Comparing the Berger 210 VLD to the 215 Hybrid

[elkaholic]

I've just read this thread with great interest. First, congratulations Jeff on some excellent shooting and reporting of your results. This is just the thing that gives me the opinion that the forums are a benefit to the shooting sports.

I've read several comments and questions about the difference in the thickness of the jackets. Let me provide those reading this thread with some information that may be helpful.

The only reason the thicker jacket was produced was to eliminate a problem that competition target shooters were having with bullets failing to make it to the target during a match. Competition target shooters tend to use long barrels, hot loads, and will shoot several shots (20 or more) quickly in a race against changing conditions.

Also, during a match, these shooters will put over 100 rounds down range without cleaning the barrel and they frequently do it during hot days with their gear out in the bright sun. These conditions produce a situation where the friction and heat inside the barrel increases.

This increased friction can reach a point where it actually melts the core inside the jacket. Once any portion of the core becomes liquid, this dense material will actually tear the jacket off the bullet. When this happens the bullet can't maintain its trajectory resulting in a miss.

This is a condition we had to resolve. We found that making the jacket slightly thicker produced an interesting result. It didn't make the jacket stronger (to contain the molten lead) but it actually moves the lead further away from the source of heat (rifling) preventing the core from melting in the first place.

We solved this particular situation after we came to understand that our bullets are very effective on game. So once the issue was solved for the competition target shooters we had another question to answer. How will this slightly thicker jacket work on game? The more important question we needed to resolve is; do we have to make two different bullets? Frankly, it would be easier on us (and our customers) if we didn't have to make two different bullets because this does create confusion.

We went to work on testing the two jacket thicknesses using the same bullet. For our testing we used the Bullet Test Tube which is a wax media that we use regularly due to the fact that it holds the wound cavity rather than collapsing like ballistic gelatin.

In every comparison test, the thicker jacket produced a smaller wound channel (in volume measured by putting water into the cavity and measuring the amount). Since our bullet works so well due to the size of the wound cavity it creates it was decided that we are compelled to make both bullets.

It is accurate to say that the difference is small but we come from the world of benchrest shooting where every .001 matters. If the thinner jacket is slightly better at creating a larger wound channel than the thicker jacket then it is better. The question is answered in our minds.

As Jeff and many others have discovered, the thicker jacketed Target bullet can kill quickly. This is especially true with proper shot placement. Having said that, I am also faced with the reality that not all hunters are as capable as Jeff and the many others on this forum. For this reason we are compelled as a company to communicate a general recommendation that the Target bullets aren't recommended for hunting.

Something to keep in mind is that this is the same thing we said about our VLD bullets for decades. If it wasn't for guys like Jeff, John Burns and the many others who told us we had it wrong, we would never have learned that they do in fact work very well on game.

Again, I thank Jeff for his thorough testing and I'll relay that everyone reading this thread is benefitting from what I regard as the real benefit of shooting forums. Shooters helping shooters learn more about the activity they enjoy.

Regards,
Eric

Eric......thank you for the informative post! I have a question that I hope you can shed some light on? I am a believer that rotational velocity has a greater imact on bullet performance than it is given credit for. When I do bullet tests, I often use reduced loads at close range for obvious reasons but I am becoming more convinced that this may not be giving a good read in all cases and "it seems" that maybe the hollow point bullets are upset more by this than others? Have you done any testing with this and do you have an opinion? I HAVE seen some tests where identical 30 caliber bullets were fired at the same velocity with considerably different twist and the wound channels were remarkably different. I'm thinking that this could well be the reason that when I tested the bullets in water with reduced loads, the result was different. What say you?.......thanks/Rich

 

[Joe King]

Eric!

Thank you for that clarification, I was just going to avoid trying the target bullets all together, but it sounds as if the "target" bullets may perform more to my preferences. Something to think about, for now I'm happy with what I seeing from the Classic Hunter, so see how I like em on game this year.

 

[Joe King]

Eric......thank you for the informative post! I have a question that I hope you can shed some light on? I am a believer that rotational velocity has a greater imact on bullet performance than it is given credit for. When I do bullet tests, I often use reduced loads at close range for obvious reasons but I am becoming more convinced that this may not be giving a good read in all cases and "it seems" that maybe the hollow point bullets are upset more by this than others? Have you done any testing with this and do you have an opinion? I HAVE seen some tests where identical 30 caliber bullets were fired at the same velocity with considerably different twist and the wound channels were remarkably different. I'm thinking that this could well be the reason that when I tested the bullets in water with reduced loads, the result was different. What say you?.......thanks/Rich

I can see a faster twist being more dramatic after expansion is initiated, for a brief moment centrifugal forces must increase proportionally to RPM

 

[elkaholic]

I can see a faster twist being more dramatic after expansion is initiated, for a brief moment centrifugal forces must increase proportionally to RPM

Exactly!.......Rich

 

[Eric Stecker]

Rich,

We have not done testing that is specific to your question of how does rotational velocity affect performance. I'll assume you are talking about terminal performance.

I can share that rotational velocity does not degrade at the same rate as the bullet velocity. If you shoot a bullet at a 3,000 fps MV the RPMs are faster at an impact velocity of 2,100 fps when compared to a bullet shot at say 2,200 fps MV in the same twist barrel to replicate 2,100 fps impact velocity at a shorter range. Does that make sense?

It seems resonable that a bullet that is spinning faster will have more rotational energy much like a faster spinning bowling ball is more disruptive to the pins. Although this is pure speculation on my part. I'm sure that the science is know in this area so I will run the question by Bryan to see what he thinks.

Regards,
Eric

 

[Broz]

Thank you Eric for the kind words and even more for the great information you have added to this thread.

I am just back from the processor and dropping off the last Bull elk. We did recover some of the 215 hybrid from the bull killed at 200 yards. It made it all the way to the far side shoulder and was litterly just under the hide less than 3/4" in the meat. I have some of the jacket and pictures I will post tonight. It is mainly fragments unless the meat cutter finds a larger piece for me later. But the amazing thing for me was this:

Many of the fragments made it through and were traveling in a direct straight line like a close range shot from a shot gun.

The wound channel seemed to be about 1 1/4" average all the way through. The meat cutter placed his nife in the hole in the shoulder and it went in handel and all. Clear through to the chest cavity. This was fron the far side exit hole.

I stuck a steel tape in and the diagnal path of the bullet was 26" of penetration!!! This is with close range velocity and close to maximun expansion. That amount of penetration blows me away!! So I still feel they will only work better at longer distances.

Also the bullet did in fact get part of the far rib on exit but it did not get the shoulder bone I don't think. So pretty much meat media all the way.


I just stopped in for my gear and am going back out to hunt. But tonight I will get the pics from the bullet recover up.

Thanks again, I feel we are indeed learning.

Jeff

 

[elkaholic]

Rich,

We have not done testing that is specific to your question of how does rotational velocity affect performance. I'll assume you are talking about terminal performance.

I can share that rotational velocity does not degrade at the same rate as the bullet velocity. If you shoot a bullet at a 3,000 fps MV the RPMs are faster at an impact velocity of 2,100 fps when compared to a bullet shot at say 2,200 fps MV in the same twist barrel to replicate 2,100 fps impact velocity at a shorter range. Does that make sense?

It seems resonable that a bullet that is spinning faster will have more rotational energy much like a faster spinning bowling ball is more disruptive to the pins. Although this is pure speculation on my part. I'm sure that the science is know in this area so I will run the question by Bryan to see what he thinks.

Regards,
Eric

Eric.....I was talking about terminal performance and it is a known fact that rotational velocity is maintained at a much higher level than forward momentum. It sounds like we are on the same page and I will be interested in hearing what Bryan says! I plan on doing this test when I get a chance by using the same rifle/bullet combo, one fired point blank with a reduced load and duplicating the velocity at long range with a full load. I would REALLY like to see Berger, or someone else do this as well. Berger probably has a little more resources than me.......thanks/Rich

 

[BryanLitz]

Good thread indeed.

Thank you Broz for posting your thorough results.

On the issue of RPM vs. terminal performance, I don't know of any tests done specifically in this area, so I can't cite any facts. However, we can consider the energy balance to gain some insight.

Example:
A .30 cal 175 grain bullet moving at 2800 fps has 3046 ft-lb of translational (linear) kinetic energy (KE). When fired from a 1:12" twist barrel, that bullet also has about 9 ft-lb of rotational kinetic energy.
[REF Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, pg 108]

So far, what this analysis shows me is that the majority (99.7%) of the bullet's total kinetic energy is translational. To me, this suggests that most of the damage done by a bullet is due to it's translational energy, not it's rotational energy.

Continuing with the example, if the same .30 cal 175 grain bullet were now fired at the same MV from a 1:10" twist barrel, the translational energy would stay the same, but the rotational kinetic energy would increase to 10.8 ft-lb. So although the rotational KE did increase by 20%, the fraction of total energy only increased from 0.296% to 0.355%.

So the energy analysis seems to suggest that you would see no difference in terminal performance due to a difference in twist rate.

But is that all there is to it?

For example, is it possible that riflings engraved on a bearing surface at a greater angle (by a faster rifling twist) might weaken the bullet more and promote more rapid expansion? I don't know.

-Bryan

 

[Joe King]

So with a given bullet velocity gives you an amount of translational energy, and bullet construction determines the rate at which that energy is transferred into a medium.

follows what I've seen from from game rifles to varmint rifles, lightly constructed bullets want to dump it's energy quick while more sturdily constructed bullets want to hang onto their energy more.

 

[Scot E]

Good thread indeed.

Thank you Broz for posting your thorough results.

On the issue of RPM vs. terminal performance, I don't know of any tests done specifically in this area, so I can't cite any facts. However, we can consider the energy balance to gain some insight.

Example:
A .30 cal 175 grain bullet moving at 2800 fps has 3046 ft-lb of translational (linear) kinetic energy (KE). When fired from a 1:12" twist barrel, that bullet also has about 9 ft-lb of rotational kinetic energy.
[REF Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, pg 108]

So far, what this analysis shows me is that the majority (99.7%) of the bullet's total kinetic energy is translational. To me, this suggests that most of the damage done by a bullet is due to it's translational energy, not it's rotational energy.

Continuing with the example, if the same .30 cal 175 grain bullet were now fired at the same MV from a 1:10" twist barrel, the translational energy would stay the same, but the rotational kinetic energy would increase to 10.8 ft-lb. So although the rotational KE did increase by 20%, the fraction of total energy only increased from 0.296% to 0.355%.

So the energy analysis seems to suggest that you would see no difference in terminal performance due to a difference in twist rate.

But is that all there is to it?

For example, is it possible that riflings engraved on a bearing surface at a greater angle (by a faster rifling twist) might weaken the bullet more and promote more rapid expansion? I don't know.

-Bryan

So this topic as it relates to Rich's question is does the increase in rotational energy, whether created by an increase in barrel twist rate or an increase in initial muzzle velocity, cause enough additional energy to change the expansion characteristics of a bullet.

I tend to agree that the RPMs don't have much effect on terminal performance by themselves but I do have a feeling they could change how rapidly or explosively the expansion may occur, thus drastically changing terminal performance. My thoughts are based solely on very anecdotal evidences but on occasion I have seen big differences when shooting prairie dogs and chucks with the same setup in 2 guns except one has a faster twist. The faster twist barrel often seems to cause more explosive outcomes. I imagine many other factors come into play here including impact velocity, jacket thickness and target medium density, where with some loads there isn't enough of an increase to make a difference while with others, that may be teetering on the threshold, they may be pushed over the edge by the increase in rotational energy and more expansion occurs.

This is a fantastic thread. Just re-read the whole thing again because it is so good! Thanks Jeff, Eric, and Bryan for sharing such valuable info!

Scot E.

 

[Joe King]

So this topic as it relates to Rich's question is does the increase in rotational energy, whether created by an increase in barrel twist rate or an increase in initial muzzle velocity, cause enough additional energy to change the expansion characteristics of a bullet.

I tend to agree that the RPMs don't have much effect on terminal performance by themselves but I do have a feeling they could change how rapidly or explosively the expansion may occur, thus drastically changing terminal performance. My thoughts are based solely on very anecdotal evidences but on occasion I have seen big differences when shooting prairie dogs and chucks with the same setup in 2 guns except one has a faster twist. The faster twist barrel often seems to cause more explosive outcomes. I imagine many other factors come into play here including impact velocity, jacket thickness and target medium density, where with some loads there isn't enough of an increase to make a difference while with others, that may be teetering on the threshold, they may be pushed over the edge by the increase in rotational energy and more expansion occurs.

This is a fantastic thread. Just re-read the whole thing again because it is so good! Thanks Jeff, Eric, and Bryan for sharing such valuable info!

Scot E.

I can say much about the rotational velocity of a varmint bullet as I have only one 22cal varmint rifle, but I can tell you the difference between 2 bullets of the same weight and manufacture, can produce dramatically different results, even with as slow of a twist as can be used for those particular bullets. Specifically the Hornady 55gr w/canular, produces ho hum terminal results, where the 55gr Vmax is........well pieces parts go flying.

 

[elkaholic]

So this topic as it relates to Rich's question is does the increase in rotational energy, whether created by an increase in barrel twist rate or an increase in initial muzzle velocity, cause enough additional energy to change the expansion characteristics of a bullet.

I tend to agree that the RPMs don't have much effect on terminal performance by themselves but I do have a feeling they could change how rapidly or explosively the expansion may occur, thus drastically changing terminal performance. My thoughts are based solely on very anecdotal evidences but on occasion I have seen big differences when shooting prairie dogs and chucks with the same setup in 2 guns except one has a faster twist. The faster twist barrel often seems to cause more explosive outcomes. I imagine many other factors come into play here including impact velocity, jacket thickness and target medium density, where with some loads there isn't enough of an increase to make a difference while with others, that may be teetering on the threshold, they may be pushed over the edge by the increase in rotational energy and more expansion occurs.

This is a fantastic thread. Just re-read the whole thing again because it is so good! Thanks Jeff, Eric, and Bryan for sharing such valuable info!

Scot E.

I can see where the amount of energy released is very slight compared to total energy, but I'm with you on the effect on expansion. I read an article YEARS ago which I believe was conducted by the military dealing with this. In the test, they used an M1 carbine with a 16" twist and an M1 rifle with a 10 twist both firing a 110 grain bullet. The carbine, I believe. is around 2000' per second and was fired point blank into gel. The '06 was fired at a distance to achieve the same terminal velocity upon impact. The results were amazing with the pics of the wound cavity clearly being FAR larger in favor of the '06. Given Bryans info on the amount of energy difference being fairly insignificant, it only bolsters my belief that EXPANSION must be greater. I suspect that both expansion and energy play some role, but how much? Unforunately, this test didn't recover the bullets but this would not be a difficult test to perform.........Rich
I think we are in danger here of hijacking Jeffs thread so I am going to start a new one "rotational velocity vs wound severity".

 

[Broz]

Yet more data on the terminal performance of the 215 Berger Hybrid in "live test media that tastes yummy".

Ok, but this one comes with a story, as it was a cool hunt. I have a good friend that is 72 years young. I have been with him on many of his elk kills and I know he can make a steady shot and brake a clean trigger. So today I was glassing an area and found an unusual bull elk in a small grove of trees. Problem is, you can't get to elk in this area. If you come over the back to go down on them they will bust you and be gone. It is steep and coming from the bottom would be a waste of breath, they will see you, I know from experience. So the only way is from the other side of the canyon across a deep gulch. I left and went and picked up my friend in hopes the bull would stay put in the trees. We returned and got set up in a good vantage point as close as we could on the other side. After about 1/2 hr of glassing and just about ready to give up, the Bull appeared. I set my PLRF10 on bags prone and ranged him. The instant I seen the range I knew this bull was in trouble. The range.... 777 yds. My Applied Ballistics App spit out 13.75 MOA up and .5 MOA right for SD and a 3 mph 3:00 wind. I dialed it and got my friend behind my 300 Win for his longest poke ever. It took a few minutes for him to get solid as I coached him through the shot. The bull took two steps toward the timber and I let out a cow call and stopped him. As he stopped broadside and staired over at us laying prone my friend broke the shot. I watched and upon arrival of the 215 Berger, the bull crumpled like he was struck by lightning and rolled into some trees. I told him to chamber another round and get ready incase the bull surface again. A few minutes later we knew the bull was down and done DRT. So we started over to see the results. Now here is where it gets cool.

The bull was at 777 yards.
My friend is 72 yrs old.
The bull has a deformed horn on one side that looks like a 7.

Thats a lot of sevens guys!! So when we got home we set down and had 7&7 and talked about the great hunt and my friends longest shot of all his hunting years. I think this story will get told a lot.gun)

Now for the pics and facts:

Impact velocity = 2207 (another 7)
mpact energy = 2325
Bullet placement was a little high and a little back but not bad. ( no worries, the fragmenting Berger covered for us)
Outside entrance was .308" like all the others
Complete pass through with an exit of 1" to 1 1/4" exit hole taking a rib on the way out.
Severe bleeding both internal and external with destroyed lungs and damaged heart.

The pics:

The exit:

Exit from inside chest cavity:

Tore up vitals:

The seven Bull:

The hero pic with the shooter of the day:

My thoughts tonight. My confidence increasingly grows for this bullet as my hunting bullet. How could it not? My earlier predictions of the bullet working better, with increased chances of a pass through, at longer distances, seems to be on track. We now have had complete pass throughs on game at 777 yds, 802 yds, 1005 yds, and 1285 yards. All exits showing good expansion.

Look at the results for yourself, it is all here. There is more hunting to do. Going after a good Muley Buck tomorrow. More results to come. Thanks for reading.

Jeff

 

[Tumbleweed]

Thank you Jeff for doing such a thorough job on your reporting of details. I have enjoyed the reports thus far. I was already pretty comfortable going into this year's hunts using the 215 but you have really boosted my confidence in the performance of this bullet.