B.c. Crazy!

[Mikecr]

I think the concerns could be better reviewed in the 'ELK HUNTING' section of this forum, as
'External -vs- Terminal ballistics'
Elk Hunting - LongRangeHunting Online Magazine

This, since it seems to apply specifically to elk hunting.

 

[elkaholic]

Agreed, at 200 ~300 yards BC makes little if any difference. But like all error factors in long range the farther you go the more it matters.

But with the very caliber and the black bear you used as a referance my last bear was fine with me using a high BC bullet at 378 yards.

Lnk to the stort below:

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f88/my-2011-black-bear-my-300-wm-73292/

I guess I am not wrapping my head around what you are trying to present. Maybe that is due to the differences we have had in the field.

Sorry if my posts were not on task.

Jeff

Jeff, I agree with pretty much everything that has been said! My intent was to get newbies to consider ALL the factors that some of us old timers have learned the hard way and not get so enthralled with b.c. alone that they go out and buy titanium bullets to get more b.c. I personally go for the highest b.c. I can get providing it is suitable for the job. Opinions may differ somewhat as to which bullet that is as this forum has demonstrated over and ooooover! That's ok! .......Rich

 

[elkaholic]

I think the concerns could be better reviewed in the 'ELK HUNTING' section of this forum, as
'External -vs- Terminal ballistics'
Elk Hunting - LongRangeHunting Online Magazine

This, since it seems to apply specifically to elk hunting.

Actually, I wasn't just thinking of elk hunting, even though I used that as an example. Thanks for mentioning so I could clarify that!........Rich

 

[HARPERC]

I "think" I get the position that B.C. need not be a deal breaker. I'm more of a moderate range (600 yards) person, and I think this who this is directed toward. An example might be running the numbers of the highest/heaviest BC bullet in a particular caliber against some of lighter faster bullets, may favor lighter faster at a particular range. Or comparable bullets of different brands, but the lower BC just outshoots the slightly higher. I agree.
Without critizing the terminal performance of any high B.C. bullet, I think the point is just because your rifle won't shoot the highest BC bullet out there doesn't mean your done. And if you're truly looking at a 1000 yards or more, and had a rifle made to shoot the highest BC bullet out there and it won't, maybe there is one close that will work well enough, as I'm not in this class of shooter I'll leave that side of the discussion to those that are.

 

[elkaholic]

i "think" i get the position that b.c. Need not be a deal breaker. I'm more of a moderate range (600 yards) person, and i think this who this is directed toward. An example might be running the numbers of the highest/heaviest bc bullet in a particular caliber against some of lighter faster bullets, may favor lighter faster at a particular range. Or comparable bullets of different brands, but the lower bc just outshoots the slightly higher. I agree.
Without critizing the terminal performance of any high b.c. Bullet, i think the point is just because your rifle won't shoot the highest bc bullet out there doesn't mean your done. And if you're truly looking at a 1000 yards or more, and had a rifle made to shoot the highest bc bullet out there and it won't, maybe there is one close that will work well enough, as i'm not in this class of shooter i'll leave that side of the discussion to those that are.

10/4:d

 

[sp6x6]

Here is what I see locally. More people are shooting distance, more tech, and tv type promotion. I see smaller projectiles gettting pushed farther, and the smaller, in general, dont carry the BC'S OF maybe a better suited caliber. I have also seen where a " LR rifle" is handed to someone with little experiance at LR, and takes shots not practiced for. This has been shown on tv also. The proven LR rifle is a better choice though, than a unknown

 

[270 lefty]

I think your point is good some can get carried away with bc as I did with speed in my younger years.
I spent a lot of cash up front for the rig then more for the load development in different powders ect, to determine that sweet spot. Which good grouper helped me with. After that sweet spot had been reached with the highest bc bullet that grouped with a satisfactory standard diviation, that is when I purchased enough powder from the same lot & bullets from the same lot to last the life of the barrel, dont wan,t to be changing bullets now.
The last thing I want to worry about is do I want a Fail safe or my wildcat 169.5 or weather the shot will be 300 yards or 1200 yards. If I am looking at a boone & crocket Mulie @ 1200 and I can't close the gap I would be kicking myself from now until Sunday if I had to pass because I had one of those premium bonded bullets that I know wouldn't expand at that distance. But that 300 yard shot I know both bullets will kill.
On the other hand know your limitations. and your load, shoot & prepare yourself for that situation if the oppertunity of a lifetime present's itself at that distance.
And if you feel comfortable with the shot you will probably make it.

 

[dig]

While I am an advocate of the better BC bullets and have not had a failure to date. BC is not always what it cracks up to be. Run the ballistics on the 338 Lapua or better yet 338-378. Set your max shooting range, are you shooting past about 1,250? (I doubt it) the lower BC 250 SMK and the likes carry less drop and windage then the 300 Grn SMK, or Berger. Energy is more than enough. There is a point of crossover with velocity vs. BC. Run the charts and know your max ranges. Great thread.

 

[Long Time Long Ranger]

Thanks elkoholic and some of the others who have chimed in. Great to see somebody besides me preaching this! Thanks, Thanks and more Thanks!

 

[elkaholic]

Thanks elkoholic and some of the others who have chimed in. Great to see somebody besides me preaching this! Thanks, Thanks and more Thanks!

I think when I first posted this, people may have misinterpreted what I was trying to convey. I don't think higher b.c. can EVER possibly hurt you, unless you are trying to shoot over a ridge and hit something on the other side!. My point, which I think you fully understand, is that terminal performance, which b.c. plays a part in, is what really matters. I think every experienced long range shooter on this forum probably understands that, but to some of the new guys, I'm not sure that is what's conveyed. Thanks for your support.......Rich

 

[winmag]

With my equipment, & ranges I feel comfy shooting critters, & the game I hunt, I kinda hit the wall at 6-800yds.
I practice farther, sure. But in all reality, I try to err on the safe side.
When I add up my max range for my personal ability, & equipment, then factor in the ol' 1500 ish ft lbs, & 1800 ish fps its plain as day to me where they all come together.
Sure I could use a higher BC bullet, but I err on the safe side with a bullet that has the terminal performance I expect, & prefer. I do give up some in the B.C. department, sure, but for the range I am shooting, the higher BC options don't appeal as much, for my prefered, or expected terminal performance. Ya I shoot boattails vs flat base, & tipped vs protected point, or soft point, but it all fits in what I expect for performance in my personal set of self imposed petamaters.
I think, in my world, that the minimum range I may shoot is equally as important as the longest range I may shoot, & I try my best to pick a bullet accordingly. Super high, butt kickin, B.C. or not. What if I don't get that magical perfect broadside shot? Im not advocating poor shots, or poor shot placement, but I have, & will take qusrteting to, & away shots if I'm comfortable with the situation at hand. Higher BC can be a help in shotplacement, but its not what I'm comfortable with terminal performance wise on those severe quartering shots. So for me, I pic a higher BC but not the highest, for shot placement, & bullet construction for all shots near to far (the best of both worlds according to my personal preferance & hunting style anyway).
Someday, when I have a Long Range Only rig built, I may re consider my bullet selection for that specific rig. But for my allround packer/hunting rig, I realise my limmits, personally, & equipment limmitations. B.C. while very important, isn't the only thing I consider when choosing a bullet.

Great post Rich.

 

[Elkmen]

I am a new guy at the long range shooting. Right now my gear and I are comfortable out to 600 and will probably not ever be confident at farther ranges. I have shot the higher BC bullets and they shoot will in my rifle but have settled on the controlled expansion bullets. I am on several forums and there are a lot of documented instances where the high bc bullets failed at both short and long ranges. My gear has all been developed over a number of years experience and works well and consistently. I am not going to trust my shot on a bullet or any piece of gear that I am not fully sure of its performance. Here are a couple of examples.

A buddy of mine took a poke at a 340 bull at about 350 yds with his 300winnie. he told me he felt like he did well, but the bull was moving and he clearly ran off fine.....no blood, limp, nada. he was bummed. 3 days later, his FIL kills said bull to find the burger hit the bone and blew to bits, breaking the bone, but that was it. he was relieved to know he did not pooch the shot completely, but bummed that he gave up on the sciroccos.

If so, then all that you doggedly argued in favor of the Berger was not what you really believe

I've killed two elk with the exact same caliber, bullet, velocity you have. Both were inside 80 yds. One a cow quartered away. Bullet broke the 2nd and 3rd ribs and turned the back half of the boiler room into jelly (just as advertised). She ran 40 yds into the thick stuff and piled up. The only problem I had with this is there was NO blood trail so there was a moment of complete discouragement before finding her (thought I missed!) The second was a spike bull last year up by aspen alley. He was running right to left through the trees. I found an opening and let him have it. Dropped instantly. Then all of the sudden he started to get back up. Without even thinkin about it, I tried to put one through his shoulders. He went down like someone smacked him with a boat paddle! When I got to him he was still alive!Upon inspection my first shot hit just below the spine and clipped the very back edge of the lungs (not my best shot). Then after skinning him down I noticed the shoulder I hit with the second shot was a bloody mess but not a single piece of the bullet got through the scapula. I felt like crap cuz I hate shootin animals up like that.

Sorry this is so long but it supports what others have said here.

 

[Tikkamike]

I am as much a promoter for high b.c. as most of you for long range hunting as being of high importance, but lets talk realistically here! First of all, we all realize the benefit of b.c. for long range for less bullet drop and wind drift, higher retained energy, and better expansion due to higher retained velocity. Having stated these truths, what I am concerned about is that some of the new, less experienced, shooters can easily get caught up in the b.c. craze and bypass some very good and often "better performing" bullets for there hunting bullet selection. I think the main reason for this occurring is, what exactly is long range? First of all, it depends upon what rifle, cartridge combo are you using and what is the intended game animal? We have people shooting elk with everything from 6mm's to 375's and larger with mv's of 2500' to over 3500'+! There are obvious differences here in what long range should be. Also the question becomes, is long range 400 yards or over 1000? For some of us who have worked our way up over a period of years, it may be 1000 yards or more. For some of the newer long range guys, it may well be 400-500 yards. The first consideration should not ALWAYS be b.c.! It is my belief that there are several better choices out there that were made for hunting that are being overlooked for higher b.c. bullets. Most of the time this occurs with capable long range elk rifles. Let's use the 300 WM for an example: Why do we need a super high b.c. bullet in the 100 to even 700 yard range which will likely perform far less reliably than a moderately high b.c. bonded bullet which is made for hunting? Most of the shooters that are qualified to take 1000 yard shots are realistically shooting most game at far less than that with bullets that are likely inferior to what is available. I'm only throwing this out there to make us think a little more clearly and especially to help the new guys not get caught up in the "b.c. at all cost" mentality that I think is a danger that currently exists. I know this is coming from a high b.c. hunting bullet maker, but from my stands, I know pretty much what my range is going to be. What do you guys think?.........Rich

I understand your point and I couldnt agree more. The first thing that pops into my head is the new 300 grain accubond vs. the SMK and berger 300 grainers. I think its a far better choice. Although the 300 grainers do have extra wieght that will get you home in spite of failed performance. The smaller more common rifles like the 300's and the 7mm's There are some good choices out there with decent BC's that will perform well on game. I live in wyoming which is by far one of the most wide open states, in my opinion 9 times out of 10 its harder to get a 1000 yard what than it is a 6 or 700 yard shot with 2-400 being the norm at these ranges BC is simply not nearly as important as a good perfoming bullet. This opens up the debate of ?what does a well perfoming bullet do? but that is dead horse we can REbeat another day. To sum it up I agree! However for super long range I feel the need for every "flight advantage" possible which is why I built my rifle for 300 SMK's and plan to try the bergers. because you cant kill what you dont hit. So there is a line in there for everyone but for different people it is drawn at different distances.

 

[elkaholic]

I am a new guy at the long range shooting. Right now my gear and I are comfortable out to 600 and will probably not ever be confident at farther ranges. I have shot the higher BC bullets and they shoot will in my rifle but have settled on the controlled expansion bullets. I am on several forums and there are a lot of documented instances where the high bc bullets failed at both short and long ranges. My gear has all been developed over a number of years experience and works well and consistently. I am not going to trust my shot on a bullet or any piece of gear that I am not fully sure of its performance. Here are a couple of examples.





Sorry this is so long but it supports what others have said here.

The pics of those 185 Bergers look EXACTLY like a lot of the SMK'S I have tested. I haven't noticed it as much on the Bergers. They usually either turn to fairy dust or don't expand at all (when they fail) quite often they work pretty well. Thanks for all the good posts guys. This is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping to stimulate. Everyone has a little different take, and that's ok!..........Rich