Barnes TSX

Mike D. · Post by **Mike D.** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:36 pm

What would happen if you attempted to cut the tip of the Barnes TSX all copper bullets in order for them to work in a tubular mag levergun? I need these bullets to work in my .33 Winchesters, so that they will be CA legal.

Leverluver · Post by **Leverluver** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:50 pm

It won't work well, if at all. You need the thin mouth to open and then that peels back the thicker material. If you start with the thicker material to begin with (after cutting off the thin) it will drastically raise the minimum opening velocity, maybe even over the max muzzle velocity the cartridge is capable of. There is a reason that the few lever bullets they made (45-70, 348) look like a flying trash can from the front. You need the large opening and thin mouth to "pop" the bullet open.

shawn_c992001 · Post by **shawn_c992001** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:42 pm

I'm lost, why do you have to cut the tips off of your bullets in Cali.?

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:19 am

shawn_c992001 wrote:I'm lost, why do you have to cut the tips off of your bullets in Cali.?

You missed the point, he wants the tips off so he can use formerly tipped bullets in a levergun. Since no one make a NON LEAD bullet in 33 cal, FOR LEVERGUNS he wants to make one.

This is what he wants them to be like,

Except this was with a Hornady 270gr spire point when it started (375 cal). The 3rd from the left is the flat tipped one after firing from my 375 Win 94 BB.

Mike D,

I'm on the same quest as you. just got a lathe for Christmas to cut and bore the centers with. Th Hornady was done with a harborfreight mini cutoff saw. I wanted something more precise for the Barnes bullets. I have some 235gr Barnes TSX's at home (spirepoint), and they will become hollow points when I get done with them, most liely around 210gr, maybe 200 but we'll see. I will be posting results. I do not believe they need to be as large of a hollow point as the 45-70 offerings, but will test them to be sure.

I'll also be doing the same thing with some of the Barnes 458 cal in 450 and higher weights. I want a bullet to compete with the Garrett Hammerhead loads. Thses may or may not expand, haven't decided, but I do want to make some 400gr samples that ARE hollow point.

The inside of the Barnes HP is designed to open in uniform petals, and it's just a matter of getting the correct dia of the HP, in my theory. Emails to and from Barnes seem to bear this out. The 300gr bullet is designed to open a rediculously slow velocities, thus the "trash can", but I'm looking for performance loads.

The short answer, in my opinion, is it will work.

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:21 am

By the way, forgot to add, the Hornady above is not a hollow point, but a flat point, with no other mods.

shawn_c992001 · Post by **shawn_c992001** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:49 pm

I got ya now, thanks for clearing it up for me. Is there any way to melt the lead and simply dump it out?

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:32 pm

Mike D -

Barnes has a Banded Solid Bullet. It has a flat point. It looks like the meplat would be big enough to use in a tubular magazine. Check out their website www.barnesbullets.com and look at their Banded Solids section.

Dia: .338
Wgt: 250gr
S.D. .313
B.C. .208
Cat. # 33824

What specific rifle and caliber are you loading for.

We can whip this stuff if we work together!!!!!!!!! Hope this helps.

EDIT:

Check out this link Mike.

http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/r ... ed-solids/

Are you loading for your 1886s and the .338 WCF? If so, weren't the original bullets 200gr? If so you could trim the 250gr Barnes Solid back a bit to get a wider meplat and still have a 250gr to 220/230gr bullet.

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:49 pm

Modoc
I think the issue with the solids might be twofold, first CA law may also still require an "expanding" (no clear definition of expanding either) bullets, plus the frontal section of the banded solids may be too long to feed, maybe. But, as you mentioned thay can be cut back.

I'm out of town but headed home today. I saw online the extra tools I ordered for my lathe were delivered, so I hope in a few days I'll have some .375's to test for my Big Bore. If they work well, I'll gladly modify bullets supplied by fellow levergunners to keep them a shootin. Just as long as they pay shipping and tool cost, if any. Either way these are going to be expensive hunting bullets.

I'm in Atascadero as I type, have been pig hunting up here, and visiting in-laws for new Years, but I'm hunting with the Barnes, just to test them. They're not required yet, but I have them loaded.

We'd have to work out details like desired weight etc. This would only be necessary on calibers or weights not made already by Barnes. Like my 375 or the heavier weights of the 45-70.

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:58 pm

handirifle wrote:Modoc
I think the issue with the solids might be twofold, first CA law may also still require an "expanding" (no clear definition of expanding either) bullets, plus the frontal section of the banded solids may be too long to feed, maybe. But, as you mentioned thay can be cut back.

I'm out of town but headed home today. I saw online the extra tools I ordered for my lathe were delivered, so I hope in a few days I'll have some .375's to test for my Big Bore. If they work well, I'll gladly modify bullets supplied by fellow levergunners to keep them a shootin. Just as long as they pay shipping and tool cost, if any. Either way these are going to be expensive hunting bullets.

I'm in Atascadero as I type, have been pig hunting up here, and visiting in-laws for new Years, but I'm hunting with the Barnes, just to test them. They're not required yet, but I have them loaded.

We'd have to work out details like desired weight etc. This would only be necessary on calibers or weights not made already by Barnes. Like my 375 or the heavier weights of the 45-70.

handirifle -

You make a good point about "expanding" bullets (soft points) having been required in CA for hunting but I "THINK" in the proposed regulations as pertains to lead-free bullets, DFG had to take out "expanding"/soft point bullets as there are no lead-free, soft point, bullets made.

We'll keep working on it (the lead free bullet thing) and get it right eventually. Thanks for your efforts and words.

Oh, I did get some Barnes XPB 225gr, .429, pure copper, bullets to reload for my .444s and try out but I would like to get some heavier ones too. Anyway, it's too dang cold (0Âº - 10Âº with snow on the ground) to do much experimenting at the range so it'll have to wait a bit before I can get out and shoot em. I'll be reloading some this week though.

handirifle · Post by **handirifle** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:34 am

Yea we have a heat wave here, it's 32.

Modoc ED · Post by **Modoc ED** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:05 am

handirifle wrote:Yea we have a heat wave here, it's 32.

Man!!!! If it was 32Âº here, I'd consider going skinny-dipping in the creek just below the house.