Elvis, the 53gr Barnes TSX I used come from a guy that shoots them in his .22-250 with a 1:14 twist. So long as you not hunting pigs in really cold weather you should be ok (SF will be above 1.05). Also, Barnes has a 45gr and 50gr TSX you could use also.

sweet thanks for that.

We had a beautiful day here in North Texas so I took the day off and headed to the range. Lots of interesting data to share. First, I shot the Barnes 62gr TTSX through the chronograph at the muzzle and then at 250 yards to derive the bullet's ballistic coefficient (BC). Average mv was 2990 fps and down-range was 2238 fps giving a BC 0.292. Second, rigged up a bullet trap and did a terminal test at 100 yards. I shot the 62gr TTSX, 70gr GMX, and the .270 Win 130gr GMX through a gallon plastic jug of water and into a box full of telephone books and magazines. I used the water jug because hydraulic shock is what makes the bullet open up/mushroom.

The 62gr was first, it went about 1000 pages into the first phone book. Its shock, however, tore the pages into the second phone book, about 700 additional pages. One leaf (4.3 grains) broke off and was sitting with the bullet.

Then the 70gr GMX was fired through a fresh gallon jug. It penetrated the first phone book and about 300 pages into the second phone book (600 pages further than the 62gr TTSX). It's shock tore about 500 additional pages.

I was impressed but thought I'd hold judgement until I shot the .270 Win. The 130gr GMX obliterated the water jug, went clean through the 3 full-size phone books I had plus 4 additional Guns & Ammo magazines. The shock tore through 4 additional magazines. There was no comparison in energy and penetration.

Note, all the bullets retained 100% of their weight (if you include the one pedal on the 62gr TTSX).

I was surprised that the 70gr GMX penetrated significantly farther that the 62gr TTSX. Then I started noticing the little things. The 70gr GMX did not have enough velocity on impact to fully mushroom (notice the hollow-point cavity still is present). I expect the GMX needs about 2000 fps of velocity to begin opening up. The water jug the 70gr GMX penetrated only had one vertical rip in the plastic on the rear side. The water jug the 62gr penetrated had 3 vertical rips, front, rear, and side plus it lost its top. It appears to me that the 62gr TTSX had more initial shock and expanded open farther than the 70gr GMX leaving the 70gr GMX with more energy remaining to penetrate with a slightly smaller diameter.

Think I'd use the 62gr TTSX on deer and the 70gr GMX on the hogs where I will need more penetration. Now its time to go to the field. Oh, Vince, I'd use the .270 for the big hogs!

Slim...to say I'm impressed is an understatement mate...you done good young fella.

The performance of those bullets in the target medium you selected is purty darn good mate...now all ya gotta do is "prove" your results in flesh and bone. I have no doubts that the results will be damn near identical, so get out the mate and...GO GET SOME.

Thanks for your very detailed testing buddy.

Cheers, Vince

too right that result is impressive,
thankyou for the hard work and shareing the results

The bullet capture test has left an impression on me as to just how much more powerful the .270 Win was than either .223 bullet. Not only did it penetrate deeper, it left a gapping hole in the phone books and paper dust everywhere. The .223 bullets just tore their way through. I graphed the energy levels of all three bullets out to 500 yards. Yes, if the conditions were right, I would use my .270 Win to harvest a deer at 500 yards. Well my .270 with the GMX bullet still had slightly more energy at 500 yards than either .223 bullet did at the muzzle. The .270 had the same energy at 700 yards as the .223 bullets did at 100 yards. I''m feeling a bit sheepish about this plan.

Ive always said the ol .270 was a mighty canon!!!

Elvis wrote:

Ive always said the ol .270 was a mighty canon!!!

Yup...I reckon its only about a poofteenth behind the venerable 30.06 mate.

Cheers, Vince

Vince wrote:

Yup...I reckon its only about a poofteenth behind the venerable 30.06 mate.

When I did the down-range energy numbers on the .30-06, it only stayed ahead of the .270 with 180gr hunting bullets.

SJ, when you compare energy you better also take into account the abillity to transmit energy to the target. Suppose you have to take 1 shot, which one do you prefer, a cal 12 lead slug at 50 yards or your .270 Win at the same distance?
And for me I did experience a great difference in energy transfert between a .308 and a .284 bullet, both about the same weight and velocity.

And no, I don't know how you can theoretically and practically measure/compare this. I've seen the difference between a mushroomed semi-jacketed bullet and a little-bit-upsetted-at-the-nose all-copper one, where in my opinion the last one did do the best job.

And at the end: every one gets his own challenge when preparing for a hunt. And who has most of the fun: the one shooting 100 animals with the same gun/bullet combination or the other one shooting 10 animals with each time a totally different approach?
I myself still don't need the 100 animals to get my part of the fun.

But I do like the way you're searching your limits and I'm sure you'll be very satisfied when your findings at the range will get their positive test in the field.

Elvis wrote:

good work slim I too look forward to the results, now that third lower???? 6.8spc all the way then you can play with the lighter .270 projectiles and I can find out how good they are without having to buy them myself seriously the 110grn copper job out of a semi has to be deer medicine made to order.

Can you run the energy number on the 6.8 and see if that fills in the middle of your table?

chambered221 wrote:

Slim, I'm definitely not against using such a light caliber or the use of the AR but I do have concerns about the terminal performance level you'll achieve with such a heavy bullet and short barrel !!!

Slim, This is what I posted when you introduced us to the 70gr. bullet...........I think your starting to understand and see what I was trying to say !!!

chambered221 wrote:

I do have concerns about the terminal performance level you'll achieve with such a heavy bullet and short barrel !!! ........... I think your starting to understand and see what I was trying to say !!!

chambered, this performance is with a 24" barrel not the 16" which has significantly less velocity. Just wasn't expecting the gap with the .270 to be that wide. BTW, I alwasy respect your feedback and experience.

I understood you were using the 24" !!!
Imagine what the gap would be using a 16" ???
Like I said I'm not against it, most hunters just don't go through it methodically like you have to get a good understanding of the realities involved.


It's one of the hardest things to get people to understand. Energy data by itself can not be relied upon to predict an outcome. Too many other variables are involved.
You proved this in your testing by the results you seen with the 62gr bullet. You've also proven to yourself that the 70gr. bullet although penetrates more will more than likely do less damage in the process due to it's minimal amount of expansion.
Bullet companies are great for telling us a given speed for expansion but they're not so good at expressing the speed a bullet should be going in order to get a decent sized permanent wound cavity.


Welcome to the world of expansion v penetration !!!

chambered, I load-up ten of the 62gr TTSX so I'm prepared for a hunt with the 24" WOA AR if the opportunity presents itself.