Barnes's Tests Prove Why Berger Hunting VLDs Are So Successful By Eric Stecker

[Pdvdh]

Dollarhyde,
You'll probably get a spanking by the time this thread runs its course. Bryan Litz uses more accurate instrumentation than the PhD used (chronographs) to determine a bullet's ballistic coefficient. I could find no date associated with the PhD's article that your link directed us to. Berger revised some of their BCs based on BC testing performed by Mr. Litz within the past year or so. You seem to be promoting the position that a person shouldn't believe everything they read in general, or at least everything that's posted on this Forum. Fair enough. I suggest you heed your own advice before placing too much credibility in that sole PhD study and article, if that article alone formed the basis for your first post on this forum.

I suspect Mr. Litz may respond to your post and enlighten both you and I more fully on the instumentation, and soundness of the method(s), he uses to measure a bullet's BC. He's written and marketed a book (Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting) that quite a few LRH Forum members have read and recommended highly. It might be a good reference to digest prior to staking out definitive positions such as "the one thing that is detrimentally true about Berger is that their BC's are inflated".

 

[BryanLitz]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...60o2mOspa1yUWA

Dollarhyde,

I'm familiar with the article you linked above by Michael and Amy Courtney. A longer version of that article appeared in the January 2009 issue of Varmint Hunter Magazine under the title: "Inaccurate Specifications of Ballistic Coefficients". On reading it, I contacted the Courtney's and we had many discussions about our testing methods and results. In the latest issue of Varmint Hunter (October), my response to their article finally appeared. It's titled: "Accurate Specification of Ballistic Coefficients" and is linked here.

I could find no date associated with the PhD's article that your link directed us to.

Phorwath hit on the key point with this statement. In the past, Berger's BC's were higher than they should have been. Not because they were intentionally inflated, but because Berger is a relatively young company that didn't have the resources to test each bullet properly and computer generated BC's were used which were unknown to be 3 to 5% high typically. When I started working for Berger, I adjusted all the BC's to be in alignment with my test results (you can read about my testing procedure in the article linked above). Currently the BC's that we cite for our bullets are very accurate.

The one Berger bullet listed in the Courtney's original article is the .257 caliber 115 grain VLD, and was previously cited quite high. It's since been corrected.

There are still differences between my results and the Courtney's, but they're not as large as their original paper suggests and there are possible explanations for it.

Currently I'm in AZ shooting in their state Palma Championship. Earlier this week we were testing BC's over 1000 yards using my acoustic equipment set up alongside a double chronograph set up that Mid Tompkins developed to capture velocities at 1000 yards (4' by 4' hardware screens). The results of our two tests agree within 1% for the bullets I've processed so far, and those results agree with my previous measurements of those bullets as well. This test verified, using a different method and equipment, that the BC's generated by my test procedure are indeed valid.

If you have any evidence that Berger's published BC's are not accurate, I'd like to discuss it with you. Many times there are variables in shooting that are not understood and can cause the perception that the BC is off, when really it could be something else causing the error.

I welcome this kind of criticism. It keeps us honest, forces us to examine things carefully, and sometimes turns up contradicting 'facts' that can be examined, assessed and understood.

Good shooting,
-Bryan

 

[Dollarhyde]

I've been thinking about buying your book for some time now, as many smart shooters have read it and promote it, but as a prolific reader and a "amateur" shooter I've found I have plenty more work to do in shooting form, habits, and tuning the reloading process than spend all day scouring the net for a bullet with the best BC. But I will order it anyway, instead of getting the info second hand.

I've been watching this forum for what seems like ever, and I've always been very wary of commenting in any manner because of the nature of forums- too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I prefer true experts, if I can find them. That is the best thing about the shooting community. Most of the "Einsteins" of shooting are available and do genuinely try to help.

Your reply does calm my woes about the past inflated BC's. Gun store talk is still riddled with the rumors of a BC for .284 of 0.72 from Berger. I'm not sure if this was a historically published BC or if it was generated from a forum somewhere, but if you have heard of this, please let me know the source and subsequent "truth" of the matter.

My first question regards your testing equipment. Before other readers freak out- I'm asking because any study should be replicable- is your equipment "homemade", that one could build it for a reasonable cost, or is it something sky high of thousands of dollars?

I've done my fair share of research design and study implementation, and can usually recreate the methods other researchers use. I don't want to get lost on that idea, but I would like to have some way of deriving "real" velocities at medium and long range. True downrange velocity has been the critical missing puzzle piece I've been trying to nail down since I've sent my missiles out.

I don't want to drag on, but I have three questions today that do matter enough to utter.

1. How different are the iconic .284 Bergers than the G7 reference projectile? Further, is there any way to discern whether a projectile will fly better or worse than the G7 reference profile, for shooting intuition's sake?

2. Has anyone ever done work on how a projectile's precession effects the rest of flight? If so, is there any field test/work that can be done to make adjustments? Or, is there any predictable method of interpreting twist-to-precession using VLD type seating?

3. Now here's the fire starter. Have you or any other bullet manufacturers compared the predictability of more sophisticated flight models? Pejsa, 6DOF, or any other of the derived models? Which bullets have been tested either only using internal ballistic calculations, and which bullets have never been tested over 100 or 200m? I know that sounds like a meta-study, but perhaps it is just what the doctor ordered to get ALL of the bullet manufacturers to uproot and move to a more valid prediction model.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CA8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ballisticstestinggroup.org%2Fmfrbc.pdf&ei=oxQaS8LMFpS0tgeJ0pDuAw&usg=AFQjCNG9uP0Iy42hlwRbrHN0l4R0QIpBtA&sig2=CbNDql0O60o2mOspa1yUWA

If that link does not work, google ballistic coefficient phd and its usually the second link down.

Now the question is: Who's studies are more accurate? A Doctor in the Philosophy of... or a shooting community?

Don't retaliate so strongly. I'm just being rather concise and you interpret it as rash. I'm not saying I wouldn't shoot Bergers, but you have to understand there is a lot of "viral" and community "marketing" going on here at LRH.com

Now if you want to gripe at me, gripe at me for asking whether you think GS or Bergers are "better".

Dollarhyde, it was a little late and I was a little tired when I read your post and my patience wears a little thin when I see statements like that which are basically made from ignorance. I suggest you spend some time and read throught these forums and get a little more educated.

The shooters here actually use BC's to place a bullet in a relatively small area like a kill zone at up to 1000 or more yards away. If the info they use is bad, then they miss. there are two critical pieces of information used in detrming drops and needed corrections for LR shooting. Velocity and BC. Most of us owm chronographs. These chronys are impresice instruments and vary from unit to unit and one day to the next depending on light conditions. Almost all of us any number of ballistic programs to input our "dope" to get accurate corrections fo down range shooting. Typically we will input the published BC's and our best estimate of velocity based on our chronys. We then shoot at various ranges the verify the drops and the inputed info. If there are differences we correct the velocity and/or BC accordingly.

To come into this forum and tell members who actually use this info in obtaining results in the field is a little laughable. No offense intended, but that's what is.

There are different "types" of BC's based on different drag models for differnt shaped bullets. There are a few articles/threadsi in these forums that discuss that. I recommend you do a search and read them. I also recommend you buy Bryan's book, "Applied Ballistics" and you will learn a whole lot more than you can from the Phd of "Philosophy". If you indeed take my recommendations, you will learn that BC will vary from rifle to rifle and at various velocites and atmospheric conditions.

If you go to Bergers web site, you will notice two types of BC's listed. G1 and G7. G1 is the type that most bullet manufactures advertise. G7 is actually the best drag model for the lwo drag type bullets used for long range shooting.

It is true that many bullet manufacturers advertise overly optimistic BC's and what's more is they dont use the best drag model. As you have found out, Bryan Litz and Berger have under gone an exhaustive effort to correct their BC's as well as provide the G7 model for the low drag bullets. this is a place for shooters to start and then refine based on their unique equipment and conditions and it is about as accurate info as you will find.

You should take a moment to consider the question you asked....

{Who's studies are more accurate? A Doctor in the Philosophy of... or a shooting community? }

I'll ask you a question in return.... What should I believe, a Phd who does a study or a bullet that hits the target @ 1000 yds?

What type of equipement does the Phd use? How exhaustive is his research? How current is the inforamtion?

In the article you posted, The 257 115 Berger had an advertised BC of .523 and a calculated BC of .419 according to the doctor. The Berger site now lists the BC @ .466 and I have every confidence in their listing to being the best info available.

BTW, I'm not really what one would describe as a "Berger Fan". I prefer more controlled expansion bullets for hunting. But I am familiar with Bryan and Eric's contributuon to this forum and they are stand up men and I find Berger to be a stand up company, especially when going through an exhaustive effort to field test and verify theBC's of their bullets which led to reducing the published BC's of most.

Bryan does well to encourage criticism. I would add... do it carefully and do some research prior.

I hope you can benefit from this site and maybe contribute. There is a lot of very good info here based on "experience".

Regards,

Mark

 

[Dollarhyde]

The only thing I've been ignorant of is the selfless work Litz has performed as he collected field BC's on other manufacturer's bullets for the benefit of the shooting community. I'm a cynic and I did not expect or hardly believe that when I heard it, but now that I know my copy is in the mail.

I've known of Berger's updates and use of the "VLD" BC model. This is the information that WE get. I'm searching for other clues that people like Litz may know. Stuff a little too complicated to offer the general public- if research like that exists.

I'm not going to split hairs with you, but I'm not talking about hitting a huge elk's vitals at 900-1000 yards. I hope we can all do that after a few days of practice. Just like when a guy at the range is shooting a 4 inch group @ 100 and he says "Hah! It's good enough to kill a deer!", and you think "hmmmm..."

I'm trying to get inside of those hits- and misses- and see what's going on.

All I'm advocating is the idea, just like in true research, of a unit or band of error. Doesn't sound like many want that though. Which leads to the question of just where do the published BC's fall?

Are we testing a consumer-available box of bullets? Are we testing weighted, sorted, prepped bullets? Are we throwing out the low performing outliers? What about the highs? A manufacturer would probably want those : )

By the way... What's the community's favorite or best performing Chrono? Here's the skeleton in my closet. I got my chrono at a pawn shop. I'm sure it's fine but I'm going to get another one for some 10ft-200 or 300 yard dual chrono-ing. Hopefully, lol.

 

[jonoMT]

Reading the book will answer many questions, especially related to the testing method used and sample sizes, and give you some of the most useful knowledge related to shooting you will ever find. I consider this book far more of a resource than others I've read. It's my favorite book on the subject aside from Julian Hatcher's Notebook.

BTW, as you can see Mr. Litz is a more reasonable sort than we are.

As for ballistics calculations in general, the best you can get out of a ballistics calculator is an approximation. One shooter whose comments I read recently swore that for no valid reason, adjusting his scope height down 2/10ths of an inch corrected his drops vs. tweaking BCs or muzzle velocities. Go figure. But even an approximation will benefit from inputting the most accurate data possible.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

All I'm advocating is the idea, just like in true research, of a unit or band of error. Doesn't sound like many want that though. Which leads to the question of just where do the published BC's fall?

Are we testing a consumer-available box of bullets? Are we testing weighted, sorted, prepped bullets? Are we throwing out the low performing outliers? What about the highs? A manufacturer would probably want those : )

By the way... What's the community's favorite or best performing Chrono? Here's the skeleton in my closet. I got my chrono at a pawn shop. I'm sure it's fine but I'm going to get another one for some 10ft-200 or 300 yard dual chrono-ing. Hopefully, lol.

Most of us here know that published BC's are very relative and we use them as starting points. I have seen a number of posts and reports that vay quite a bit with the same bullet. In my own testing recently, I was tuning a load of 115 Ballistic Silvertips and I used Bryan's BC (for the BT which is the same bullet) which is programmed into the JBM ballisitcs program. His BC is a little lower than the published BC. The drops I got suggestted that the actual BNC I was getting was greater than Bryan's and the published. This may have been due to a velocity variation, but the velocity I was using was already extremely high, so who knows. For my drops, I bumped the BC and maintained the velocity.

The CED M2 is probably the best commercially avaible chrony for a "reasonable" price. I have 2 chronys - one I got about 15 years ago and one I got a few months ago. They are on the cheaper to mid range end of the spectrum. When I set them up back to back the older (cheaper) one consistantly reads higher than the new one by 5-50 fps. I used to think the new one was most accurate, but I'm leaning the other way now. On top of that, I have seen significant swings in read outs under different light conditons. At one time I was going to use the two chrony set up - close and down range - to do some BC testing, but after seeing the lack of consistancy and accuracy with these two, I've decided it would be a waste of time. You really need to have high end equipment to do this type of testing to any meaningful degree. I just go with my drops and adjust the velocity and/or BC based on the best guess with all the available info I have.

 

[7stw]

Hello , and thanks for hitting on one item that DEFINITELY has a affect on OUR WAY OF HUNTING. When I am hunting an area where I EXPECT the shots to be long, or potentially so , I want to have a VLD in the pipe. However , and as you mentioned, if your shots are closer or at "normal' ranges you prefer to a different type of bullet , and we will leave it at that. That being said it just goes to show you that not every bullet is good in every situation. A close appearing deer shot with a smoking VLD will have less than desirable results, although I am sure that death would reult. However, and this is the good part, if a deer is downtown, and in the next county, and the ACCURACY of said other bullet is less balliscally predictable, than a superior bullet, ei BERGER VLD, you dont have the confidence at the shot, and can not put it where it counts. For the overall avergage most of my hunting shots are on the long side and very few are less than average distance, so for my book the Berger VLD is spot on for my intentions.

 

[Guy M]

Good article and an excellent thread. Well worth the 487 pages of reading...

I see a requests for a "controlled expansion" version of the Berger VLD...

Why? The rapid expansion of the VLD in the chest cavity of the game animal is what makes it kill so quickly and effectively.

When I want a controlled expansion/deep penetrating bullet, I'll go with one of the many good premium/heavy-duty bullets on the market. I've used Nosler Partitions for 30+ years now, very happily. Actually they're an interesting and lethal combination of violent expansion, and a rear core that hangs together for penetration. Also have used a few Barnes TSX bullets in recent years, and they too worked as advertised. Reliable expansion, excellent penetration and good accuracy. For their purpose, I like them very much. Have also played with the Swift A-Frame and the Nosler Accubond, both of which hang together very nicely on impact.

However... I have sure fallen hard for the Berger VLD as a general purpose bullet for my mule deer, coyote and rock chuck hunting. I just use the 115 VLD from a .25-06 for all of them. Works great! Three mulies from 175 - 400 yards so far, nothing terribly far, nothing at ten yards like that bear Eric told us about either!!!

At any rate - I see No Need for a controlled expansion VLD - they work great just the way they are, and there are plenty of excellent controlled expansion bullets on the market for that purpose.

Regards, Guy

 

[Chas1]

Barnes product isn't keeping pace and evolving and they know it. That's the bases and why they wrote what they did. They're behind the curve and need to catch up. Kinda of like 2 cars in a race...since your car won't go any faster then let's try slowing the other guys car down. In this case they figured they could pull it off with smoke and mirrors.

 

[7stw]

I have read and re-read the above article from our friend Eric, and have another analyogy about it all. It is almost like a smear campaign in a political race. In this day and time, and especially in our industry,making accusations such Barnes did and the velocities stated which are not attainable is a liability suit at least. The whole article and Erics rebutal has turned my head around to the point that I actually have in my inventory, some barnes tsx bullets which will shortly be given away, and I have some Berger VLD's in 3 calibers and 4 different weight on order. I am very dissapointed by barnes. I feel that each manufactor needs to have the Tact to co-exist in each others arena, but to make and produce facts that are not true and to smear someone elses product is like the games they play in Washington. Just like Goofy on tv said "why can't we just get along". Just my 2 cents, and opinions are like ---holes, and every body has one, That's mine!gun)

 

[gator378]

I am still amazed people take shots at deer at a 1,000 yards. I live near a Conservation area and have the opportunity to view deer often at 1,000 yards. They get pretty small at that distance. Then trying to dope the wind. I think I will stick to 300 yards or less. Shoot when you see the whites of their eyes.

 

[Airgunner7]

How can you not love a bullet that explodes and drops an animal fast?
It looks like it penitrates deeper as it slows down for the long shots too.

The accuracy numbers are bogus, as it has more to do with the load tuning of the rifle. They could have picked a bad harmonic load for the other rounds.

It proves they have a very deep penitating bullet tho...and that can be handy sometimes.

Still, when all said and done +1 on the Bergers as a multi use bullet.

My 3 cents (inflation)

 

[FAL Shot]

I've noticed some glaring errors.

The Nosler Partition (and the similar Swift A-Frame), the granddaddy of premium hunting bullets, was not chosen for testing. It has a combination of rapid expansion for shock and weight retention for punching through. Sort of like a Berger VLD and Barnes monolithic bullet combined. It will cover more situations than either bullet and is more versatile overall. The Barnes and Berger bullets take opposite extremes of the performance spectrum and hype it for all they can.

African big game guides have noted the frequent failures of Barnes bullets while Swift A-Frames and Nosler Partitions usually get the job done. Enough said. That is a report from the real world.

Anybody who has used Nosler bullets extensively will hold the reported accuracy of the Accubond bullets in contempt. The Accubond is very similar to a Ballistic Tip which is highly regarded for accuracy. A Swift Scirocco or Hornady Interbond should be capable of similar performance, and many people report excellent accuracy with all 3 bullets.

Destroying edible meat just so you can have a "bang-flop experience" is not reason enough to choose a Berger VLD. Immediate incapacitation and death by "hydrostatic shock" is also proving to be a myth. A broadhead arrow hits with no more than 50 foot pounds of energy, it has zero expansion, it hits with a velocity well down in the subsonic range, and it rarely exits the animal. The animal usually dies anyway. The arrow also fails to destroy many pounds of edible meat by turning it to jelly. Maybe bullet manufacturers need to go back to square one and study some flint arrowheads. Hydrostatic shock, high velocity, high energy, pass through, and massive expansion are all brought into question by the broadhead arrow that possesses none of those qualities YET KILLS THE ANIMAL ANYWAY.

The reported accuracy of the Nosler Accubond is definitely bogus in relation to the other bullets. I've shot enough Nosler bullets in enough different rifles to know better than that. Barnes had to look far and wide for a barrel and/or load that would be so poor for an Accubond but so good for a Barnes. I guess that had to be brought into question, because if you wanted a bullet that had a mix of good expansion and good penetration, the Accubond won the test, just as the Nosler Partition or Swift A-Frame or Swift Scirocco or Hornady Interbond would have done.

Barnes and Berger mine the opposite ends of the performance spectrum, but other companies strive for some kind of a mix, trying to retain as much expansion or penetration without giving up too much of the other. Maybe Barnes and Berger are really the best at what they do, but that doesn't make them the best in the real world of hunting.

Take all the bullets to a slaughterhouse and shoot large animals at various distances and study the actual results. That was actually done with pistol bullets on billy goats in France. Why can't it be done with rifle bullets? The next time I am hunting blocks of ballistic gelatin, I'll put more confidence in all these ballistic gelatin tests.