I see what you did there.
Bullet Construction vs Lethality
- Thread starter nralifer
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
memtb
Well-Known Member
Some of this is the reason that my zero is set at 300 yards!
My thought is that: the closer I am to the aiming point at the longest practical distance….the more accurate the shot will be at longer ranges!
However, many do not like my practice! memtb
My thought is that: the closer I am to the aiming point at the longest practical distance….the more accurate the shot will be at longer ranges!
However, many do not like my practice! memtb
Oh man. Would you get me that rifle for Christmas?
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
Well with "dad" as part of your title I'd certainly hope so
The dad jokes based on common euphemisms are plentiful in this particular hobby/sport/interest.
In addition to "giving them a shot" I could "bite the bullet" and buy them, or go ahead and "pull the trigger" on purchasing these bullets…
cohunt
Well-Known Member
I totally agree, and you've backed up my point--- the more real in field data we have, the more data we have to figure out not only what is right-- but what is wrong.
More often times we can learn from mistakes than from perfection.
That's one of the reasons I like to observe fordy's testing is he trys to make a bullet fail-- he tests the bullets in real world conditions even in conditions they weren't designed for-- from this we tend to learn not only where the limits are but sometimes we find info we didn't expect.
If one guy tests a bullet for bc and he gets a high bc, the next guy tests it and gets a much lower bc-- we can now ask why, and do more testing to make sure our data it true and where the errors were.
As I said, we more often times than not-- learn more from mistakes and fouled data than we do from perfect testing and conditions.
Lots of data-- lots of variables- will reduce the errors even more
I'd rather see a guy shooting 2 totally opposite bullets in the same conditions and reporting the good and bad of both bullets, rather than just using mathmatical calculations to prove or disprove something--- field data is real data--- just don't tell the engineers
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,626
Field data is fine with me. Repeatable field data without the variables skewed to one side's favor.I totally agree, and you've backed up my point--- the more real in field data we have, the more data we have to figure out not only what is right-- but what is wrong.
More often times we can learn from mistakes than from perfection.
That's one of the reasons I like to observe fordy's testing is he trys to make a bullet fail-- he tests the bullets in real world conditions even in conditions they weren't designed for-- from this we tend to learn not only where the limits are but sometimes we find info we didn't expect.
If one guy tests a bullet for bc and he gets a high bc, the next guy tests it and gets a much lower bc-- we can now ask why, and do more testing to make sure our data it true and where the errors were.
As I said, we more often times than not-- learn more from mistakes and fouled data than we do from perfect testing and conditions.
Lots of data-- lots of variables- will reduce the errors even more
I'd rather see a guy shooting 2 totally opposite bullets in the same conditions and reporting the good and bad of both bullets, rather than just using mathmatical calculations to prove or disprove something--- field data is real data--- just don't tell the engineers
diggdugg70
Active Member
Am i reading this right, you're saying that BC's aren't that important anymore??
Bullet BC values aren't important? Hahaha.
Here's where BC value of a bullet makes all the difference in the world. When the bullet's velocity drops below the manufacturer's minimum bullet expansion threshhold at a downrange yardage short of the distance of the animal being targeted. I recently experienced this exact scenario after purchasing two different bullets intended for use on predators/game out to 600yds. I did my homework prior to bullet selection and purchase. In the effort to ensure the bullets would maintain the minimum velocity required to ensure expansion out to 600yds. However... the actual BC values of the bullets I purchased ended up ~30% less than the manufacturer's "estimated", assigned, BC values. Consequence? I can't use these two boxes of bullets for their intended purpose. And I couldn't know that until after I purchased the bullets, and spent the time loading and shooting those bullets, and measuring their velocity decay with my LabRadar.
Hold onto your seats one more time...
The ONLY reliable bullet BC values are BC values that have been determined by tracking bullet velocity decay with bullet velocity recording instrumentation. Velocity recording instrumentation that records downrange bullet velocity (used properly) eliminates all of the extraneous sources of error associated with estimating a bullet BC value based on measured downrange bullet drops on paper. BC value directly determines the rate of the bullet's velocity decay. Any other method of measurement used to estimate bullet BC value are inferior, and result in guesstimated bullet BC values.
Yes, you can modify any bullet's BC value in your exterior ballistic calculator in order to input a BC value that better matches your measured bullet drops at the location, and under the atmospheric conditions/density, where/when bullet drops were measured. And that can result in a useable BC value for your rifle setup at your location, under those atmospheric conditions. That doesn't mean you're using the true BC value for your bullet. It means you're fudging the bullet's BC value in order to account for other data input errors in your exterior ballistic calculator.
Petey308, in Post #336, provided a couple examples of sources of error that will cause error in BC value guesstimates based on measured downrange bullet drops on paper. There are more that his Post #336 didn't address.
BC value may not matter or be important to some. That doesn't mean BC values aren't valuable, even critical, to others. They mattered to me! When I learned after-the-fact that my bullets couldn't be relied upon to expand at the yardages I intended to shoot. Because the true bullet BC values were too low to maintain the manufacturer's minimum required velocity to ensure reliable bullet expansion at my intended 600yd range.
Waste time and effort attempting to convince me bullet BC values aren't really all that important to Long Range Hunting, if you like. If you've got the spare time to waste.
Here's where BC value of a bullet makes all the difference in the world. When the bullet's velocity drops below the manufacturer's minimum bullet expansion threshhold at a downrange yardage short of the distance of the animal being targeted. I recently experienced this exact scenario after purchasing two different bullets intended for use on predators/game out to 600yds. I did my homework prior to bullet selection and purchase. In the effort to ensure the bullets would maintain the minimum velocity required to ensure expansion out to 600yds. However... the actual BC values of the bullets I purchased ended up ~30% less than the manufacturer's "estimated", assigned, BC values. Consequence? I can't use these two boxes of bullets for their intended purpose. And I couldn't know that until after I purchased the bullets, and spent the time loading and shooting those bullets, and measuring their velocity decay with my LabRadar.
Hold onto your seats one more time...
The ONLY reliable bullet BC values are BC values that have been determined by tracking bullet velocity decay with bullet velocity recording instrumentation. Velocity recording instrumentation that records downrange bullet velocity (used properly) eliminates all of the extraneous sources of error associated with estimating a bullet BC value based on measured downrange bullet drops on paper. BC value directly determines the rate of the bullet's velocity decay. Any other method of measurement used to estimate bullet BC value are inferior, and result in guesstimated bullet BC values.
Yes, you can modify any bullet's BC value in your exterior ballistic calculator in order to input a BC value that better matches your measured bullet drops at the location, and under the atmospheric conditions/density, where/when bullet drops were measured. And that can result in a useable BC value for your rifle setup at your location, under those atmospheric conditions. That doesn't mean you're using the true BC value for your bullet. It means you're fudging the bullet's BC value in order to account for other data input errors in your exterior ballistic calculator.
Petey308, in Post #336, provided a couple examples of sources of error that will cause error in BC value guesstimates based on measured downrange bullet drops on paper. There are more that his Post #336 didn't address.
BC value may not matter or be important to some. That doesn't mean BC values aren't valuable, even critical, to others. They mattered to me! When I learned after-the-fact that my bullets couldn't be relied upon to expand at the yardages I intended to shoot. Because the true bullet BC values were too low to maintain the manufacturer's minimum required velocity to ensure reliable bullet expansion at my intended 600yd range.
Waste time and effort attempting to convince me bullet BC values aren't really all that important to Long Range Hunting, if you like. If you've got the spare time to waste.
Last edited:
so far I've been pretty successful with the drag models in applied ballistics. If they don't have a bullet modeled I'm pretty skeptical of anything I'm told until I shoot it
The minimum velocity threshold is a big deal. Especially to me, I don't even look at energy numbers honestly
Bryan Litz shook up the bullet manufacturer's world, when he measured rates of bullet velocity decay, and provided true bullet BC values for bullets manufactured and sold by most of the major bullet manufacturers. The bullet manufacturer's dirty gig was finally up.
Forevermore and forever after.
Forevermore and forever after.
I have a take on BC/Velocity that I haven't seen discussed in this thread yet.
For the most part, I don't think I'm capable of predicting what a live target will do beyond 1 full second. So, I'm interested in velocity and BC but really only as they apply to Time of Flight. I try to keep my "on-game outer limit" to about 3/4 second flight time or less as a result. That also generally keeps me well above the "lower-limit" projectile expansion velocity.
I suspect that makes my max range on game a fair bit shorter than a whole bunch of folks on the board, but, that's what I consider the limit of my skill-set when considering atmospherics AND the actions of an intended game target.
I like mono-metal projectiles due to what's been very repeatable/nearly indistinguishable results on-game through a wide variety of impact velocities, bullet diameters, and bullet weights.
We're living in the "Best of Times" regarding projectile performance and R&D and it'll just keep getting better. Had there been good mono's available when the .264Win Mag or 8MM Rem Mag were launched, both might be more than a mere footnote in shooting history, along with a whole bunch of others that also suffered from the available projectiles of their age.
For the most part, I don't think I'm capable of predicting what a live target will do beyond 1 full second. So, I'm interested in velocity and BC but really only as they apply to Time of Flight. I try to keep my "on-game outer limit" to about 3/4 second flight time or less as a result. That also generally keeps me well above the "lower-limit" projectile expansion velocity.
I suspect that makes my max range on game a fair bit shorter than a whole bunch of folks on the board, but, that's what I consider the limit of my skill-set when considering atmospherics AND the actions of an intended game target.
I like mono-metal projectiles due to what's been very repeatable/nearly indistinguishable results on-game through a wide variety of impact velocities, bullet diameters, and bullet weights.
We're living in the "Best of Times" regarding projectile performance and R&D and it'll just keep getting better. Had there been good mono's available when the .264Win Mag or 8MM Rem Mag were launched, both might be more than a mere footnote in shooting history, along with a whole bunch of others that also suffered from the available projectiles of their age.
HARPERC
Well-Known Member
Lytz and company have done great work trying to give good BC info. My recollection is he still notes it varies barrel to barrel.
We're coming to 350 post if we've been at this long, time apparently is something we have to waste.
Long Range Hunting? We've done that one a few thousand posts, and still no agreement on WTH it means. Maybe we should see if another 1000 or so finally gets us there.
