[nova]

With the performance increases made with the 85gr Barnes TSX, I was just wondering if any reloaders more experienced than I am would care to venture a guess what an 85gr version of the MRX would do performance wise.

Barnes claims shorter lengths for the same weight because of the more dense tungsten core and I wonder what performance possibilities that would open up...

 

[ron169]

Well, You may be able to load the round out further due to the shorter bullet, so you could stuff nore powder in there. So might yield a higher velocity, BUT that would just further kill the BC of the round, which sucks as is. Would be a quick little round though, and would hit hard if I had to guess.

 

[marinesg1012]

a 90 or maybe 100 grain bullet would be better since it is shorter, may let you load to the same as the 85 grain TSX but have more mass and better bc...

I still want a 90-100 grain TTSX......

 

[nova]

I still want a 90-100 grain TTSX......

I've been thinking the same thing, but started thinking about these as alternative avenue of exploration. The dense tungsten core just intrigues me for some reason...

 

[joshuades]

A is on something. A 90-100grain MRX (which has the tip like the TTSX) would allow the bullet to be shorter, the nose to be shaped to have a better BC for the weight (might bring the legnth out some but not far enough to concern), and fit into standard OAL.

 

[HTR]

From what I have seen, the 90 grain TSX would be the "holy grail" of hunting bullets. The tungsten core of the MRX gives you just one thing:

Tungsten is denser than lead, so for the same size core, the tungsten will be heavier. Thus, in a similar sized bullet, the tungsten core will allow you to have a little shorter bullet and still the same weight. All Copper is already lighter than jacketed lead, so the light weight Barnes' are already as long as their jacketed counterparts. This is not necessarily an advantage in 6.8, because bullet length starts to cut into case capacity, before it benefits sectional density much.

However, the lighter weight does allow us to reach higher velocity, and with an all-copper design, hydrostatic pressure, bullet integrity and weight retention make up the features which do damage. this is why Barnes should have released the TTSX as an 85 or 90 grain bullet. But, then again, they had .270 Winchester on their minds, not 6.8 SPC, so I can give them a break.

For 6.8 SPC, the 85 grain TTSX would be the optimal bullet, IMO....even better than the TSX.

 

[ArtFWTx]

From what I have seen, the 90 grain TSX would be the "holy grail" of hunting bullets. The tungsten core of the MRX gives you just one thing:

Tungsten is denser than lead, so for the same size core, the tungsten will be heavier. Thus, in a similar sized bullet, the tungsten core will allow you to have a little shorter bullet and still the same weight. All Copper is already lighter than jacketed lead, so the light weight Barnes' are already as long as their jacketed counterparts. This is not necessarily an advantage in 6.8, because bullet length starts to cut into case capacity, before it benefits sectional density much.

However, the lighter weight does allow us to reach higher velocity, and with an all-copper design, hydrostatic pressure, bullet integrity and weight retention make up the features which do damage. this is why Barnes should have released the TTSX as an 85 or 90 grain bullet. But, then again, they had .270 Winchester on their minds, not 6.8 SPC, so I can give them a break.

For 6.8 SPC, the 85 grain TTSX would be the optimal bullet, IMO....even better than the TSX.

Maybe we'll see an 85 TTSX or similar sometime?

 

[marinesg1012]

We need to get Art to convince them to produce the new bullet, but since he has already convinved them to make thw 85 TSX and the 100 grain accubond i think we may have to wait for the next semi custom bullet to come out ....

Keep sending emails to Barnes guys and any other company you want to see new bullets from, explain to them your reasoning and we may start to see some positive impact....

Since they can make the MRX shorter then the TTSX or the TSX I think a good 90-100 grain TTSX would be about the same length as a 85 TSX and we (okay constructor) could probably get it over 3000 FPS easy enough...

Per Barnes the TSX opens at 2100 FPS between 1-2 inches of penetration, the TTSX open withing the first inch and requires 2000 FPS min opening velocity, I didnt ask about the MRX in that email...
either would open out to the range where the round drops below the 1k ft/lbs per energy range.

 

[Bushdog45]

I'd like to see a Sierra Blitzking or a Nosler Ballistic tip in the 95 to 100 gr. weight. Fairly affordable bullets with good BC's. I've emailed and called several companies about new 6.8 bullets. The more people that do, the greater the chance of getting these type of bullets. If only to shut us up!

 

[nova]

However, the lighter weight does allow us to reach higher velocity, and with an all-copper design, hydrostatic pressure, bullet integrity and weight retention make up the features which do damage. this is why Barnes should have released the TTSX as an 85 or 90 grain bullet. But, then again, they had .270 Winchester on their minds, not 6.8 SPC, so I can give them a break.

Ok you're kinda getting at what I'm wondering about. Assuming equal weights of 85gr between a TTSX and an MRX, an MRX is going to be shorter meaning an increase in useable case capacity for the same COL. Do you think that extra bit of capacity would give enough extra velocity to be worthwhile?

 

[ron169]

Well, I think it would even out over distance. The MRX wouldld be shorter, so you could use more powder if you load to 2.3. The MRx would have a higher velocity than a TSX or TTSX, but would have a worse BC. So over distance, seems they would even out. Wouldnt the MRX be a better barrier blind round with the tungston core?

 

[joshuades]

I think after reading HTR's rasoning that an MRX would be a good round in the 110 weight range. A TTSX at around 85 or 90 grains would be phenominal out to its range, and an MRX in about 110 or 115 grains would retain its velocity better, maybe getting an advantage for out to about 500yds where the TTSX in a lighter flavor would peter out at around 400 (this is depending upon if you could push a 110 MRX out about 2900 from a 16 inch).

Maybe we could pester Barnes about both?

 

[constructor]

The monolith bullets have made a believer out of me, A 100gr TTSX would have a better BC and hopefully be short enough to load out and get decent accuracy. 90-100gr TTSX would be nice and give a little more range and penetration than the 85 but for shots out to 200yds the 85 works well.
If I hunt elk with the 6.8 again I would rather have a 100TTSX than a 110 Accubond, the weight retention is better.
The GS 99 HV may be the bullet. HTR do you still have doe or cull tags? You may need to test one for us.

 

[Test_User]

A MRX is not a good choice for the 6.8 becasue of the OAL and weight. The 85 is already plenty short and you are not gaining any BC or vel. In speaking with Barnes tech if/when a TTSX model comes out it will almsot certainly be heavier than the TSX and for sure longer. The ratios of the TTSX dictate this apparently. 90-100 is what would likely be the case. The best case would likely be 95. I think its a bit down the road though with the one thing that could speed it up is a LE desire for the round. This is what drove the 100 AB into production right after the realseas of the 110AB.

The best wieghts for the 6.8 for the best balance of BC vel and terming perf is 90-105. Get outside this and you are becoming more specialized.