To answer the OPs question first we would have to verify application and distances we are considering 'down range'. With any bullet or line of bullets there are trade offs. Although the "long range" industry has caught fire the difference in application between competition and hunting is something bullet makers must pay attention to. They are aware that MOST folks are not killing anything much past 400 yards. Several polls have been taken on this site, where I believe there are alot of accomplished, competent shooters and a very small percentage have killed anything past 600 yards. Heavy for caliber in a bullet designed for high BC will have an advantage at some point assuming bullets being compared are driven to the case potential. Heavy for cal. bullets designed to penetrate can also have a more immediate advantage assuming it is well designed. A large front driven by a long shank can make an impressive wound channel complete with smashed bones without alot of bruising or deflection. In most cases, with most hunters the classic bullets weights from traditionally twisted barrels will still work great, as good as they ever have, in fact with current production methods even better. A 165 grain Accubond from a 30-06 will still hold it's own in the game field a long ways out. To see if there is an advantage to the OPs question we would need to know what bullets he is comparing specifically and how far down range they are intended to be used.
Is there actually any downrange advantage for very heavy for caliber bullets?
- Thread starter sambo3006
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
1:10 will be fine for any/every 165 .308 projectile.
Velocity and BC are always a push/pull compromise.
Out to 600-ish yds IMO it takes +/- .075 BC with similar (say within 100fps if each other) muzzle velocity to REALLY see a difference in drift between to projectiles. When the diff is less than +/- .075, the performance diff is inside what most shooters are capable of holding, especially from "field conditions" holds.
Out to 600-ish yds IMO it takes +/- .075 BC with similar (say within 100fps if each other) muzzle velocity to REALLY see a difference in drift between to projectiles. When the diff is less than +/- .075, the performance diff is inside what most shooters are capable of holding, especially from "field conditions" holds.
Yes, sir, it does. Whether people recognize/accept it or not, energy transfer is there doing its job—you cannot deny the laws of physics.
There is no easy button when it comes to selecting the right bullet for your intended purpose other than running the numbers and testing it in your rifle. So you want a flat shooting bullet with minimal recoil and high BC that will provide excellent terminal performance at ranges from 100 to 1000 yards. That's a tough nut to crack. The good news is there are more options today to choose from than many years ago.
Like Horse1 said your 1:10" twist will stabilize 165 grain solids. This thread was started talking about heavy for caliber bullets, when you get to real heavy for caliber mono's they will require a faster twist.
Yes most factory rifles don't have modern twist for heavy bullets unless the cartridge is a modern one like the 300 PRC which generally has a 1:8" twist.
Just look at the bullet manufacturers website they will tell you what twist you need.
It's kinda hard for Me to understand, when a bullet dumps all or most of its momentum due to expansion, that the energy imparted doesn't matter.
After all, energy is a direct function of weight and speed.
That being said, 2 holes plus expansion are my favorite though, behind DRT!
Most of us build/purchase rifles around what bullet to use for our intended purpose. For instance, my .257 WBY with 1:7" was built primarily to propel the .25 cal bullets. I have the 131 BJ, 134 ELD-M, 133/135 Bergers. However, when the 145 Black Hole came about, I jumped on it and skipped the rest. And now, I am working up a load for the 163 Chinchaga until the 180s come out. Thanks to @Bghunter338 for the introduction to the bullet introduction.
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
There is someone doing this every few years since I've been here. It's the basic Corbin bullet anyonen of us can buy the tools to make, there is absolutely nothing magical about them. The rebated boat tail really doesn't boost anything just make the swaging essier on the end, the ogives are not aggressive as most designs so they loose ther a but they can pump the weight up, which does increase BC some but then you loose velocity and require more twist and you need it to open easier.
If they use a hybrid or secant ogive then that starts getting interesting but it's harder to swage those designes consistently by hand. I've shot at least 5 different manufactures with the same design over the years, Matrix was the only one that was innovative and was actually bringing something that delivered.
The way I see it if they don't design aggressive first then add weight their just the same old design and not worth the effort.
You are correct! I, too, used to adhere to pass-throughs until I transitioned to Berger bullets. Fragmenting bullets like the Berger bullets dump all their energy on impact (the game absorbs all the energy). I understand Berger bullets (or any fragmenting bullets) are not for everybody. I use all kinds of bullets, but Berger is my go-to bullet. Two things that made me transition to Berger bullets: they do not need a pass-through to be effective, and with no pass-through, you reduce the risk of injuring/killing an unintended target - one of the commandments of hunter safety is knowing what is behind the target.
Tommy T
Well-Known Member
I have a custom 28 nosler with a hells canyon barrel 23" long I shoot 180 and 195 Berger's they are running 2956 fps. And they hit the same hole out to 500 yds. Out pass that the 195 takes over I do a lot of testing on the heavy bullets in all my rifles but it boils down to what your rifle likes I'm a big fan of Berger and nosler ACB
Something that I haven't seen mentioned here yet is Sectional Density. Longer, heavier bullets have a higher sectional density as well. This comes into play once the bullet arrives on target. What a lot of people are discovering is that even with "target" bullets, those heavy for caliber bullets tend to penetrate very well, even if the front half "blows up" due to the back half staying together and having sufficient momentum (energy if you will) to continue on. In the "old days" those lighter target bullets didn't have that and therefore didn't perform the same.
I shoot a variety of chamberings in various calibers and I have gone from the position of only shooting "target bullets at targets" and "hunting bullets for hunting" to the position of doing a load work up and finding the best bullet and powder combination for that particular firearm regardless of what the bullet is called on the box. What I have found over the past 10-15 years of doing that is no significant change in the terminal effects on game, the size or quality of blood trails, or a significant change in the number of pass throughs. While I don't have enough of a sample size for it to be statistically meaningful, it is good enough for me to not worry about what the marketing on the box says about a given bullet.
I shoot a variety of chamberings in various calibers and I have gone from the position of only shooting "target bullets at targets" and "hunting bullets for hunting" to the position of doing a load work up and finding the best bullet and powder combination for that particular firearm regardless of what the bullet is called on the box. What I have found over the past 10-15 years of doing that is no significant change in the terminal effects on game, the size or quality of blood trails, or a significant change in the number of pass throughs. While I don't have enough of a sample size for it to be statistically meaningful, it is good enough for me to not worry about what the marketing on the box says about a given bullet.
Culpeper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 217
It would be helpful to post a link to the bullets and manufacturer you are referring to. Most people are telling what you already know about VLDs.
FEENIX,
Have you shot any of these other bullets at extended ranges to get actual trajectories for comparison? When looking at the Berger 135 in particular compared to the shape of the Black Hole 145, I find it hard to beIieve that the 145 is the more aerodynamically efficient bullet. I'm not questioning your statement in any negative way, I'm just very curious if these extreme heavy weights are indeed the better bullet. Thank you to you and everyone else who has contributed to this thread. Good stuff guys!
