Nice looking graphs. In terms of penetration, do you have any data of how far each penetrates at range?

thx.

130gr GMX penetrated 32" of elk at 400 yards just in front of the hind quarters and stuck in a front rib on the opposite side, straight and true through the heart. However, this was at 8700 ft elevation so its velocity was closer to what you would see at 300 yards as sea level. Most elk aren't at sea level. The 129 LRX would not have penetrated as deep because it would have expand more.

www.huntingnut.com/ind...s&start=15

Here is some more shots of GMX performance on elk which were all pass through.

www.huntingnut.com/ind...o&start=30

Great pics. Thx Jim.

It seems your data supports the use 130 grain monolithic bullets for large game such as elk. I see from some of your posts that you've experimented with the 110 ttsx. Is the 110 ttsx better for game up to 300 lbs or will the 130 grain ttsx or GMX work just at well (in terms of expansion on game lighter bodied than elk)? I'm looking into a load for large dear, sheep and goats.

Jim

The 110 TTSX launches at 3400 fps from a .270 Win and has a very flat trajectory (the only advantage I have found for the 110 TTSX). The 129 LRX has out expanded the 110 TTSX in terminal performance testing at the same energy level. In my rifle the 129 LRX and 130 GMX surpass the 110 TTSX after 200 yards especially when it came to accuracy in my specific rifle. I think a hunter is better off using a single bullet so they gain confidence every shot and every time they go to the range. IMO, the heavier bullets are not wasted on deer, will transfer more energy, and buck the wind better. Note, in my buddies .270, the 110 TTSX shot as accurate as the 130 GMX did in mine.