Berger Bullets Tech Data List

[Eric Stecker]

Darrin,

I will send the latest sheet to Len so he can switch it out with the current sheet. It does list the data for the all the new bullets.

We are preparring a test for the Hybrid design as a hunting bullet. I can't say exactly when this question will be resolved but we are working on it now.

I estimate that we will know whether or not the Hybrid shape can be used as a hunting bullet by the end of this year.

Regards,
Eric

 

[High Country]

Any .338 caliber bullets in the future?

 

[sp6x6]

By hybrid, does that include the 338 gen2? That I have been hunting with

 

[Eric Stecker]

If you are asking if the 338 caliber details are on the sheet, yes they are. If you are asking if we are testing the 338 cal specifically, no were are not.

We will be testing the hybrid design against the VLD design in one of our most popular Hunting bullets. Our goal is to clearly understand how they differ compared to a bullet with a well known level of performance.

If the Hybrid design acts in a similar way we will expand the test to include other bullets and calibers.

For the moment, we have no plans to test the 338 cal 300 gr Hybrid OTM Tactical for terminal performance. We know that several shooters have used and are using this bullet for hunting. The reports are all positive.

Regards,
Eric

 

[sp6x6]

Thanks, That is what I was asking. Have taken 3 animals w/ said bullet so far, one a 6x6

 

[Hotrod617]

A few questions.

1. the spreadsheet I download does not have the 338 info on it, at least not that I can find. Is there an updated one that shows the 338 and does it include the V2 hybrid?

2. Anyone using the
Berger 338 Caliber 300 Grain Tactical Hybrid OTM Bullets????



If so, for hunting? and how are they holding up?


Bill

 

[Eric Stecker]

Bill,

I'll ask Michelle to get the latest version to Len. Until this is posted you can go to our website to get the latest reference sheet.

http://www.bergerbullets.com/Quick Reference Sheets 5-15-12.pdf

Regarding using the 338 cal bullets for hunting, we have two new bullets that are in development now. The first is our optimized 300 gr Hybrid Hunting bullet which has the same external dimensions as our 300 gr Hybrid OTM Tactical. The difference is in the jacket thickness which will allow the Hunting version to expand and fragment more effectively than the Tactical version.

The other 338 cal 300 grain bullet that is being developed is a SAAMI compliant Hybrid Hunting bullet meant to be used in factory guns/chambers. This design was tested recently on a hunt in New Zealnd where 71 animals were taken. It works extremely well. This design does not have a BC as high as the other Hybrid Hunting bullet but you won't have to worry about feeding through a magazine and other seating depth related concerns of a longer nosed bullet. This bullet is specifically design for factory rifles.

Regards,
Eric

 

[Hotrod617]

Eric,

Thanks for the reply.

Hurry!!!! LOL

Bill

 

[schwabdog]

cheers mate

 

[Michael Courtney]

Bart,

The short answer is that we fire the bullets and measure their time of flight in 200 yard increments out to (typically) 600 yards. G1 and G7 BC's are derived from the muzzle velocity and time of flight data, corrected to ICAO standard sea level conditions.

You can read more (The long answer) on these two articles on our web log:
Berger Bulletin Blog Archive Why Our BC Numbers have been Lowered (Corrected)
and
Berger Bulletin Blog Archive A Better Ballistic Coefficient

Take care,
-Bryan

It now seems clear that this is not exactly true. While 35 or 36 bullets in the Berger catalog had their BCs determined in the manner described, why is there no mention of the 30 or 31 bullets (as of the post in 2009) that had their BCs revised based on predictions of a theoretical model because they had not actually been measured?

Why is Berger working so hard to avoid directly answering the question about precisely which advertised BCs are based on model predictions and which are actually measured by test firing?

 

[gohring3006]

It now seems clear that this is not exactly true. While 35 or 36 bullets in the Berger catalog had their BCs determined in the manner described, why is there no mention of the 30 or 31 bullets (as of the post in 2009) that had their BCs revised based on predictions of a theoretical model because they had not actually been measured?

Why is Berger working so hard to avoid directly answering the question about precisely which advertised BCs are based on model predictions and which are actually measured by test firing?

Why don't you go back over to accurate shooter and try to rally your troops for your smear campaign. NOBODY CARES what you have to say about some flat based bullet bcs it seems your a little jealous of Bryan and maybe a little bitter that Berger didn't ask you to be on there team. Their is no doubt that you are educated but character goes a long way and yours stinks. Your demeanor and character is well suited for your government job

 

[Michael Courtney]

Why don't you go back over to accurate shooter and try to rally your troops for your smear campaign.

Their is no doubt that you are educated but character goes a long way and yours stinks. Your demeanor and character is well suited for your government job

Asking for truth in product specs is not a smear campaign. It is not a character flaw.

When vendors and government contractors persist in publishing flawed product specs year after year, sometimes a persistent demeanor is necessary to clarify the issues.

Would you rather scientists who close their eyes and/or stay silent when aspiring government vendors and contractors exaggerate their product specs?

Should not public servants let the public know when companies are not completely forthcoming in their marketing materials?

If I knew a ballistic vest company was fudging their bullet proof vest specs, would you want me to be quiet about that too?

 

[gohring3006]

Asking for truth in product specs is not a smear campaign. It is not a character flaw.

When vendors and government contractors persist in publishing flawed product specs year after year, sometimes a persistent demeanor is necessary to clarify the issues.

Would you rather scientists who close their eyes and/or stay silent when aspiring government vendors and contractors exaggerate their product specs?

Should not public servants let the public know when companies are not completely forthcoming in their marketing materials?

If I knew a ballistic vest company was fudging their bullet proof vest specs, would you want me to be quiet about that too?

I don't care

 

[idaho elk hunter]

Well....I do care..I like the American way of voicing our opinions and hearing other peoples thought and looking at there reasoning. This does not mean I agree with everyone all the time. I am my own man and I think for myself. But I have learned a lot from others over the years, case in example my college profs. I did not agree with them but I thought it was foolish to fight with them. Difference of opinion is healthy for those that are open minded and willing to learn. Degrading and trying to fight is counter productive.

This is my thought on this. some will respectively disagree which proves my point.

Some will agree which proves my point.

Some might be disruptive communist children.