Barnes 100 gr. vs 115 gr. TTSX

[stead]

I want to load for mule deer at distances greater than 200 yards. This will be from a bolt-action rifle with a 24" barrel. I've had good penetration with the 115 gr. at 140 and 180 yards but have not recovered bullets to see the expansion. I understand from tests others have reported than the 100 gr. TTSX needs about 2000 fps to have good expansion. Barnes may report a lower velocity, but the expansion even in water at that velocity is minimal. I have not been able to find similar information for the 115 gr., only speculation that it will expand at lower velocities.

At long range, am I better off with the 115 gr. at 1800 fps, or the 100 gr. at 2000 fps?

[grayfox]

The 115 has a lower expansion threshold, and better BC than 100 ttsx so for longer distances I would go with them.
IIRC exp threshold is supposedly down at ~1600 but I also re-rate that upwards like the ttsx, like you did - say 1800-1900. Plus I look for at least 1000 ke at impact.
For a 24" bolt action barrel you might get up to say 2660 ft/s MV, which would hit the 1000 ke level at 325 yds (my elev 500 msl so yours might go a bit farther - maybe 350-375 depending on elev). I get 2560 out of my 20" howa.

Barnes reports expansion data via a water tank so that differs from response to ballistic gel/flesh, etc.

[myrifle]

I would skip the barnes and go with a 110 trex from maker bullets.

Confirmed lower expansion speed and higher BC then barnes bullets.

[stead]

I would skip the barnes and go with a 110 trex from maker bullets.

Confirmed lower expansion speed and higher BC then barnes bullets.

Cool, but I already have both 100 and 115 Barnes. I'll look for Trex next time.

[Happy2Shoot]

To add more info.
There is a picture on here somewhere that shows the 115gr has a much larger hollow point than the 100gr bullet.