300wm twist

Steve. I agree with all you stated and would add this. I believe the higher rpm of a bullet tears and displaces more tissue thus causing more trauma (wound channel) You can see this in media with bullets fired at the same velocity but with different rotational velocity. You can prove this either with different twist and the same mv or the same twist with more mv but same impact velocity (point blank vs distance).
 
Last edited:
Does the rotation of a bullet slow the same rate as the velocity? As in 12 twist at 3000 muzzle 3000 rps to 2000 at 700 2000 rps. Used those numbers so not to have to use a calculator.
 
Does the rotation of a bullet slow the same rate as the velocity? As in 12 twist at 3000 muzzle 3000 rps to 2000 at 700 2000 rps. Used those numbers so not to have to use a calculator.
No it doesn't. That's why the expansion is different when you test at point blank with a reduced load vs distance with a full load with the same impact velocity.DISTANCE WINS
 
No it doesn't. That's why the expansion is different when you test at point blank with a reduced load vs distance with a full load with the same impact velocity.DISTANCE WINS
Exactly. You can almost say the rpm at the muzzle is the same down range. Not quite but pretty close.

We figured out that testing with reduced loads we have to use increased twist rate in order to get the rpm high enough for a valid test. Impact testing a bullet in media at 1800fps or lower from a starting muzzle vel of 3300fps is a stellar feat. :rolleyes::eek:

Steve
 
Exactly. You can almost say the rpm at the muzzle is the same down range. Not quite but pretty close.

We figured out that testing with reduced loads we have to use increased twist rate in order to get the rpm high enough for a valid test. Impact testing a bullet in media at 1800fps or lower from a starting muzzle vel of 3300fps is a stellar feat. :rolleyes::eek:

Steve
I always load more rounds for the long range impact vs point blank:D
 
The faster twist will help with terminal performance. If deciding on a new barrel the choice to me is more between 8 and 9.

Steve
I guess there could be different interpetations for the word (terminal)? Could it be as complicated to define as the word (is) ? lol
Im of the opinion it could be defined as (final result). But then the final result of what ?
Years back we were told that if you wanted to retain velocity for longer distances, which was even then thought of as being better, you needed to add more powder to the case.
Which is why cartridges like the 30x378 were popular in some places decades before Weatherby got on board with their own version.
Are we now kidding ourselves into thinking that we can reach a destination, by just changing the shape of the numbers we use?
Use of a heavier higher BC bullet in a 300 WM wont
necessarily make it into a better long range hunting cartridge, and it wont in a 30x378 either.
Real world results takes a 240 beyond 1500 yds to get door to door with a 200 gr leaving the muzzle of a 30x378 @ about 3500, which cant be done with the WM.
And theres just one other thing worth mentioning.
At least in PA, you could lay on the road leading to those type locations for the whole hunting season with very little fear of being run over by the bigger dogs. But then that could have more to do with the stronger desire to taste the gravey over bragging rights. lol
 
Kind of states the obvious. All things being equal the higher bc bullet will arrive at a higher vel. I think that's what he said. That would mean that the weight of the bullets being compared are the same and muzzle vel is the same. Not very often we compare bullets like this.

Steve
 
I should clarify. I agree 100% that impact vel aids in terminal performance. Unless the bullet can not hold together.

Steve
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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