New bullet maker that looks interesting

[MMERSS]

they test their bullets at 3700 feet. Did not mention if they compensate the equation for BC to sea level or not.

About the same altitude I test loads. Wait for around 4PM on a late July date during a clear day......I'd also come up around .730 without adjusting to standard.

I just loaded some Accubonds last week. They are great bullets for the right gun and personal goals. Nosler in my books has a great product. It's just frustrating conducting truing with significantly inaccurate BC's. What's the harm stating a "more acceptable" method of verifying BC was used and .XXX G1 BC is more appropriate for ballistics programs.

 

[Michael Eichele]

Michael: Your Father's Day Present is in the mail, make me proud..

Al & John gun)

Not sure if you mean 7mm ALRs are in the mail or some W3P 30 cal 155s are. Got lots of 7mm ALRs just don't have my 284 finished yet. Got a 308 that loves 155s though! Loves everything else I feed it too.

 

[elkcoast]

If they test their bullets above the stratosphere, they won't hardly drop a bit. They won't slow down with distance traveled either. The BC values will be unbelievably outstanding, if uncorrected to a standard reference atmosphere. However the BC values will also be of no use to us earthlings.

making the only other option to hunt in the strtosphere. I used to hunt in the hills just south of Bend, but don't get over there any more. Hmmm, actually the only animal I've shot with the nosler bullet was just south of Bend, young muley. But overall, when I test their 180 grain ballistic tips they fly pretty true, though I've not tested them long range. I did chronograph them and was within 20 fps of what they advertised, so who knows, maybe they are close, at least on that bullet.

 

[idaho elk hunter]

I am not by any ways defending Nosler here. Nosler indeed test all the BCs at the facility in Bend. The BCs will change due to this. I believe many people jump on the band wagon and just keep printing on forums what they have heard with out real world testing and with formulas that others have come up with. These formulas are accurate to a mathematical degree, this is on a piece of paper or a computer. One must understand the slightest change In bullet shape, any where on the bullet will change the bullet BC considerably. Is this not why we purchase bullet runout and comparator tools? Some barrels are 3 groove, 4 groove, 5r. polygona. different twist rates, and even different diameters, tight vs loose, chamber sizes throats, ETC! This all changes the shape of a bullet and therefore BCs from one rifle to another. Now add in the altitude factor. Then take different people that actually do get off the couch and the internet shoot and run different equations to their "educated" way of getting a "TRUE" BC. Since they found a equation on the internet and loaded the round with "THEIR" secret recipie and shot it through "THEIR" chronograph, measured what the bullet did in "THEIR" rifle and put a lot of work, money and time in it, then it has to be correct. More correct than people with much better equipment and experience! Ya Noslers could be off a little and downgraded on the internet due to people that just agree with out understanding. Many organizations have found the BCs of Nosler to be true. Best of The West is just one of many.

 

[elkcoast]

I am not by any ways defending Nosler here. Nosler indeed test all the BCs at the facility in Bend. The BCs will change due to this. I believe many people jump on the band wagon and just keep printing on forums what they have heard with out real world testing and with formulas that others have come up with. These formulas are accurate to a mathematical degree, this is on a piece of paper or a computer. One must understand the slightest change In bullet shape, any where on the bullet will change the bullet BC considerably. Is this not why we purchase bullet runout and comparator tools? Some barrels are 3 groove, 4 groove, 5r. polygona. different twist rates, and even different diameters, tight vs loose, chamber sizes throats, ETC! This all changes the shape of a bullet and therefore BCs from one rifle to another. Now add in the altitude factor. Then take different people that actually do get off the couch and the internet shoot and run different equations to their "educated" way of getting a "TRUE" BC. Since they found a equation on the internet and loaded the round with "THEIR" secret recipie and shot it through "THEIR" chronograph, measured what the bullet did in "THEIR" rifle and put a lot of work, money and time in it, then it has to be correct. More correct than people with much better equipment and experience! Ya Noslers could be off a little and downgraded on the internet due to people that just agree with out understanding. Many organizations have found the BCs of Nosler to be true. Best of The West is just one of many.

all valid points, and I've not seen any "noticable" flaws in shooting my nosler bullets. I also have not went to any great length to prove them either accurate or not, at long range, so for now I would have to assume tha nosler information is correct. Isn't that the basis of what our justice system is "supposed" to represent, innocent until proven guilty. Ok I'm with you on this one, IdahoElkHunter

 

[MMERSS]

One of the end goals with truing a ballistics profile is determining a computer based drop for a particular projectile in flight under certain atmospheric conditions. The program solution should be accurate enough at a minimum to produce good results to just below the transonic range. Some may desire more from their programs, some less. Obviously every gun will vary with velocity and BC values determined to true this solution. However, there is a difference with a ball hit in the park and calling a foul ball a good hit…and using it as a hit in a batting average!!!!!

Yes BCs of certain bullets will vary gun to gun and so on and the programmed values will vary likewise between solution to solution. A ball hit between first and third base is considered in bounds, a foul ball is not. That's what I believe most are talking about here. Not every ball hit in-bounds is going to be grounded past the first baseman. But please anyone justify how a foul ball can count as a base hit! Will the umpire get away with such a call, or will the spectators sooner or later call out the umpire?

 

[elkcoast]

One of the end goals with truing a ballistics profile is determining a computer based drop for a particular projectile in flight under certain atmospheric conditions. The program solution should be accurate enough at a minimum to produce good results to just below the transonic range. Some may desire more from their programs, some less. Obviously every gun will vary with velocity and BC values determined to true this solution. However, there is a difference with a ball hit in the park and calling a foul ball a good hit…and using it as a hit in a batting average!!!!!

Yes BCs of certain bullets will vary gun to gun and so on and the programmed values will vary likewise between solution to solution. A ball hit between first and third base is considered in bounds, a foul ball is not. That's what I believe most are talking about here. Not every ball hit in-bounds is going to be grounded past the first baseman. But please anyone justify how a foul ball can count as a base hit! Will the umpire get away with such a call, or will the spectators sooner or later call out the umpire?

A hit in the lungs is a fair ball. I don't know that I've ever fired a round and had it go up over the backstop behind me. Perhaps I'm not quite as partcular, but meat in the freezer is the end game and so far, so good.

 

[Pdvdh]

As has been stated, talk is easy, and anyone can be an armchair expert. The quote below was written by researchers with PhD after their names, who reached their conclusion after thorough testing, paying close attention to all the pertinent details. Even that doesn't force one to accept their conclusions.

"Just as the last results showed from the Nosler NBT, the Nosler manufacturing company seems to be exaggerating their ballistic coefficients. The Nosler NBT is the bullet with the most overestimated BC of all the bullets studied, followed by the Nosler Partition."

I don't recall anyone saying a Nosler bullet won't kill an animal. What has been stated by members is that their advertised ballistic coefficients are exaggerated in the direction that indicates their bullets fly through the air more efficiently than is true.

If you want to review the entire report(s), and rely on something other than armchair experts, you'll find it doesn't get more positive for Nosler's BC reputation than what you've been reading on this Forum. Nosler's advertised BC values are shown to be inflated, more so than any other major bullet manufacturer included in this testing.

Here are links to two reports. Google search and you'll likely find more.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555975.pdf
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a554683.pdf

 

[MMERSS]

A hit in the lungs is a fair ball.

Exactly!!!That's what we are after. There are many hunters using computer programs to determine their drop. Having an accurately trued program is important especially when the hunting distance increases. Did you use a computer program to predict your drop? Was the BC value close to the advertised BC value, ie. in the "ball park", used in your computer solution? What was the shooting range?

 

[elkcoast]

Nosler's advertised BC values are shown to be inflated, more so than any other major bullet manufacturer included in this testing.

Here are links to two reports. Google search and you'll likely find more.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555975.pdf
www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a554683.pdf

so what bullet manufacturer is the most reliable.

 

[elkaholic]

Don't get me wrong, I think Nosler has, and does make some pretty good bullets. The problem that I have with the excuses that come up is this. Whether it is Nosler, or some other manufacturer, have you EVER seen a b.c. that was UNDERESTIMATED? There needs to be a std., and in fact as Phorwath pointed out, there is. Whether everyone advertises sea level, or whatever, all this variation that comes out is useless and just causes shooters to doubt other claims as well.........Rich

 

[Pdvdh]

so what bullet manufacturer is the most reliable.

Nosler BC values were shown to be the least reliable. The answer to your question, based on third party testing, is provided in these two reports. There are likely additional reports. Michael Courtney has been researching this topic off and on for at least 5 years, based on the dates of these two reports.

 

[Kennibear]

Idaho Elk Hunter

Having read this website for going on three years I can assure you that every member here emphasizes shooting your actual load at range to verify drop and therefor BC. No exceptions. The fact that Berger has invested in the great help of Brian Litz to test and publish very accurate BC's for their bullets sets the standard for the other makers to step up to. Sierra publishes a range of BC's over velocity changes to keep their BC's accurate. CEB seems to be pretty close as many members critical of Nosler's claims have also tested the CEB's.

The point is with so many other bullet makers in this game publishing accurate BC's Nosler has no excuse. They make a fine product with enviable performance on game but in today's high tech world and in this competitive climate inaccurate BC's are in excusable. They need to step up to the level of everyone else. If they want to list BC's at a DA of 6K' fine. That would match a lot of the hunting areas altitude.

Just be honest about your BC's.

KB

 

[elkcoast]

Nosler BC values were shown to be the least reliable. The answer to your question, based on third party testing, is provided in these two reports. There are likely additional reports. Michael Courtney has been researching this topic off and on for at least 5 years, based on the dates of these two reports.

Looks like I'll be sticking with my Sierra 220's mostly, which was my bullet of choice anyway.