The Solid Bullet Debate

[MontanaRifleman]

Every style and design of bullet has its place and use and there is no real best of anything . Solid bullets have their advantages and lead core bullets have their advantages and its a simple as that. If you like one for a certain job and it does it well then thats the right one.

Bullet bumper, I have to agree with with Noel. I think you can define a "best" for a particular application. Especially when it comes to LRH. If your hunting is restricted to 100 yds or less, then just about any bullet available will do the job, including muzzle loader projectiles. The farther you stretch your shot, the more narrow your parameters become. This is why many LR hunters go with a 2 bullet solution... one for short to mid ranges and another for long ranges.

External LR parameters that are critical are BC, velocity and accuracy. The bullets themselves must be precise and consistant for reliability at extreme ranges. For terminal parameters, bullets must expand, stabilize and perform reliably. These demanding requirements narrow down the field quite a bit as you extend your hunting range.

I have mentioned the GS HV 177 a few times. I have not tested them yet, but the feed back I've gotten is that GS bullets in general, do yield significantly higher velocities and are very accurate and consistant as well as being extremely effective killers. Most do not have great BC's. IF, the HV 177 truely exhibits a BC of .6 or better, and gives 100-200 fps more velocity and expands down to 1600 fps with no upper limit, then please show me a "better" 30 cal bullet for killing elk from point blank to 1400 yds ouit of a 300 RUM, or a "better" bullet for killing elk out to 1100 yds out of a 300 WSM.

I agree there is a lot of subjectivity in this subject, but subjectivity starts to give way to reality at extreme ranges.

Regards,

-MR

 

[Pdvdh]

As a tangent question, do you believe hunters would ever commit to a dedicated 30 caliber system?

Best,
Noel

30 caliber is perhaps the most popular caliber for hunting large game in the States. Commercial bullet suppliers focus heavily on it. Many LRHs employ 30 caliber also. I believe the answer is yes.

 

[noel carlson]

Paul,

I received a few e-mails saying essentially the same thing you just did, so hopefully this single response will lay out the issues well enough for discussion.

Producing a ZA30/6.0-H is a relatively easy thing to do from my standpoint.

The plus side of this idea is that a 30 caliber is much less expensive than a 338, 375, or certainly a 50. The Match/Hunt combination is still necessary to make the proposition economically viable however.

The down-side is the following;

- In order to maximize performance in a magazine equipped platform, I would need ~1.11", beyond case length, to accomodate the nose.

- The selected case would have to be readily available from Lapua and/or Norma.

- The barrel would have to have a minimum 8" twist, and be compatible with existing jacketed projectiles (ie. , the jackets need to reliably stay on the core).

- I would need a group of qualified shooters willing to perform beta testing at their own expense, and be placed under an NDA.

If these conditions can be met, I will seriously consider the project.

Best,
Noel

 

[Michael Eichele]

My response is in bold inside the quote.

Bullet bumper, I have to agree with with Noel. I think you can define a "best" for a particular application. Especially when it comes to LRH. If your hunting is restricted to 100 yds or less, then just about any bullet available will do the job, including muzzle loader projectiles. The farther you stretch your shot, the more narrow your parameters become. This is why many LR hunters go with a 2 bullet solution... one for short to mid ranges and another for long ranges.

External LR parameters that are critical are BC, velocity and accuracy. The bullets themselves must be precise and consistant for reliability at extreme ranges. For terminal parameters, bullets must expand, stabilize and perform reliably. These demanding requirements narrow down the field quite a bit as you extend your hunting range.

I could never say the above statements any better.

IF, the HV 177 truely exhibits a BC of .6 or better, and gives 100-200 fps more velocity and expands down to 1600 fps with no upper limit, then please show me a "better" 30 cal bullet for killing elk from point blank to 1400 yds ouit of a 300 RUM, or a "better" bullet for killing elk out to 1100 yds out of a 300 WSM.

I have been looking at this bullet with great interest. Even though I am no longer using the 300's I would be very interested in this bullet from my 308's. Think about it. A 177 grain bullet with such a high BC that would help it keep its velocity afloat a bit longer AND expand between 1500-1600 FPS. This would be a dream come true for a die hard 308 fan like me. I am already getting 2850 out of 178 AMAX's with the right barrel AND the right powder. I cant imagine how much farther I could ethically take my 308's with a bullet weighing near 180 grains that will deliver good downrange velocity AND reliable expansion. No deer, sheep or antelope would be safe inside 1/2 mile+

I for one am EXTREEMLY interested in 30 cal mono metal bullets PROVIDED that they offer good accuracy, BC's AND low velocity expansion. If it can be done, I would be a supporter for sure. I would even be willing to cash in my 11 twist barrels for 9's or 10's to make them work properly.

 

[noel carlson]

Michael,

The projectile which I have in mind would weigh, in excess of, 190 grains.

 

[RockZ]

Noel,
I am willing to test the 30 cal projectiles. I have a Stiller long action and a McRees stock that is waiting for a barrel. I am planning on making a 300wsm which I think is a perfect blend of power and efficiency. Especially for a high bc 30 cal in the 190-200gr range.

I have nothing but good things to say about your 338 projectiles.
They are very well made and I enjoyed doing the initial expansion tests for them.

 

[Jon A]

The length of the bullet reall has nothing to do with with the COAL of the bullet seated to the lands.

Correct. The overall length of the bullet also has nothing to do with its BC--one of those misconceptions I was taking about. A longer shank/bearing surface in the middle because the bullet is made from a less dense material does not improve BC.

This is why I specifically said the length of the nose, or ogive. To significantly improve form factor, that's what needs to get longer. So naturally, if you're limited to a certain mag length, there will be a certain max nose length of the bullet that will push the shoulder between the ogive and bearing surface into the mouth and down the neck of the case if exceeded.

That's what I was talking about, I'm sorry I should have explained it a bit better.

Gerard primarily developed his hunting bullets for uses less than 500 yds, where BC has little impact. He was not concerned with pinpointing BC and calculated them mathmetically. He said this in another thread.

That's what he says now. But for years his marketing campaign for the HV bullets, with all sorts of wind drift charts, downrange momentum charts, etc, was all based upon the bullets having super high BC's they simply did not have. And they weren't just a little off.

In the case of the HV 177, it shows a lot of promise to be close to its advertised BC.

I know it's not what you want to hear, but don't hold your breath. It should be a lot higher than the 173's, that's for sure, but then again that's not saying much. Comparing to the 210 Berger and SMK it's nose is about .08 longer which should be an improvement ~5% form factor but it still has a big open hollow point and the others have 19% more mass. It doesn't add up. There's simply no reason it would have a BC to match the 210's.

Don't get me wrong, they're probably very nice all around bullets. These should have a BC high enough that many here will find them useful, unlike the 173's which had a BC so low it took them right off my list. They should make a nice alternative choice for those who do want penetration and would otherwise consider using Accubonds, Interbonds, E-tips, TTSX's, etc. But they're not the magic bullet. We're still looking for that.

 

[Jon A]

On the 30 Cal Noel,

As mentioned above, yes. While the 338's get all the good press, I'd venture to guess of the members here who use some sort of 30 Cal magnum as their primary LRHR probably outnumber all the rest put together. I believe the single biggest reason many here migrated to 338 from 30 cal was very simply due to the 300 SMK being a much better bullet than the 240 SMK. Not that the 240 is bad, but the 300 is in a different class BC-wise.

When Wildcat Bullets was up and running, plenty here put faster twists on other caliber rifles, 30 cal just hadn't really happened yet. If you build it, they will come.

 

[noel carlson]

Jon,

I would only add to your formula of improved form factor, that it is nose, and tail length which counts, excluding the shaft.

It is in this design parameter that a copper solid will pounce on a jacketed bullet of approximately equal mass. It is not even a contest.

Best,
Noel

 

[Jon A]

Correct. The tail on that particular bullet didn't look enough longer to bother mentioning, especially considering the lower relative contribution the tail makes compared with the nose in the big picture. The 173's I tested had a really, really, long tail and it didn't do them much good.

 

[noel carlson]

Jon,

I am assuming the picture which you are talking about is the one posted by Aragorn50, in this thread. Compare the length of the engraving foot-print of the ZA to the Scenar. The difference is notable. We agree that the length contributed by the shaft does nothing to improve form factor.

In a world where spin stabilization does not complicate matters, this is what a bullet would look like;

File:Sears-Haack.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There would be no shaft on the bullet made in heaven.

The VonKarman equation takes this feature into account, as it defines a minimum-drag nose constrained by a diameter (such as a gun bore). I use the VonKarman variation of the Haack formula in calculating nose profile to within less than .0005" over the entire length. VonKarman did not address minimum drag on a spin-stabilized tail.

I have, and to my knowledge, I am the only one that has bothered to even look at the problem. You will not see the solution in the photograph, and you are correct that a long tail, in itself, will not aid a spin-stabilized projectile... in fact it will diminish BC due to lack of stability.

Best,
Noel

 

[edge]

Let me put my tongue back in my mouth!

I shoot only sabots so shape is not a factor for me! I need no shank, the sabot can give me anything that I need. I would appreciate a BT of 1/8 inch minimum to keep my boring bars reasonable in diameter!

edge.

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f32/ultimate-muzzle-loader-26114/index3.html

 

[noel carlson]

Edge,

I know you are being humerous, but the French did exactly what you are suggesting in the late 1930's.

As it turns out, a Haack-Body cannot be spin-stabilized. I give you credit for cutting right to the chase however.

Best,
Noel

 

[Jon A]

I am assuming the picture which you are talking about is the one posted by Aragorn50, in this thread.

I was talking about the 177 GS HV that MR had brought up and the pic of it on their site, which is quite a bit different than the one shown on your bullet. I felt the difference between it and the VLD's to overall drag wasn't significant enough to bother mentioning, which is why I didn't and only brought up the nose length. Yours seem to have a couple features that I'd really hesitate to speculate about.