Whoa!

I just caught on TacticalGunReview.com’s Facebook feed that Wilson Combat is now making a 6.8 SPC load using the Barnes 95gr TTSX bullet!

Buy yours here.

It’s reporting 2850 FPS out of a 16″ barrel. That’s amazing.

See, the Barnes 95 grain TTSX was purpose-built for 6.8 SPC (i.e. it’s not just another .277″ caliber bullet). In fact, Bill Wilson had a fair hand in the testing and development of that round (see here). Until now the bullet has only been available for handloaders, and folks at the 68forums were getting some good stuff out of them. But not everyone handloads so people want factory ammo. Silver State Armory makes and sells one but it only gets 2580 fps. Charles @ TGR told me the reasons why it’s not that hot, but the exact reason escapes me. It’s a shame because it’s THE bullet. But now Bill Wilson has made a load. It’s advertised at 300 fps faster, which is quite significant. What did Bill achieve? Or could it suffer the problems and may end up being finicky? Don’t know. Curious tho!

I’ve got a ballistics app on my iPhone and I ran some numbers. I plugged in numbers from Wilson Combat’s 95gr TTSX load and their 110gr TSX load, and since they don’t make a 85 grain I used SSA’s numbers from their 85 grain tac-load (since SSA’s 110gr tac-load gave similar numbers to Wilson’s, I figure this is as close to apples-to-apples as I can get). When you compare the 85 grain TSX vs. the 95 grain TTSX, the trajectories are very similar: out to 200 yards the paths are almost similar with the 95 grain being only about 1/3″ lower at 200 yards and about 3/4″ lower at 300 yards. But when you compare energy at same distances, the 95gr has more energy (over 100 ft-lbs more at 300 yards). And even tho the 85 grain starts at a higher velocity at the muzzle, by 300 yards they’re doing about the same speed.  Now comparing the 95 TTSX to the 110 TSX, the heavier and slower 110 of course drops faster and more significantly. Of course, at longer distances the 110gr still has more energy.

To me, between the 85 TSX and 95 TTSX? I’ll take the 95 TTSX. On paper, the 85 does have a flatter trajectory, but the 95’s isn’t off by much at all. It has more energy, and the TTSX expands better. What’s not to like? Between the 95 TTSX and the 110 TSX well, that’s harder to determine because there’s no question the 110 will pack more punch, but you’ll have to do a little more work to get it there. But then if it gets there, how well will it expand? But still, I think I’d go for the 95 because it’s a TTSX with improved expansion, especially at lower velocities. This isn’t to say the other bullets are totally obsolete and should be taken off the market, far from it, because they still have purpose and roles. But if I can only have my rifle zeroed with one load, to have one load to take into the field for deer or hogs or whatever… that 95 TTSX is going to be the best all around. And now that Wilson Combat is making a load for it well… eventually I’d still like to do my own loads to see if I can do even better, but until I can get to loading myself well, I think I know what ammo I’d like to use. 🙂

Updated: found some info about it at the 68forums. One message in particular:

This ammo is based on extensive reloading experience of the WC staff, and has proven to be accurate, effective, and safe in SPECII chambers. It is loaded with Reloader 10x powder, SSA small primer brass, and premium projectiles. I do not have any pressure data that I can share.

Posted from Wilson Combat themselves. R10x powder. Nice! But interesting, since supposedly R7x is the “preferred” powder for this bullet. We’ll see how the thread progresses.