Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics


Reply

The Solid Bullet Debate

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-19-2009, 11:44 AM
SPONSOR
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 272
The Solid Bullet Debate

To All,

A debate started on a different thread (link below) that was not consistent with the subject of that thread. This thread is the result of my suggestion to move the debate to an appropriate thread so the discussion can remain focused (as much as these things do). You are encouraged to read the other thread but since it is very lengthy I will basically start this conversation from scratch.

Barnes's Tests Prove Why Berger Hunting VLDs Are So Successful By Eric Stecker


Noel,

I know you to be very intelligent. It is likely that I am about to learn some valuable lessons. Based on some of your comments on the other thread it appears that you are less interested in exploring the subject and more interested in proving me wrong. I've been beat up before and consider these beatings life lessons so let's away.

Your last post on the other thread included this statement:

Quote:
I think the potential value of a debate over the "generalities" of solid bullet performance is low, unless you are prepared to involve case alloys/design, non-commercial HE propellants, and new barrel materials/geometry. These elements will knock all lead core projectiles out of ELR contention due to weak construction, and poor BCs (including your yet to be introduced 300 grain VLD)...
I must admit that I can only engage in a debate over the generalities of commonly available solid bullet (up to and including 30 cal) performance. I have no experience with the cases, propellants and barrels to which you are referring. Since these items are not well known (or even available to the public) you may be correct that this debate lacks any value. I will leave it to you to decide whether it is worth engaging.

I told you that on a new thread I would respond to your following statement:

Quote:
- Solids are not inherently less accurate.
- Solids are not restricted to a low BC.
- Jacketed bullets (the Berger VLD specifically) are not the "only... ethical" medium of a humane long-range kill, and by extension... solids unethical.

An explicit aknowledgement of this would actually satisfy any objections I might have to your article.
Since I know absolutely nothing about your new bullet or the cases, propellants and barrels you are referring to I can only speak on those solid bullet of which I am currently aware.

Quote:
- Solids are not inherently less accurate.
I disagree. Competition target shooters are interested in two things; precision and accuracy. Over the decades of the development of target shooting competitions every possible combination has been tried by someone in the hope that they would find a better mousetrap. Solid bullets do not make it to the range on match day for the vast majority of target competitions.

Those who do use solid bullets (50 cal) are frequently asking us to build them jacketed bullets. They are unsatisfied with the MOA performance of the solids they are using but admittedly these solids perform better than existing jacketed bullets in this application. This one target competition exception and the fact that there are few absolutes is why I would not say that solid bullets are "always" less accurate jacketed bullets.

Quote:
- Solids are not restricted to a low BC.
I disagree with this when I consider it from my point of view. A solid bullet is made with materials that are lighter than lead. Two bullets with exactly the same shape will have the same BC if both bullets weigh the same. Since a solid bullet weighs less it will have a lower BC. If you are comparing a very long, sleek solid to a blunt jacketed bullet of the same weight then sure the solid can have a higher BC but this is not a fair comparison.

I understand that your statement does not refer to a comparison. This however is the basis for any statements I've made regarding the BC of solid bullets. I will concede that I agree with your statement if we are talking only about a solid bullet not being restricted to a low BC. Of course this is possible once you define "what is a low BC?" I am certain that once this question is answer it will be possible to construct a solid bullet that will have a BC that meets or exceeds this standard.

I must add to this that if the BC standard used to define "low BC" is high enough to require the solid to be extremely long then the construction of this very long solid no matter how well it is made is subject to other realities that will affect its ability to be precise. Unusually long bullets requiring faster than typical twist rates will spin at very high RPMs. This is no problem if everything is in perfect balance around the axis but even if the bullet is perfectly balanced by construction the barrel and rifling can affect balance in ways that the bullet maker can't control.

Additionally, I said I do not know anything about the cases, propellants and barrels to which you are referring. However I am aware enough to know that if you or those you work with have discovered a combination which is capable of pushing a solid bullet at remarkably high velocities then BC will of course be positively affected. Also, if what you say is true that this new combination is capable of such velocity that no jacketed bullet could withstand the forces then that would also make me agree with the first statement regarding accuracy. There would be no comparable jacketed bullet that could be used as a comparison to define inherent accuracy under these conditions.

Quote:
- Jacketed bullets (the Berger VLD specifically) are not the "only... ethical" medium of a humane long-range kill, and by extension... solids unethical.
I disagree but this is admittedly a subjective assessment. It would be difficult to quantify this to a standard so each hunter must make their own judgment based on the information available. I'll add that my subjective opinion is based on my understanding of existing solids shot with readily available cases, propellant and barrels. If you have developed a combination that performs differently than existing solids then I may agree with this statement should your combination prove to be effective at ELR hunting.

You may say that if my assessment is subjective then I am unable to make such a statement and that making such a statement is no different than what I criticized Barnes of doing. The problem with this argument is that things that cannot be quantified must be left to judgment. It is my judgment that Barnes comments are unsupportable. Stating that choosing a hunting bullet based on BC is "unethical and careless" is not a supportable statement. I believe based on other comments you've made that you agree.

I believe our statement with which you take issue is supportable. It may not be supportable in a manner you define as conclusive but I do not answer to you. I answer to the many hunters who use our bullets successfully. Those who use them know that I am correct when I say that the Berger Hunting VLD is the most capable bullet for dispatching quickly an animal at long range. In my opinion making it the most or "only" (sales short hand) ethical option.

I have been putting myself and my product out there for decades. You stated that;
Quote:
In all seriousness and due respect, I do not believe 19 years of swaging bullets has equipped you for that "debate".
I believe that the consistently successful results achieve by the product I produce says more about me than my ability to debate with you. I engage in these "conversations" for the sake of the shooters and selfishly for my own education. My inability to match your intellect hardly makes me or most of those who engage these forums ill equipped. Only one man in history could speak on subjects against which no one could successfully debate.

There. The target has been painted and I am eager to hear your comments so that I may expand my knowledge of such things. I'll remind you and state for those who did not read the other thread that I have no interest in engaging in a Ford vs. Chevy ******* contest. If you have come up with a revolutionary development then this will be good for shooting and I support it. Many folks are working hard to do the same thing and if you are successful then you are to be congratulated.

My statements above are commonly held beliefs about existing solid bullets and I encourage you or anyone to develop a solid or any bullet that advances the shooting sports. It is only through evolution (or a revolution in your case) of products and active interest in new and better ways of doing things that the shooting sports will thrive and grow.


Regards,
Eric
__________________
To strengthen your shooting skills go to the range.
To strengthen the shooting sports take a non-shooter with you.

Berger Bullets

Last edited by Eric Stecker; 06-19-2009 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Clarification
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-19-2009, 12:50 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 214
Re: The Solid Bullet Debate

Eric,

As a point of initial clarification, the life of Christ is not a grounding for debate, as a general proposition, per se. His qualifications arise from atoneing capacity, not academics. It would not be an indictment of his brand of virtue to fail a freshman physics exam. My comment to you was over-the-top upon review. The point I intended to make is that there is no reason that you should be prepared for this specific "debate" (your term).

We will just have to disagree on the import of the Berger video claim. By that token however, I would expect you to cut Barnes slack on that "ethics" issue... and it was clearly a major bone of contention within your article.

Regarding the points in your response, I wrongly assumed that Bryan had briefed you on at least some aspects of my work... until I recalled that he is under an NDA, and possibly wanted to avoid the topic altogether. That is just the type of guy he is.

" 'I disagree'... that solids are not inherently less accurate."... The fundamental limitation to common solid design in this regard has to do with engraving, both in consistent friction, and in-bore cant properties. That weakness is turned into an asset when precision turned engraving-bands are used, and this idea is, at least, 100 years old (not revolutionary).

" 'I disagree'... that solids are not restricted to a low BC."... You make an assumption about the lead density advantage in short bullets (less than six calibers). This advantage not only evaporates past six calibers, but becomes a liability. If you were able to make a seven-caliber jacketed bullet, and somehow flatten the pressure curve enough to achieve a high exit velocity (3,000+ fps), the required spin rate (~500,000 rpm depending on caliber) still becomes problematic. By contrast, a copper projectile has the perfect specific gravity for this convergence of conditions. Once more, this is neither a revelation, nor revolutionary.

Not to punt, but I am going to be inaccessable for the remainder of the day. I invite everyone to feel free, and "fire away" irregardless. I will get back tonight.

Best,
Noel
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-19-2009, 02:57 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Posts: 3,518
Re: The Solid Bullet Debate

Eric,

The best thing to do here is ignore noel. He goes off like this every time there is a bullet discusion.

You dont need to prove anything to us. We all KNOW what your bullets are capable of.
__________________
Long range shooting is a process that ends with a result. Once you start to focus on the result (where the shot goes, how big the group is, what your buck will score, what your match score is, what place you are in...) then you loose the capacity to focus on the process.

Last edited by Michael Eichele; 06-19-2009 at 03:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-19-2009, 03:28 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 244
Re: The Solid Bullet Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Eichele View Post
Eric,

.
You dont need to prove anything to us. We all KNOW what your bullets are capable of.
+1

Bergers have far exceeded my expectations! On paper and in game.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-19-2009, 03:51 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Alaska
Posts: 3,437
Re: The Solid Bullet Debate

I'm game for this discussion. I'd like to hear what you're up to Noel. You and Eric are both sharp and knowledgeable in your areas of specialty. I'm a part-timer. If we get an exchange of technical information - everything bullets - I expect an interesting "state-of-the-art" thread. I look forward to it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-19-2009, 04:36 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 276
Re: The Solid Bullet Debate

All I need to know is that my 308 pushing 175 gr VLD's put 5 in a group the size of a dime, and they kill the crap out of everything they touch.

"SCOUTS OUT"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-19-2009, 04:41 PM
SPONSOR
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 521
Re: The Solid Bullet Debate

I'd like to weigh in on a couple aspects of this discussion regarding the interesting physical contrast between solid and conventional (lead core) bullets.

First was the point of inherent accuracy (precision, to be precise).

Not considering the rifle, only the projectile, there are a few things that will affect inherent precision. Most notably; the balance of the bullet, and it's alignment. Keeping in mind that both of these components of dispersion are proportional to spin rate, there are several pro's and con's for solids and conventional bullets regarding dispersion.

Inherent precision of solids.
Pros.
1. No jacket so no worry about jacket run out, which is a potential source of imbalance for conventional bullets.
2. No imperfections associated with forming the ogive (square and level top to the lead core inside the ogive and meplat irregularities).
3. Freedom to design the most optimal configuration of bullet diameter and driving bands for minimizing in-bore tilt.

Cons.
1. A solid bullet of equal weight as a conventional bullet requires a faster twist rate. The major components of dispersion related to twist rate are magnified by the faster required twist.
2. Consistency of material density. I don't know this for sure, but I suspect that a lead core that's swaged would stand to have a more uniform density (and therefor better balance) than the material that's used to make solid bullets.

Inherent precision of conventional (lead core) bullets.
Pros.
1. Slower twist requirements
2. Possibly a more consistent density (homogeneous) core.

Cons.
1. Jacket is a possible source of imbalance
2. Imperfections from swaging procedure (top of core and meplat imperfections)

I'm not trying to paint a picture that one type of bullet is better than another, just sharing some thoughts about the considerations regarding inherent precision of the two types of bullets.

Like Eric, I have never seen anyone at a rifle match of any kind using solid projectiles. However, I don't think that proves that solid bullets can't be made to achieve high precision; it just means no-one has actually been able to do it yet. Maybe the odds are stacked too much against solid bullet precision, or maybe no-one has tried hard enough yet. Time will tell. I don't think any of the pro's or con's in the list above are decisively in favor of one or the other, just a different and unique set of challenges for each technology.

As for ballistic performance (BC) potential...

There are also pros and cons.

Ballistic performance for solid bullets
Pros
1. More freedom to create aggressive shapes that are not possible, or easy to make consistently using swaging (for example, needle sharp points).
2. Higher achievable max velocity.

Cons
1. Density. In my mind, this is the biggest downside of solid projectiles. To match the conventional (lead core) 'heavyweights', less dense projectiles have to be extremely long, so long that extremely fast twists are required. There is a limit to how fast you can expect a barrel to spin a bullet.

Density is very important to the potential ballistic performance of a projectile. The materials that are commonly used for solid bullets (copper, bronze, steel) all have lower density than lead, so they have to make up for it in profiling.

If the solid is made with a profile that's 10% lower drag than the conventional bullet, and the solid is 10% lighter, then the two bullets will have essentially the same BC. In this example, the solid has an advantage because it will achieve a higher muzzle velocity (because it's lighter), and having an equal BC, will beat the conventional bullet.

The above example is possible, even likely when comparing a low drag solid to a high drag conventional bullet, but when compared to a conventional bullet that's already got a good profile, it will be very hard to make up 10% of drag. Maybe 3 to 5%, but probably not enough to make up for the lower weight of the solid. In this case it's still not clear which is 'better' because the solid will have an advantage in velocity, but with a slightly lower BC. If the solid does come out on top, I wouldn't expect it to be a large advantage.

Everything changes if the solid can be made with a material of equal or greater density than lead. In that case, the external ballistic performance definitely would be in favor of the solid.

If the bullet and riflesmiths figure out how to make a heavy weight solid (180 grain 7mm, 230 grain .308, or 300 grain .338 for example) shoot consistently, it will likely have an advantage over the conventional bullet in BC due to superior profiling. But if the challenges of stabilizing a super duper long heavy solid are met, then the conventional bullet can just put on some weight, use a faster twist (but still not as fast as the solid requires) and be back in the game. Wildcat bullets come to mind as an extremely heavy line of conventional bullets with demanding twist requirements. I doubt any solid bullet made from material less dense than lead can be made as heavy as the heaviest wildcat bullets and be made to fly consistently with stability.

In my mind the ballistic performance comes down to the trade-off between better achievable profiling (in favor of the solids), vs the higher weights (in favor of the conventional bullet).

As with the inherent precision issue, I don't think that one or the other will always, necessarily have better ballistic performance.

And I really don't believe that 'just because solids haven't been superior to conventional bullets so far means they can't be successful'. I think it's just a matter of someone solving the unique challenges of the technology, optimizing the design, and simply succeeding where others have failed.

Even then, when the technology of solid bullets has gone as far as it can, I don't think it can be an all around superior option. As with all things, some performance measures will favor one more than the other, and people will make their individual choices based on their application and circumstances.

-Bryan
__________________
Bryan Litz
Ballistician

Author of: Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting
And: Accuracy and Precision for Long Range Shooting


Last edited by bsl135; 06-19-2009 at 05:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: The Solid Bullet Debate
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NEED a good solid BC # for JLK 210 LTBVLD bullet tresmon Reloading 0 11-20-2010 12:32 PM
Most accurate factory bullet that is not solid? Bandit19 Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 4 11-02-2010 12:32 PM
The great 260 bullet weight debate ICANHITHIMMAN Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 9 04-18-2009 10:22 AM
solid bullet JamesF180 Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 3 06-24-2008 12:05 AM
Bullet debate Randy in Va Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 1 07-22-2003 06:57 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC