Barns 225 gr TSX in .338 ??



No announcement yet.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barns 225 gr TSX in .338 ??

    Hello all. Neophyte here.

    When Googling to find the answer to my questions below, I could find none, but this forum had the most detailed discussions of the 225gr TSX bullet in .338., and I saw a lot of other interesting things on hunting and shooting.

    I just bought a Mark V Weatherby Accumark in .340 Wby. I donít reload. I have been shooting the 180gr Federal TSX round out of my 300 Win Mag with great success. I figured that the 225gr Weatherby factory loading with the 225gr TSX bullet was an obvious choice for me to hunt any thing smaller or less dangerous than a BB. However, once I started looking at the specs for that bullet, I became somewhat disappointed and confused by its ballistic coefficient. I appreciate any answers to my dillemma:

    All bullet types by a given bullet manufacturer for a particular caliber seem, as is logical, to increase in ballistic coefficient as they increase in weight (and thus length). One exception I can find in the Barnes .338 TSX bullets:

    185gr = 0.352 BC
    210gr = 0.404 BC
    225gr = 0.386 BC
    250gr = 0.425 BC

    For the .338 Tipped TSX bullets:

    160gr = 0.342 BC
    210gr = 0.482 BC
    225gr = 0.514 BC

    It is odd to me that the BC drops off for the 225gr TSX over the shorter 210gr bullet. Do you experts think it's a misprint or something else? If it's a misprint, I would like to know, so I could calculate ( the actual downrange ballistics of the factory Weatherby 2,970 fps MV loading. If it is not a misprint, I hope Weatherby decides to load, instead, the 225 TTSX bullet instead. Using the calculator linked above, the difference between a 0.386 BC and a 0.514 BC 225gr bullet leaving the muzzle at 2,970 fps sighted in at 300 yards is that the TTSX would hit four inches higher and with FIVE HUNDRED more foot-pounds of energy at 500yds (2,239 fpe for the TTSX vs. only 1,749 fpe for the TSX at 500yds). That's a big difference.

    Also, the Weatherby "Ballistics Specifications" pdf states that the .338-.378 225gr loading uses the same 225gr Barnes TSX, but lists a BC of 0.482. Is that a misprint? I know of no 0.482 BC 225gr Barnes TSX in .338 caliber. The only 225gr Barnes TSX in .338 caliber listed on Barnes' website is the 0.386 BC. I am hoping for answers to the above so that I can decide whether or not to use the factory Wby 225gr load in my .340, and if I do, how fast it will be going and how far it will drop at longer ranges.

    Thanks in advance for any comments or answers.

  • #2
    Quickest way to answer your question is to phone Barnes and ask Ty. They are very helpful. Or go straight to their website.

    I really like their 225 and have used it with great success out of a 338 Win Mag. Good luck. J.


    • #3
      An even quicker way is to look at the information on the link that you provided. The 185gr and 210gr bullets in the chart are boat tail design and the 225gr and 250gr are flat base.

      The boat tails are simply more aerodynamic. The boat tail design reduces turbulence and drag resulting in a higher BC and less drop down range.


      • #4
        Wow, that was fast--you guys are great. Thanks, OldRgr. I did e-mail Barnes after they closed midday on Friday, but thought I would ask here in the meantime.

        Thanks Marshall for figuring it out. I should have, but didn't think of that. I wonder though why they don't make the 225gr TSX bullet in a BT? I wish Weatherby would put the 225gr TTSX bullet in its 340 Wby loads. It does so much better down range. I see a 250gr Barnes MRX bullet is coming out soon. I'd love to have that one in the .340 Wby factory load. I suggested these on the Wby forum, but got no response. It's enough to make me want to reload, but I'm sure that's a ways off, as I don't have time to learn right now.


        • #5

          It is not unusual to have misprints in reloading books. I take most of the figures for B.C. with a grain of salt. I think the boat tail hype might appeal to me if I was shooting over 500 yards on a regular basis, maybe. I shoot the old 250 grain Barnes X .338 bullet at about 2660 mv out of a 23" barrel on my Mod. 70. I might switch to the 225 grain some day when I run out. It is probably a better choice for an all around bullet then my 250 grain bullet. A 225 or 250 grain bullet out of a .340 Weatherby is a heck of a "critter gitter" if a guy and his rifle can shoot it to it's potential. Most of the first shots taken on Alaskan big game animals seem to start at under 200 yards.


          • #6
            Thanks 338. I want to fullfil a dream and take my dad out to hunt big game in Alaska in the next 9-18 months on a guided hunt before he gets too old to do it.
            I think I would definitely use the 250gr NP load on big bears. Or I would even more prefer a 250gr TSX if Barnes made one or a 225gr MRX since they apparently will make those soon. I was just looking for a perfect non-dangerous game round to handle everything I wanted to shoot from Maryland whitetail to Colorado elk to Alaska black bear and moose. I like the idea of the Weatherby factory loading in the 225gr TSX for a couple of reasons: (1) I have frankly fallen in love with the 180gr TSX's performance in my 300 Win Mag; and (2) the 340 Wby 225gr TSX rounds exits at the same velocity as the 180gr 300 Win Mag one I like so well. Thus, I figured that the 340 Wby 225gr TSX would perform much like its smaller 180gr .30-cal brother at the same velocity, only it would penetrate through more big game bone and make a bigger hole. I was just a little disappointed to learn that it has such a relatively low BC, muchh lower than the 180gr .30-cal TSX. I know it might not matter many times in my lifetime, but, if I am going to carry such a rifle, I would rather have the extra 500 fpe and less drop that something like the TTSX bullet would have far down range, especially if hunting elk in the Rockies.


            Footer Ad Module 300 x 300


            Footer Adsense