# Barnes Triple Shock?



## badland (Jul 21, 2006)

Has anyone shot any coyotes with these 53 gr Barnes Triple Shock bullets (in the 22-250 cal)? From what I have read up on them they are supposed to be real fur friendly. Awful pricey! Thanks


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

I'm using the 85's in my 243. I've shot 3 coyotes with them.

1. Quartering towards, 106 yds, bullet in the on-side shoulder, out behind the off-side ribs but in front of the rear quarter. Exit wound was enourmous, bigger than a softball.

2. I hit one a bit low in the front leg and never recovered him.

3. I hit the last one right at 300yds through the ribs, in/out. Exit wound the size of a nickle.

I think they are an excellent choice. They have been extremely accurate in the 3 rifles I use them in (and also do very well in several buddies rifles). I may give the 62's a whirl in my 22-250.


----------



## badland (Jul 21, 2006)

Only one person shooting Barnes bullets out there?


----------



## rifle6 (Jan 7, 2007)

i've shot them out of my .223
to much $ they are a great bullet though.
i get better loads with my v-max
as far as fur friendly v-max is not.


----------



## bcupp (May 21, 2007)

I have a guy who shops in the store using 70 gr I think out of a AR15. He loves them. I haven't used barnes that small since they had the varminator bullets but they worked great. He has 3 one shot kills on yotes with the triple shoks. All I've tried them in is 6mm Rem, 7mm STW and 308. I typically get a big exit but great results overall. The 85 gr 6mm actually did extensively more damage than a 139gr. Hornady SST from a 7 Rem Mag.


----------



## sasklab10 (Jun 21, 2006)

haven't shot a coyote with them, but the deer i shot with mt 270 WSM had a exit hole about and inch, which is quite small and i would think it would be even smaller on a coyote.


----------



## lead gander (Sep 3, 2002)

I have shot 6 deer with 300wsm barnes 3X 165 gr. with excellent to in my opinion slightly over kill results(meat damage). Anyone have experience or opinion on using this round on an up coming elk hunt? My savage shoots this round really well.


----------



## sasklab10 (Jun 21, 2006)

My gun is also a savage and shoots extremely well. The 165 gr. should be plenty for elk. With the all copper design you can use lighter bullers than you normally would. Those TSX's will pretty much go through anything.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

The pic in my avatar is a 200gn 30cal TSX that came out of my elk from last fall. The TSX is by far the best compromise bullet I've used. It kills quite well without doing a ton of meat damage. Mostly it works quite well as a reletively fur friendly bullet as well as the exit holes are generally reletively small 2x-4x caliber exit wounds.


----------



## clampdaddy (Aug 9, 2006)

Horsager, It sounds like you've done alot of hunting with X bullets. In your opinion, do you believe that you can run a lighter bullet and still get the penetration of heavier lead cored slug like barnes claims? I'm thinking about working up a load for my 270 wsm useing the 110gr tsx that was designed for remingtons 6.8mm. I'm thinking that it would make a great flat shooting deer load but at the same time I'm wondering if the lighter slug will do the job at long range once the energy levels have dropped off.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

I've simply substituted TSX's in on top of loads I had worked up for other bullets. I'm still a bit "old school" in that I like heavy for caliber bullets. In the 300Win I shoot a 200gn, in the 270Win a 140gn, and in the 243 my only choice is 85 (that's a bit lighter for caliber).

I am going to do some work with the 168's in my 300Win this summer, I'd have no trouble taking 168 TSX's on a hunt for ANYTHING that roams NA. A good buddy of mine just clobbered a 9ft Brownie with a factory loaded 180gn Nosler Partition from a 300Win about 2 weeks ago. One shot and the bear slumped and died in his tracks.

A 130 @ 3300+ should do anything you want from a 270 of any flavor.


----------



## clampdaddy (Aug 9, 2006)

Horsager said:


> A 130 @ 3300+ should do anything you want from a 270 of any flavor.


You're probably right. The extra 20grs is probably worth more than an extra 200 fps when a big mulie presents an odd angled shot at longish ranges.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

In some rifles you will have to go down a step in bullet weight to retain accuracy. My 300 Winchester Magnum will shoot 180 gr ok, but it shoots 165 gr better. Keep in mind that a 165 gr TSX is as long as a 180 gr conventional bullet. My rifle is one turn in ten inches, but for some reason it doesn't like the long bullets. I have to go to 165 gr TSX to get good accuracy. 
The 165 gr Lost River Ballistic bullet would not stabilize in my rifle. It is a very long for weight bullet. When I called their factory they recommended I try their 140 gr 30 caliber. At $42 for a box of 20 I decided I had experimented enough with them.
The new Barnes MRX solves that long for bullet weight problem with a heavy tungsten core. That brings into the subject another interesting aspect. I don't believe the high ballistic coefficient advertised by Barnes. You can not directly relate the ballistic coefficient of a lead bullet vs. any lighter or heavier material. My 165 TSX hit the same spot at 1000 yards as my 165 gr Ballistic Tips. I think the heavy tungsten core MRX will be very good. I just don't buy the idea that moving the center of gravity rearward retains energy longer, especially when Maxima arrows say they have the center of gravity forward for the same reasons. It reminds me of the father and son Pinewood Derby in Cub Scouts. Everyone had their theory about which cars were faster, the ones with weight forward or weight rearward, and they all lost to the team with the best polished axles. 
I don't think I would go as light as 110 gr in your 270 and expect good energy retention. Of course after rotator cuff surgery my hunting partner did a good job on a nice buck at 230 yards with a 110 out of his 300 Win Mag.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

With the 270 in particular the 140gn was an easy choice. I've been shooting 140gn Ballistic tips since I got my 1st 270 @ 15. All of my 270's have shot the 140gn bullets well. So I opted for "more of the same" and they work quite well in my current rifle. However the B.C. numbers are even better on the 130gn TSX, but that's not really relevant until you start to shoot past 600yds though, inside of that distance B.C. means basically squat. What I mean is the difference between the 130 @ .431 and the 140 @ .404 really is moot.

I use Ramshot Hunter powder it's a similar burn rate to R-19 and IMR 4831, Remington cases, and Winchester Large Rifle (standard) primers. I end up with 3100fps out of a factory 22" Winchester barrel. I carry that rifle and my 300Win interchangeably for deer and elk, the only time I really prefer the 300 is on really windy days the 200gn bullet is less effected by the wind at longer distances, to further confuse this (the wind thing) a buddy of mine borrowed my 270 to kill his buck in MT last year @ 450yds on the laser with an estimated 15-18MPH cross-wind. 1st shot went high, 2nd shot K.O.'d the buck in his tracks, not bad for never having layed his hands on that rifle before.

The TSX's have been the most accurate bullets I've used in my 270, 300, and 243. Granted I didn't run through scads of bullets, mainly the Nosler partition (300 and 243), Nosler accubond (300, 270), and Swift sciroccos in the 300. The TSX's were the hands down winners.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> I don't believe the high ballistic coefficient advertised by Barnes.


Good plan as almost all the TSX's BC's have been restated at least once. The 200's I use were restated from .550 to .423. This was my 1st clue that BC wasn't nearly as important as I once thought. I had Leupold do a custom LR reticle using .550 for the BC, even after the restatement the 500yd dot is as right on as I can shoot @ 500yds. .550 down to .423 seems like an awful big jump on paper, in practical testing it meant squat.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That's what I get for buying 500 bullets at a time, and not keeping up with the companies claims. The bc they claim now sounds about right. As a matter of fact, I don't think I looked up the bc for the TSX. I have been shooting barnes since the late 1980's and since buying a ballistics program in the mid 1990's I haven't changed my data. Oh, oh, sounds like an old guy doesn't it? I have been picky as heck in some areas, and evidently slacked off in others. I better get myself up to date. 
As far as the 140 TSX I have not tried them in my 270 Winchester. I have always thought the 140 was a good compromise between the 130 and 150. Although the 270 was first loaded with 130's and they were Jack O'Connors favorites my 270 shoots 150's best. My brother-in-law gave me a box of the old style round nose 150 gr Winchesters. My rifle absolutely loves them. It groups them like I was shooting match bullets. Now if it would do that with a hunting bullet of higher bc.


----------

