Rockymt, again thanks for posting your info. The 110 grain 264 was also on my list for my 264 Gibbs, 264 win mag and 264 STW.
JWP745, I have seen quite a few long range hits with the 300 SMK out of my 338-378's, 338 Lapuas and 338-300 ultramags. When punching through the lungs you get many pass throughs where there is an exit hole with great blood loss even at half mile targets particularly with deer/caribou size animals and smaller. I have seen instances where the jacket began to seperate with no exit wounds on shoulder hits with large big game such as elk at all ranges. 99% of my hunting is inside a half mile although I have been known to stretch it out there on occasion when necessary. Typically I am not out there trying to see how far I can kill one but get within my comfort range when at all possible.
Mtbullet, I have seen the fun begin with the 7mm rem mag and 168 bergers way to many times. This year two experiences with them from my friends. Bull one was a 340 class 6x6 shot through the chest at inside a 100 yards. After chasing the bull down a ways shot again through the chest inside a hundred yards. Repeat same four more times. The bull was finally put out of his misery with a shot to the head after being chased and shot at for over 600 yards. Bull two, was shot at a little over 400 yards through the chest. The bull hunched up then took off. He got another shot into the bull as it crossed a little opening in the timber that he also thinks went through the chest and he is a good shot and hunter. That 360 class bull was never found. Just to many bad situations each year using this set up. I am not biased, not paid by anyone for sponsorships and really don't care what a guy uses, but this is a continuing problem with your set up. I have also known of many bulls taken with the same rig. One of my good friends and his son's took three nice 6x6 bulls with the 168 Bergers out of 7mm STW's last year and swear by them. Percentages of bad experiences are just to great for me though.
Predictions are difficult, especially when they involve the future
Last edited by Long Time Long Ranger; 12-08-2009 at 01:14 PM.
At least you included the operative word. ;) Seriously, a drop test at 960 yds with a LapuaImp to measure BC is like measuring the width of a human hair with a yardstick.
The BC could be a full .100 off and there'd only be a little over three inches difference in trajectory. Depending upon what scope was used the clicks could easily be off that much or more (how were they calibrated?) along with such a small change getting lost in the noise of the rifle's accuracy or atmospheric condition measurements. At .308 velocities measurements at such a range mean a little more; RUM or LapuaImp velocities will cover for the BC of the bullet at such short ranges to a large extent. If you want to use drop, at 1500 you're around 20" drop difference for a .1 BC difference so it's starting to get noticeable. Of course you still need to make sure the scope's clicks are calibrated exactly, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a bad bullet or its BC is as low as the 173's--hopefully it's not. I'm just saying that such bold claims that "nothing else can touch it," etc, would take some serious data to back up which you don't have. The claims sound like they're straight from Gerard's advertising copy which have historically been prone to large exaggeration--and when they go against the basic laws of ballistics...well, you've heard the phrase "If something sounds too good to be true...."
I didn't test any of Noel's bullets. That's my fault, I just got busy doing other things then after a bunch of shooting concluded my barrel was pretty much shot out so even if they did stabilize I wouldn't be able to correctly assess their accuracy.
Given the equipment that I have to use, we could be off .1 either direction, correct? All I can say is that they have done well so far. I agree with the speed that I am shooting it is hard to tell for sure. I guess for me that is a good thing. I will try and see if I can get some loaded in a slow 30 cal. All that I have at my disposal is factory rifles. Some that shoot quite well though. I don't have any high dollar scopes, but I do have Leupold and Nikon scopes that are repeatable. I'll do what I can with what I have. The only other thing that I will add is that I do not plan to shoot hundreds of rounds in order to compile sufficient data to be spot on. I'm not going to burn up barrels to get bc data.
When I shot the old GS bullets they did not match advertised bc's at relatively the same distances and speeds. It did not take me many shots to see this.
I would love to see you get a box and post your findings. Conformation of what I have done would be great.
I agree, for many of the reasons you state, that drop testing is not the most accurate method of BC verification, but I think it can give us a good estimate. I'll have to disagree that a .1 dif in BC only equates to 3 inches dif in drop at 960 yds. In runnig the numbers of Steve's ballistics, a .1 dif in BC (.52 vs .62) equates to an 11" dif in drop. One drop test is not necessarily conclusive, but consistant results are relaible Not saying we have consistant results yet, but they seem to be working for Steve.
Next, the 177's are totally different animal than the 173's. And the new 177's are an improvement over the old 177's, which even Bryan Litz commented on. Better boattail design, longer narrower nose, front driving band incorprated into the ogive. It's a sweet looking bullet, and I will readily say, much better than anything being currently offered in the 308. So I remain optimistic...
I'll have to disagree that a .1 dif in BC only equates to 3 inches dif in drop at 960 yds. In runnig the numbers of Steve's ballistics, a .1 dif in BC (.52 vs .62) equates to an 11" dif in drop.
Yikes!, my bad. In my haste to pull a quick number I had the damn thing set to G7 instead of G1. I knew those numbers didnít seem right! Serves me right for being in such a hurry. Anyway, youíre rightóabout 11 inches. At 1500 youíre talking over 5 feet, so the point is still unchangedóa relatively small difference at 960 that could be covered by other errors becomes a blatantly large at 1500.
Steve, you donít need any super expensive scope or anything as long as itís repeatable. Just measure the clicks. I suggest everybody do that no matter what scope they have anyway, but itís especially important if youíre trying to use it as a tool to measure drop. You can lock the rifle down and go up and down a yardstick or similar at a known distance, or the easiest is to use a collimator. All manufacturers will have an acceptable +/- % range, some larger than others. That doesnít even include scopes that are marked MOA but are really IPHY, and visa versa, etc.
Do you know what scope are marked moa, but are really iphy? Mine is 1/4 per click. The manual says that it is moa. Nikon by the way. My son's scope is marked 1/4", so I set drops based on 1/4" per click. Leupold and Weaver.
Our thread is taking a turn.
Back to bullets, I like the Swift Sciroccos, if you can get them to shoot. My favorite conventional lead core bullet for on game performance.
That's alright Steve. It's all good conversation. Interesting point you bring up though about setting your drops to either IPHY or MOA. Can this be entered into Exbal for different scopes?
You also mention Sciroccos's. I've only had one gun that would shoot them with reasonable accuracy. I was able to take a bull at 543 though and it completely turned him upside down and he never moved again. I have a couple boxes of 180's still and will give them a try as well in the Sendero. So far, I'm thinking of trying the 180 SC II's, 200 AB's are on the way, and possibly the 180 E-Tips. Still looking for more ideas though. Thanks, Bryan