300gr .338 Berger. any info?

Eric -

Thanks for the updated info. Just want to confirm a couple things:

- For the most part, Edge / standard Lapua velocities (2850ish) have had no issues?

- Even after the revised bullets are released, the current ones will continue to be made? My initial understanding was that the revised ones would replace anything previous, but from your last posts I'm inferring that's not the case? That would be welcome from my perspective. I haven't ordered any to this point because I didn't want to work up a load with a bullet I knew was being discontinued / redesigned. If the current one is going to stay around I may rethink that...
 
- For the most part, Edge / standard Lapua velocities (2850ish) have had no issues?

- Even after the revised bullets are released, the current ones will continue to be made?

We have been unable to recreate the results that allow us to declare a velocity that we can say is consistently the limit that the current bullets will take. Those who are reporting problems are relaying that they are shooting at higher velocities but others who are shooting at these same velocities are not having the same problems. This makes finding the root cause challenging but at the same time it also helps as it eliminates things as well.

The best answer I can provide to your first question is that you should try them in your rifle. If you observe no issues then your rifle does not produce the negative end result and you are fine. If you observe poor performance at higher velocities and you desire to shoot only at these higher velocities then we will replace all your bullets including those you've shot with the new version.

The answer to your second question is yes. The original bullets will continue to be made. There is a chance that the revised bullet uses the same external dimensions as the original bullet. If the external of the revised bullet is the same and the performance is the same as the original bullet we may end up with one bullet in the end. To be clear this will happen only if the performance of the revised bullet is the same or better than the original while at the same time the external dimensions are the same.

The original bullet is performing very well for most shooters who try it so we will continue to make this bullet. Until we know which changes will be made to the revised bullet there is no way for us to know what the revised bullet will consist of. If I were to put money on it I'd estimate that the revised bullet will be externally identical to the original bullet but this is speculation.

Regards,
Eric
 
That's why i shoot berger bullets good luck getting any other bullet company to spend time on a web page trying to answer ??????? about there bullets are problems they may have with them.
That's the way business should be done!!!!!

Way to go Eric / Berger Bullets
 
I was supposed to be testing mine on antelope Thursday , but my project had a set back, cant wait to let em rip
 
The hybrids shoot very well out of my edge AI. I fired 5 - 5 shot groups this weekend all under 0.25moa for vertical at 1000, and all under 1moa for horizontal. The ballistics of the hybrids pushed to mid 2900fps makes hits much easier with variable wind conditions. After getting an edge I see why the bigger 338's are so popular, it's very tough to beat the sheer ballistics produced. I push the hybrids to 2930fps with no issues, but at 2980 I get the lowered BC. The .419BC at 2930fps is pretty hard to beat.

There is only one problem... we need a bit more production of the 300gr hybrids.

Eric - make all that you can, if others get the consistency I have gotten, you will never be able to make enough. It's a huge plus to have the owner of a company on a public forum such as this, it's a good practice and shows that you care about the users of you bullets.
 
I am very curious, why these bullets seemed to not work in my rifle at a much lower velocity than people seem to be fine with. hopefully, even for curiosity's sake someone can answer.
 
I seem to remember a post from Bryan about this. He said that the nose slump was caused from pressure/acceleration and not velocity. I'm not sure of all the details.
 
Here we go. From Berger's website.

Limitations to the Bullet's Structural Integrity
Another thing that happened when we released these bullets to the public is that they were fired in cartridges that are more energetic than the .338 Edge which I used for the initial evaluations. Upon exposure to the extreme pressures and accelerations produced by some of the larger cartridges, some negative results were observed; poor groups, and lower observed BC (even lower than the revised values above). Our current working theory is that the poor precision and reduced BC are a result of nose slump. Nose slump is when the bullet is accelerated so fast that the base of the nose can't support its own weight, and bulges out to fill the barrel. This produces a bullet with a longer bearing surface and a shorter nose which explains the compromised BC. Since this deformation doesn't occur exactly the same every time, poor precision also results.

The exact threshold of pressure/acceleration that will cause nose slump with this bullet is not known. There are a number of small to medium capacity cartridges that shoot these bullets very well, with extremely good precision and a repeatable BC. So far there have been no reported cases of nose slump with cartridges in the following class: .338 Winchester Mag, .338 Norma Mag, .338 RUM, and .338 Edge, etc.

The .338 Lapua Mag seems to be a borderline case which may or may not produce nose slump. Factors that affect pressure/acceleration will affect the likeliness of nose slump occurring. For example, ball powders are typically faster burning than stick powders, so they produce higher peak pressures, and are more likely to produce nose slump. Tighter bores can also cause elevated pressures and tip the scales toward nose slump.

Cartridges like the .338 Lapua Mag Improved and larger are virtually assured of producing nose slump when loaded to their potential pressures.

If you're working up a load with these bullets and having difficulty finding a precise load, it's likely that you're exceeding the pressure threshold where nose slump happens. In small to medium cartridges, the hybrid ogive design makes it quite easy to find an accurate load. The bullet is quite insensitive to seating depth. If you're working with a large capacity case and having poor results, you should consider reducing the powder charge until good groups are achieved.

When designing a bullet for use in hunting applications, the toughness of the bullet is always a trade-off. Terminally, you want a bullet that is capable of reliable expansion/fragmentation at low impact velocities. However, the bullet can't be so thin-skinned that it doesn't survive being launched at very high speeds. This being our first time working with a bullet this large, a construction was selected which we felt would strike the best balance between toughness and terminal performance. Simply put, we erred too much on the side of terminal performance. The result is a bullet that's perfectly suited for small to medium capacity cases, but simply isn't tough enough to survive being fired from the more energetic magnums.

The good news is that the situation has been identified and several solutions are already being worked on. We know the design needs to be 'toughened up' for successful use in larger cartridges, and we're considering the best way to do this.
 
I seem to remember a post from Bryan about this. He said that the nose slump was caused from pressure/acceleration and not velocity. I'm not sure of all the details.

Jumpalot,

Eric Stecker IS Berger Bullets. Bryan Litz works for/with Eric. It would be safe to presume that the information Eric has shared by posting in this Thread is the current status of the problem identification and resolution process - at least the current status being discussed publicly. If Bryan Litz knows what the issue/cause is, then Eric would also know. And if Eric knows, it's safe to presume Bryan would also know. They are both in the employment of the company Berger Bullets. I sense you may not realize this, based on your Post.
 
Jumpalot,

Eric Stecker IS Berger Bullets. Bryan Litz works for/with Eric. It would be safe to presume that the information Eric has shared by posting in this Thread is the current status of the problem identification and resolution process - at least the current status being discussed publicly. If Bryan Litz knows what the issue/cause is, then Eric would also know. And if Eric knows, it's safe to presume Bryan would also know. They are both in the employment of the company Berger Bullets. I sense you may not realize this, based on your Post.

I do realize this and I am aware of Brian's and Eric's relationships with Berger bullets. I was commenting to the post above mine about why timeless61 could be experiencing problems at lower velocities. My take on Brian's post is that pressure may not be related to velocity. My interpretation on what Bryan was saying is that in some rifles pressure/acceleration may be built quicker than in other rifles due to faster powder, tighter chambers etc. This could cause peak pressure/acceleration to occur faster which causes nose slump but may not transfer to faster velocities. That is just my interpretation on what Bryan is saying and could explain why Berger is having difficulty replicating the nose slump. I was in no way saying that Bryan knew more than Eric. I was just pointing to some info that could help explain timeless61's problem.
 
Timeless61 has an extreme important and valid question. Frankly I believe the answer speaks directly to the true root cause. Phorwath post is also both correct and timely but I'll get to that in a moment.

I'll address Timeless61's situation first. The result that in some rifles the trajectory is consistent with a lower BC at different velocities is actually significant evidence regarding cause. Since these bullets were made with the same material, at the same time and using the same tooling, the bullets are essentially the same.

Assuming that the bullets are the same but the negative results are achieved at different velocities essentially eliminates a root cause that is specific only to the characteristics of the bullet. This does not mean that the true root cause is not part of the bullet but it must be affected by something else to produce this result at different velocities in different rifle. This means that things like nose slump and core slippage (another theory we tested) is much less likely a true root cause since they should occur when the same forces are applied.

So now we are left with potential causes that are certainly partially due to the bullet but must also be due to differences in the rifles. We already tried many different ammo/load configurations so we've essentially eliminated load as a factor in determining true root cause. What remains then is the barrel.

When we consider how a barrel can affect a bullet in a way that produces a negative end result but at various velocities we are quickly brought back to the potential for partial core melting. If a bullet is subjected to friction that results in a small portion of the bullet's core becoming plastic the end result can be consistent with the negative end result being observed. This is the next area that we are going to test.

Frankly, there are a few realities that make core melting seem unlikely at first. For example, core melting typically produces a failure (blow up) which is obvious to the shooter. So far we have not received reports of a failure to make it to the target. However, the 338 cal bullet is so much larger than anything we've done before so it is possible that the results from a 338 cal core melting only at the point where the rifling touches the bearing surface could potentially produce different results but not actually achieve the blow ups we are used to seeing in smaller calibers.

Another reality is that core melting typically occurs randomly. For example, a shooter is working on a 20 shot string during a competition. So far everything is fine until shot 17 (for this example) does not produce a hit on the target. Every shot before and even the remaining shots make it to the target just fine but one shot blows up in flight. (NOTE: For the record this situation was resolved by making the jackets thicker which are now our Target bullets. We have essentially eliminated bullet failure due to core melting in all bullets 30 cal and under) When the 338 cal is observed to produce the negative end result it is consistent with all bullets fired. The fact that precision is poor could mean that some bullets are more affected than others but all bullets fired under this circumstance typically produce a measured BC that is fairly tight but lower than our known G7 BC of .419 suggesting that the root cause is not as randomly occurring as we believe is the case with core melting.

For these reasons, core melting was not considered a potential root cause at first. I learned long ago that successful trouble shooting is a deliberate process of elimination. We go after what we believe is the most likely cause until we prove that it is not. Then we move on to the next one. At this point nose slump and core slippage have been eliminated as true root causes. In the end we will be left with the answer so it is just a matter of time.

Having said all this it is important to keep in mind that at this point we have only theories that must be proven before a true root cause and applicable solution is created. This brings me to Phorwath's post.

When the article that Jumpalot posted was written we had not completed any testing. The comments made about nose slump were based on what we believed to be the most likely cause for the negative result that was observed. Frankly, we believed strongly that these results were due to nose slump.

After extensive testing to first achieve the negative end result by deliberately causing nose slump and then applying solutions that address nose slump it was made clear that nose slump is not the true root cause.

The next most likely cause of this situation in our opinion was the potential that at a certain threshold our bullets would be subject to torque forces that produce core slippage. This was also tested thoroughly allowing us to eliminate core slippage as a root cause.

When this test was concluded frankly we were a bit baffled. We took a fresh look at all the observed results and worked to match known causes. It was the fact that the velocity threshold was not constant that suggested the potential for core melting. This is an area where we have done a considerable amount of testing but never with a bullet as large as a 338 cal.

Phorwath's post speaks to the fact that what we (Bryan and I) know today is different than what we knew when Bryan wrote the article discussing nose slump. When Bryan returns from shooting with the US Palma Team in Australia he can confirm our knowledge at this point and the testing we are working on that I've described above.

We are working hard and closely together to get to the bottom of this situation. The good news is that it is not magic. There is a very real and repeatable cause for this result and all we have to do is identify it and provide a solution. It is only a matter of time until this happens.

I will add one comment to LongBomber's post. We will be making more of the existing bullet but admittedly we are holding off until we know more about the true root cause of this situation. I will feel much better making more when we can inform shooters about the specific limitations that they may encounter with this particular bullet.

The last time I checked Sinclair and some other dealers still had stock of the original run and it won't be long before the 338 cal Berger is rolling again. Getting this situation clearly understood and behind us is particularly exciting to me since we still have a 250 gr Hybrid, 250 gr VLD and 300 gr VLD to build that have not made it off the "drawing board" yet due to this situation. I'm not sure what the BC will be for the 338 cal 300 gr VLD or how it will perform but I'm eager to find out.

Regards,
Eric
 
Last edited:
Lovdasnow,Please tell me if you recall the name of the person you spoke with who gave you the information you posted. I must make it clear that everything you posted is not true (except for the part about you thinking you sounded skeptical. I'm sure that is true). I don't blame you for this misinformation but as you can imagine I am very interested in the person who shared this with you. I'll expand on what is actually happening in a moment.


Hey Eric, thanks for taking the time to post here and clear things up. wish it was better news. I have 250 of the hybrids getting delivered today, so I guess I'll see how they do at higher then suggested velocitys.

as far as who i talked to, i have no idea.... he was male, i didn't get transfered, he was the one who answered the phone. he sounded 40's-50's, but i could be way off, just a guess on that one.
sorry i couldn't have been more help. I don't want to get anyone in trouble, but i as a business owner I do understand your frustration with this guy.

can't wait for you guys to get these issues resolved!
 
he was male, i didn't get transfered, he was the one who answered the phone.

Can you tell me which number you called? Was it our main line at 714-447-5456 or our tech line at 714-447-5458? This will narrow it down to the point where I can follow up with (educate) the right person.

Regards,
Eric
 
Getting this situation clearly understood and behind us is particularly exciting to me since we still have a 250 gr Hybrid, 250 gr VLD and 300 gr VLD to build that have not made it off the "drawing board" yet due to this situation. I'm not sure what the BC will be for the 338 cal 300 gr VLD or how it will perform but I'm eager to find out.

Regards,
Eric


Amen to that!!

Sure would like to see that 300VLD coming out of my rifle at 3k+!
 
Warning! This thread is more than 14 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top