338 Cal 250 gr AB Range Report

[Fiftydriver]

Thanks for the report.

Its to bad the boys at Nosler would not listen to use and give us what we want. A 1-10 twist which is standard in the 338 would easily stabilize any accubond up to even a 280 gr version and BC would get up to where it should be.

As far as factory rifles not handling the longer bullets accurately, when was the last time you saw a 338 factory rifle in anything smaller then the 338 Win Mag? Oh ya, there is the 338 Fed. Course for that there are many lighter weight 338 Accubonds to choose from and a +250 gr bullet would not be applicable anyway.

A 300 gr Accubond would perform very well in the larger 338 magnums, BC would be very similiar to if not a bit more then the 300 gr SMK and and with dramatically improved terminal performance.

When was the last time you saw any 338 with a 1-10 not stabilize a 300 gr SMK??????

Seems Nosler just does not want to think out of the box. While I am on my soap box, why will noone make a 375 cal bullet over 300 grains from a major bullet maker. A 350 gr Accubond would be great and again, a 1-10 would be MORE Then enough and a 1-12 would work with most chamberings.

Nuff said, good results. Do some long range shooting and let us know if those BCs match up with actual bullet drops.

[Varminator 911]

When Nosler went from the 225 to the 250, BC went from 0.550 to 0.575. At that rate the 300 might be 0.625. They've got to put a longer ogive and boatail and not just increase the bearing surface to make a really long range bullet. The Etips have such a long bearing surface that you have to use less powder. They need a longer ogive as well. I suppose there might be accuracy issues as with the VLDs if Nosler did that.

[Jon A]

Actually, just keeping the same nose and tail as the 225 and a 300 grain would have well over .7 BC. Not from the bearing surface, but the increase in weight.

[Varminator 911]

JonA:

Do you think the 225 and 250 have the same nose and tail profile? If they do, I don't see how a 300 would be over 0.7 without a longer ogive. If BC were proportional to bullet wt: 300/225 x 0.550 = 0.733. So I think that is where you are coming from. But using that to compare the 225 and 250 gives: 250/225 x 0.550 = 0.611 rather than the actual of 0.575.

I still think you probably need a longer ogive, but maybe not. Maybe the 250 has a shorter ogive than the 225.

[Jon A]

I'm thinking if those numbers are accurate they may have blunted the ogive on the 250 a bit to keep it shorter, but I don't know. Though I'm not all that sure of their testing procedures of late anyway. For a while they had the 8mm 200 AB rated at a lower BC than the 338 200 AB which told me not to put too much faith in their numbers. It could be it's just slightly under rated or maybe just not as favorably rated as the 225.

Regardless, it should be a good bullet.

[JD338]

I believe that the 250 gr AB has the same ogive and boat tail as the 225 gr AB.


JD338

[Varminator 911]

JD338:

I think that makes sense. Adding weight in the middle of the bullet while keeping the nose and boattail the same will increase the BC by a modest amount. To really increase the BC of a heavy bullet you have to lenghten the ogive in proportion to the incease in weight or even more. You cann't just add weight in the middle of the bullet. I suspect it is more expensive to lenghten all proportions of the bullet.

If you really want a high BC bullet, and I do, keep the same bearing surface as the 225 while doubling the length of the ogive and boattail. Now we're talking a long range bullet. But the only bullet makers doing that are the custom makers of the Al tipped bullets. Guess I'll buy theirs if we can get a reliable supply, they are accurate, and they perform on game.

Just my take...