New Super-High-BC Flat Line Bullets

[Darkker]

At no point did I "take shots" at the OP for posting about a product. What I did, was to dispel outlandish marketing claims, that have no scientific basis. I did send a lot more Pressure testing data with notes and a letter(email) to Mr. Warner, as I told him on the phone I would; long before I ever posted them elsewhere. It would appear he chose to ignore the info, which is no skin off my nose.

Perhaps you took exception with my wording about the blog? Fine and dandy. I didn't at all get that he was merely repeating info. Comparing long match-type bullets with the inappropriate G1, and a single G1 rating at that?! WEZ analysis based upon that... His opinions and mine are worth exactly what you paid for them, ignore either accordingly.

As for your question about testing to distance:
No, unfortunately I have not; just finally winding down.
A good friend was badly burned last week, and has altered my free time plans. Going to try and get it done in the next few weeks.

 

[Rockfish Dave]

Ok so now that your done taking shots at someone for highlighting a product and simply repeating the manufactures claims could we please get back to objectively analyzing the performance of the bullets without the name calling? It's childish and frankly uncalled for.

Obviously you have proven with quantifiable data above that their claim they can be pushed as fast as lighter bullets is BS. However I have been looking but can not seem to find where anyone has confirmed the stated B.C. other than a few "well it looks like it's flatter" statements. During your testing did you ever get to shoot them at extended ranges to see how they performed?

I am interested to see if these bullets are actually as areodynamic as they claim to be. However with an unfinished rifle and a lack of long range opportunities I unfortunately cannot test them myself.

Actually I took zero offense to his post and actually appreciated the effort that he went through to validate his observations. This is keeping in mind he spent his time and money, tested, and shared his results. He didn't owe anyone that. His generous sharing of information is appreciated.

Once I found out Josh Kunz was involved all info/claims was/were suspect. His findings only verify that anything associated with Josh will be inflated and exaggerated (and in some cases out and out lies).

Good post in my book!

 

[Canadian Bushman]

I also appreciated his post

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Tagging in too

Steve

 

[CMP70306]

Let me clarify my previous post.

I am grateful that he took the time to test those claims. Coming from an engineering background I too was highly skeptical of the velocity increase touted by the manufacture. Darkker's testing proved that their claims were unfounded and in fact could prove dangerous to a novice reloaded who did not know better.

I fully agree that these bullets should be highly scrutinized. If your going to make such outlandish claims to a such devoted group of people like long range shooters then you better **** well deliver. I've never heard of Josh before these bullets so I can not pass judgement on someone I don't know. However if it is shown that these bullets do not live up to the stated performance then we should let people know about it just like what happened with the Nosler LRAB. If I had the ability I would definetly be testing these bullets to see if they lived up to the hype but the 200 yd range I have access to isn't going to show me much.

The issue I had was the shot he took at the guy who runs the Precision Rifle Blog. That was were I first heard about these bullets and the article to me was more of a general comparison of the manufactures claims against the proven data of other bullets. I never saw him claim these bullets were the best thing since sliced bread and I didn't see anything that warranted calling him a monkey or a buffoon. His closing statements are that if the claims are true these bullets could be revolutionary however their performance has yet to be proven.

If the bullets turn out to be no better than regular bullets then by all means make it well known that the manufacture is way out of line with their claims. In my opinion though I do not see the point in taking jabs at those who are providing information about a new product that has not been fully tested yet. That was the only issue I had with his post, other than that I found it quite informative and look forward to hearing Darkker's experiences after he tests them at long range.

 

[Pdvdh]

Why not the manufacturer provide full disclosure test data verifying their pie-in-the-sky claims at the time they bring their product to market, rather than making unfounded claims, and then the customers having to purchase and test the products at their own expense - only to find the manufacturer's claims unfounded.

Now there's a novel idea? Along the lines of Duuuuuuhhhhhhh?

IF the manufacturer doesn't have the ability or the equipment to substantiate unbelievable marketing claims, then they shouldn't make those outlandish claims at all. They should let the customer know up front that the BC, MV, or whatever other aspect of advertised performance seeming to be too good to be true, are unproven. If the customer want's to spend their money and barrel life testing bullets that seem to have good potential then there's no foul. In fact, completely fair. Honest as the day is long.

Matrix bullets is one of the few - maybe the only - small custom bullet manufacturer that's approached their bullet marketing fairly. At least the only one I can recall in recent history. All the others felt they had to misrepresent their bullets with outlandish claims in order to make a profit. This record of failing performance just gets repeated over and over and over until customers forget. And then it starts over again.

For example W3P's bullet marketing claims. Members spent money to receive bullets with advertised BC values that were incomprehensibly high. The owner told members of this Forum "HE DIDN'T CARE" about comments/concerns regarding his marketing claims, in all capital type/font. These bullets were literally going to walk on water. Folks ordered bullets. Some got bullets. Some never did. They ones that received bullets received bullets failing to measure up to the company owner's advertising propaganda.

There's always a fresh batch of consumers ready to purchase unproven bullets boasting lofty claims, and the folk that seem to understand that better than most, even count on it? - the seller. Might as well name the company Shooting Star Bullets. Flash in the pan marketing. Black Cat Bullets. One bang and all marketing claims vaporized.

I could go one, but most recognize the repetitive marketing ploys by now, and are probably already napping...

At this point after all the failures to measure up, wouldn't it be preferable that the owner's not spew any BC claims at all, unless they provide full disclosure on the methods used to establish those BC values. Same with the amazing MVs and any and all other claims to fame. Full disclosure on the instruments and methods used to verify that their bullets will reach Mach 5 velocities, launched with nothing more than magnum primers?

 

[trickytune]

I never did see any test results from those that had bullets from W3P. Did anybody test them? If so were the results posted anywhere?

 

[Pdvdh]

The answer to some of your questions are best answered by the victims.

I can offer this much. When John Culpepper stated "I DON'T CARE", he meant it.

 

[Canadian Bushman]

Bryan posted one of alco's bullets which i believe is probably made on the samd dies as w3p.

Alco 220 gn .308 adv G1 bc - .851
W3P 220gn .308 adv G1 bc - .811

*Notice the twist required*

 

[7mmShooter]

Guys, Bryan has tested the 180gr FTR Flatline. Came back at a .342 G7...
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/wtc-flatline-bullet-testing-161940/

 

[JeffVN]

Just in case your computer does not like the link:

"We got the Warner Flatline 30 cal 180 grain FTR bullets tested for BC. We shot them from two barrels: 1:8" 308 Win 24" barrel, ave MV ~2300 fps, and a 1:9" 300 Win Mag 26" barrel at 2950 fps. These were both 'nominal' loads, not pushing pressure limits. Normalized results of both barrels for the average speed band 3000-1500 fps.

Results for G7 BC's are: 0.341 and 0.342; nearly identical for the two barrels. Both cases produced SG's over 1.5, so I've got confidence in the results being accurate.

Warner Tool Co advertises G1 and G7 BC's for two different velocity bands: 3000-100 fps and 3500-1500 fps. I'll focus on the 3500-1500 fps band, as taking it to 100 fps can highly skew an average. WTC advertised performance for the 3500-1500 fps band is 0.348. If I calculate the G7 BC for the same band as WTC (3500-1500 fps) based on my testing, it's 0.347.

In essence, when BC is averaged for common velocity bands, my measurements are nearly identical to the WTC advertised performance of this bullet.

Some analysis for FTR.

For the following analysis, we'll consider the G7 BC and form factor (Form Factors: A Useful Analysis Tool | Berger Bullets Blog ) averaged over 3000-1500 fps because that's what all comparable bullets have their BC's figured for, and it's a more likely velocity range for the FTR application.

Here are a few other bullets with their G7 BC's and form factors for comparison (3000-1500 fps averages).
Code: [Select]
Bullet G7 BC G7 form factor
WTC Flatline 180 gr FTR 0.342 0.793
Berger 200 gr Target Hybrid (unpointed) 0.316 0.954
Berger 200 gr Target Hybrid (pointed*) 0.329 0.917
Berger 215 gr Target Hybrid (unpointed) 0.354 0.915
Berger 215 gr Target Hybrid (pointed) 0.368 0.880

* Assuming nominal +4% BC increase for pointing.

As you can see, the Flatline FTR bullet has about an 8% higher BC than the Berger 200 grain Hybrid, out of the box. Point the Berger 200 grain Hybrid and you close the gap to within 4% of the Flatline bullet. Now consider the 215 grain Hybrid. It's got a higher BC out of the box, and quite higher pointed, but it's also heavier which will affect the MV and ultimately, the wind performance.

Next step of this analysis is to figure the '10-mph crosswind deflection' for each bullet, and see how it plays out on an FTR target at 1000 yards.

Consider the muzzle velocities that are achievable with the different bullets; that will play a part in addition to the BC's.

Solid bullets have some flexibility in their bearing surface/drive band design which often allows for higher velocities at the same pressures compared to conventional bullets which need to engrave the full length of the bearing surface. It's unknown exactly how much extra velocity is possible with the Flatline bullets. For this analysis, we'll assume +50 fps for the solid bullets compared to the conventionals. We'll base everything from a 2650 fps MV for the 200 grain conventional bullet. So we have:

Code: [Select]
Bullet G7 BC MV wind deflection in 10-mph crosswind at 1000 yards (inches)
WTC Flatline 180 gr FTR 0.342 2843 59.4
Berger 200 gr Target Hybrid (unpointed) 0.316 2650 74.2
Berger 200 gr Target Hybrid (pointed*) 0.329 2650 70.2
Berger 215 gr Target Hybrid (unpointed) 0.354 2556 67.5
Berger 215 gr Target Hybrid (pointed) 0.368 2556 64.2

Now that we've got the BC's, likely MV's, and calculated wind performance of each bullet, we'll consider the effects on a shooters score in an FTR match, based solely on wind performance.

In the book: Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, I present a series of tables that estimates a likely score for: various classes of shooters (beginner, average, elite), levels of wind performance in terms of inches of wind drift at 1000 yards in a 10-mph crosswind, and what score would result from various levels of wind uncertainty (+/-1mph, +/-2mph, etc). These tables are generated by modeling the various shooter skill levels and simulating the various ballistic performance. The tables track surprisingly well with reality. We'll use them to look up the average scores for elite shooters (averaging 1/2 MOA groups) in easy vs. difficult conditions.
Code: [Select]
Bullet G7 BC MV wind easy hard
WTC Flatline 180 gr FTR 0.342 2843 59.5 198-12 189-10
Berger 200 gr Target Hybrid (unpointed) 0.316 2650 74.2 196-5 185-5
Berger 200 gr Target Hybrid (pointed*) 0.329 2650 70.2 196-11 188-8
Berger 215 gr Target Hybrid (unpointed) 0.354 2556 67.5 197-12 187-4
Berger 215 gr Target Hybrid (pointed) 0.368 2556 64.2 197-12 189-0

Reality check; during the recent 2015 FCNC, I was shooting pointed 215 grain Hybrid bullets. From the best to worst conditions, my scores ranged from 198 to 191. This tracks with the predictive model within a point. Not saying it's 100% accurate (being based on statistics, it's just a 'most likely' scenario), but it passes the sanity check.

As you can see, the result of the BC, MV, and wind performance on score is such that the WTC Flatline bullet is definitely a contender among the other options currently being used to win FTR matches.

This analysis focused only on the performance aspect. Precision/grouping/recoil/shoot-ability is another issue which hasn't been fully explored yet. As more of these bullets fly downrange, I'm sure a clear picture will form as to their suitability for FTR competition in general.

-Bryan

 

[JeffVN]

sorry guys I tried, but I can't fix the formatting to line up the velocities, etc.