Sure, I'm going to hit differently, but the overall drop should remain the same?

Originally Posted by Rackmastr

Yes....your zero affects your overall drop......how wouldnt it????

If you're 'zeroed' at 200 yards your drop at 400 will be much different than if you are 'zeroed' at 350 yards.....

Its basic ballistics....I was only pointing out that any bullet can be made to 'drop' 5" at 400m......

A more realistic range would be sighting in 2" high at 200 and then having it drop around 9" at 400.....

Not sure what the difference in opinion is about. Your zero has nothing to do with how much a bullet drops from the point it reaches it's upper peak to the point it travels 400 yds. You can have it zeroed at 500 yds and the amount of drop where it reaches it's peak to where it travels 400 yds will still be the same. Just a simple law of physics.

[catnthehat]

I think Rackmaster is taking about the drop as compared to line of sight - maximum point of impact.
Cat

[Mintaka]

.

[srp71]

Not sure if this helps or not ,but Federal loads these and their charts show them leaving the muzzle at 3400f/s,200 yard zero,15" drop @400yds.30"@500.

[BC7stw]

Very good post, good explaination. When sighting in for big game with a flat shooting rifle I never sight in more than 2 inches high at 100 yds( just my preference). I then spend a little time at longer distances to see what it looks like at say 300 and 400. It's also good practice, as I need to practice long range shots to stay in good form to take them, as well as be comfortable with my rifle at these longer more difficult distances Also if you have it sighted to high at 100 it can actually be hitting a bit higher at 200, this could certainly cause a problem, I only want to calculate in one direction not above and below where I'm aiming.

Since the largest majority of game is taken at closer ranges this I believe is where your rifle needs to be sighted for. Longer shots usually offer a bit more time, if they don't I question taking them as proper range estimation,a good rest, factoring wind drift, etc can't be factored properly. And with time spent practicing you will know what hold over if any is required

I haven't yet tried barnes, although I do plan on giving them a go. I suspect 110 is a bit light, might consider speaking with barnes, they can help you there. They have done all the testing, and have rated their product accordingly. Although they may be a bit conservative it is a good guide to start with. Happy hunting

[Win94]

Very good post, good explaination. When sighting in for big game with a flat shooting rifle I never sight in more than 2 inches high at 100 yds( just my preference). I then spend a little time at longer distances to see what it looks like at say 300 and 400. It's also good practice, as I need to practice long range shots to stay in good form to take them, as well as be comfortable with my rifle at these longer more difficult distances Also if you have it sighted to high at 100 it can actually be hitting a bit higher at 200, this could certainly cause a problem, I only want to calculate in one direction not above and below where I'm aiming.

Since the largest majority of game is taken at closer ranges this I believe is where your rifle needs to be sighted for. Longer shots usually offer a bit more time, if they don't I question taking them as proper range estimation,a good rest, factoring wind drift, etc can't be factored properly. And with time spent practicing you will know what hold over if any is required

I haven't yet tried barnes, although I do plan on giving them a go. I suspect 110 is a bit light, might consider speaking with barnes, they can help you there. They have done all the testing, and have rated their product accordingly. Although they may be a bit conservative it is a good guide to start with. Happy hunting

............x2 very well said!!!