Just got my May issue of Small Arms Review. In the New Review section of the magazine, theirs a brief summary of Blackhills new 62 grain Barnes TSX .223 loading. They make claims of high weight retention of the bullet (typically 100%). Expansion of the bullet to .45 Caliber with 20 inches of penetration in ballistics gelatin. Velocity of 3100 fps from 24 inch barrel (probably around 2900 fps in a 16 inch barrel). They claim that this loading meets the requirements of a “Barrier Blind” ammunition. If this loads lives up to the hype, maybe they might offer a 5.56mm loading in the future. It will be interesting to hear what DocGKR has to say.
From what I have read, there are two limitations with the Barnes bullets. If they are driven too hard the petals shear off and they become small wadcutter profile. If they go through glass and some other barriers the petals shear off and they become small wadcutter profile.
General performance seems to be better with the Federal TBBC bullet or the Nosler Partition bullet.
Even though I have bought some of the Corbon/Barnes loads in several calibers I am having second thoughts about the alleged “superior performance” of the Barnes design for my purposes.
I’ve questioned the wounding effects of Barnes bullets for years. It seems to me that because solid-copper bullets remain largely intact and don’t shed fragments that the permanent disruption produced would be substantially less than that of a common jacketed lead core bullet that fragments, in which the fragments and temporary cavity work in synergy to increase permanent disruption.
The Barnes bullets work great on big game in the larger calibers, that is a fact. They expand well, penetrate fantastically, and, this is only my I belief from observation, they have an extra cutting effect that many other standard bullet do not have (the average expanded lead bullet takes on a sort of round nose lead profile when expanded, not a very efficient wounder).
I have also found that in sheet metal they greatly outpenetrate other offerings in .223, this using the Cor Bon DPX loads with this bullet style in both 53 and 62gr.
If they are driven too hard the petals shear off and they become small wadcutter profile.
Just a thought…I wonder what a high velocity .22 wadcutter would do? Anybody here ever experiment firing bullets base first into gelatin?
“Anybody here ever experiment firing bullets base first into gelatin?”
Yes, both 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm.
“I’ve questioned the wounding effects of Barnes bullets for years.”
As tpd223 accurately relates, the Barnes TSX bullets actually work very well.
OK, so what happened when the 5.56 bullets were fired into gel base first?
I can’t speak that that part, but the 53gr DPX fired from a 16" Colt into gel at 10’ resulted in the petals shearing off and the wadcutter-ish bullet going through both the primary and stopper gel blocks.
Penetration was running 27"+, just going from memory so IIRC applies.
“OK, so what happened when the 5.56 bullets were fired into gel base first?”
When fired at 3m, the bullets hit the gel block and penetrate 20+ inches.
So Doc, do these rounds get your stamp of approval?
Cagemonkey–In general, I think intentionally loading bullets backwards is incredibly stupid.
Regarding 5.56 mm Barnes TSX bullets, the answer is here: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19881
Then is the Barnes TSX better for general use where barriers may be encountered given it may or may not keep its petals or is a bonded bullet like the TBBC or the Nosler Partition that seems to always maintain its structural integrity and expand reliably?
From a terminal performance perspective, TBBC is hard to beat, but you also have to factor in accuracy, external ballistics, reliability, availability, and cost.
When fired at 3m, the bullets hit the gel block and penetrate 20+ inches
Ok, so does a backward loaded 5.56 travel base first the entire length of the block or does it yaw? Any comments on the permanent or temporary cavities?..Any diagrams of the wound channel?
Thanks for the link. As far as the original answer goes, I misunderstood the 3 meters @ 20 inch’s had to do with firing the bullet backwards. I agree loading bullets backwards isn’t smart.
No yaw. We did not draw a wound profile, as the concept is ridiculous.
Loading a 5.56 bullet backwards is an easy way to test the wadcutter shape in ballistic gelatin. It is no more ridiculous than testing spheres. No one is advocating backward bullets or spheres for service use.
However, there must be other ways to increase effectiveness other than fragmentation. Perhaps a design that sheds a pointed nose cap upon striking a target, and thus becoming a wadcutter FMJ, might prove effective at rifle velocities.
“No one is advocating backward bullets or spheres for service use.”
I recall Dr. Courtney doing so…
“However, there must be other ways to increase effectiveness other than fragmentation.”
How about barrier blind projectiles like the Federal TBBC, Hornady Interbond, Nosler Accubond & Partition, Remington Core Lokt Ultra Bonded, Swift Scirocco II, etc…
How about barrier blind projectiles like the Federal TBBC, Hornady Interbond, Nosler Accubond & Partition, Remington Core Lokt Ultra Bonded, Swift Scirocco II, etc…
All good choices but they are not Hague compliant.
Staying within Hague restrictions is a challenge. There are objections to fragmenting bullets by humanitarian groups that could restrict them in the future. I don’t know if there are any active campaigns for more restrictions such as in this 1995 report, http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMMA
but we should be experimenting with alternative, but still effective, designs just in case.
Uh…what do you think SOST/TOTM (Mk318 Mod0, Mk319 Mod0), Optimal/“browntip”, the TSWG loads, etc… are all about???