M Rosslee
Well-Known Member
I can only answer for us. Here goes.
1. I think the fact that the cnc kind of allows the ability to make what ever you can dream up perhaps makes some get too creative? I think some mono manufactures try to compensate for the fact that copper is less dense than lead by tying to make the bullet more sleek in order to get the higher bc. BC is a function of weight and form. The weight is a very big part of the bc equation and just can't be overcome. In my opinion. We have designed our bullets only with a tangent ogive. This is the more traditional ogive. It is easier to shoot but not as good for bc. We have intentionally made our bullets a little heavier in form rather than sleeker. With a little more forward weight. We have one goal....accuracy and terminal performance. Let the bc fall were it may.
2. Dual metal....interesting thought. I will not rule anything out. The only other metal that I have ever considered would be tungsten. It is heavy so it would help with bc. There are companies using plastic or other material tips inserted into larger hollow pt. holes. I don't like the idea of plugging the hole that needs hydraulics for expansion. With a lead core bullet the lead kind of acts like the hydraulic material because it is so soft. The other thing that comes to mind here is that any time you add another process to manufacturing it makes the cost of the product increase.
3. Because of the lower density of copper compared to lead there really is no choice for the bullet to be lighter for the same size. Only two ways to make them heavier. Add mass to the nose or make them longer. Stability is the concern here. Stability is a function of weight, length, and twist. A heavier bullet of the exact same form needs less twist to be stable. So for a mono to stabilize in standard twist rifles it has to be lighter. This increases muzzle vel. We design our bullets to keep more % of original weight than most bullets, so after impact and deformation they are then bigger than the conventional bullet as they continue through the animal.
One other thing. Sectional density has very little to do with form. The formula for sectional density is the same for all bullets. Weight in grains divided by 7000 divided by caliber divided by caliber.
Steve
Steve, thank you for the well constructed and diligent response. It really is appreciated.
Have you considered sending your product to compete in South Africa and maybe test the water here a bit?
It may be worth a shot...
Dual metals sounds like an expensive exercise. But I've often thought of perhaps exploring the effects of a tungsten base and core with a softer copper jacket and point (match-bullet style) that will fold around that core (doubling caliber diameter for widening wound channel).
To bond the copper to the tungsten and limit its expansion will be the expensive challenge... But I think with the right approach it may be feasible exploring.
Because the tungsten base need not take on the form of a bullet, merely suffice as a shank/core for inner weight for penetration - the form will be derived by copper formation around that (boat tail and nose etc) - bearing surface can also be controlled well this way and separation won't lead to lead dispersion - the solid tungsten core/shank may go on about its business.