Just happen to have a 10 twist in the 338 Edge so I'll mark my calendar and continue to follow the reported progress. Thanks,
Paul
The Solid Bullet Debate
- Thread starter Eric Stecker
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Just happen to have a 10 twist in the 338 Edge so I'll mark my calendar and continue to follow the reported progress. Thanks,
Paul
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
Noel,
First, my apologies for all the typos and spelling errors on my previous post. I was struggling to keep my eyes open as I typed and did not bother to proof it.
Next, don't get me wrong about my skepticism.. I believe there's always a way to build a better mouse trap. But I think we need to becareful about assumptions and learn from previous experiences. I am all for a fail-safe tip or whatever is devised to improve BC and provide reliable expansion. To what degree we define reliability may be up for debate also... 99%??? The previous mentioned bullets are probably at least in the 90% relaibility category, maybe upper 90's?
1400 fps is a good low end opening velocity. Why the upper end and what happens if you exceed it? I wouldn't think a monometal would have an upper end velocity?
-MR
First, my apologies for all the typos and spelling errors on my previous post. I was struggling to keep my eyes open as I typed and did not bother to proof it.
Next, don't get me wrong about my skepticism.. I believe there's always a way to build a better mouse trap. But I think we need to becareful about assumptions and learn from previous experiences. I am all for a fail-safe tip or whatever is devised to improve BC and provide reliable expansion. To what degree we define reliability may be up for debate also... 99%??? The previous mentioned bullets are probably at least in the 90% relaibility category, maybe upper 90's?
1400 fps is a good low end opening velocity. Why the upper end and what happens if you exceed it? I wouldn't think a monometal would have an upper end velocity?
-MR
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
MR,
The upper end velocity limitation is the consequence of a small percentage of tellurium in the copper.
This reduces machining time by increasing cutting speed, and is why this projectile is capable of opening at such low velocity... it also has a tendency to expand a little too well at high impact speeds (the grenade effect). A tin/bismuth/silver bonded core is overlaid with a tin/indium core to moderate the expansion rate. The petals will still shed at unusually high velocities however.
Everything is a compromise... even with "magic".
The upper end velocity limitation is the consequence of a small percentage of tellurium in the copper.
This reduces machining time by increasing cutting speed, and is why this projectile is capable of opening at such low velocity... it also has a tendency to expand a little too well at high impact speeds (the grenade effect). A tin/bismuth/silver bonded core is overlaid with a tin/indium core to moderate the expansion rate. The petals will still shed at unusually high velocities however.
Everything is a compromise... even with "magic".
Eric Stecker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 292
This is what I get for thinking I could take Father's Day Weekend off from the forums. I did not expect this thread to be on its 7th page when I got back to it. I'll attempt to catch up.
BigUglyMan,
Several pages ago you posted a response that included the following statement:
My apologies. When I say that solid bullets don't make it to the range on match day I am referring to center fire matches. I forgot about the many muzzle loaders who shoot competition all over the world. Your point is made and my excluding these shooters was not deliberate but an oversight.
My limited knowledge of muzzle loading will show itself quickly but don't all or most muzzle loaders use lead? If this is true then it may speak to Bryan's point on this material density consistency. It may also just be an easier material to cast and its density lends itself to better overall performance (forming and shooting).
Noel,
I agree with you that this is hardly a debate. Berger offers a product and you are offering a product. From everything I have read these products are very different. In the end only a rifle will be able to tell us which is better. It may be true that each is better in certain applications.
You suggest that your bullet is not revolutionary. I disagree because even though characteristics of your bullet and the system you speak of have been around for a long time they are not available to the shooting public. Further, based on your report they have only recently been used as a system. This is also revolutionary in shooting since so few developments involve a shooting system.
I look forward to your offering becoming readily available and the resulting improvements to the shooting experience. Based on your performance claims, I should consider myself lucky that you are only offering a 338 cal bullet.
Moving our discussion to this thread was based on my desire to separate it from the Barnes article conversation. I have no basis on which to debate with you further. My opinion of existing solids has not changed. You do not defend or imply that you want to defend existing solids. I wish you luck in changing these perceptions with your new solid.
To All,
A brief word about bullet failures to perform as expected. (This is a sidebar discussion that was mentioned in other posts on this thread and has nothing to do with my discussions with Noel) We are pursuing this topic because our goal is to enhance the rifle shooting experience. If we can achieve 100% performance (no bullet has achieved this) then the rifle shooting experience will be enhanced.
We spent about 5 years solving the "bullet failure to reach the target" result. This is what led to our making the bullets that are part of our Target line with thicker jackets. I mention this because we have proven that we do not ignore such results and will not stop until we find a solution that does not reduce the precision performance of our bullets.
One of the greatest challenges with "hunting bullet failure" is the infrequency of the results. If it were related to the manufacturing process then we would expect more failures within given lots. The reports have been so infrequent that we have not had one lot mentioned twice.
Another tremendous challenge to overcome is the many wide ranging variables that exist in the shooting system and the target. I am not suggesting that every failure is the fault of the shooter but the many variables in the shooting system (which includes the shooter) makes it difficult to zero in on a root cause.
To date, no one who has used factory loaded ammo that comes with the Berger Hunting VLD has reported a failure to perform as expected. It is also true that far fewer animals have been taken with factory loaded ammo using Bergers than those that were hand loaded.
Additionally, when the target is an animal and not a sheet of paper the variables that exist within a population of all the animials shot by our bullets further complicates the analysis. Everything from size, shape, impact location, impact velocity, bullet path, state of the animal and toughness of the animal affects the outcome.
We are committed to enhancing the shooting experience and will publicly discuss our progress on this project. I am not afraid of negative results but am very concerned that we do not dismiss and ignore them like some other brands might.
Regards,
Eric
BigUglyMan,
Several pages ago you posted a response that included the following statement:
My apologies. When I say that solid bullets don't make it to the range on match day I am referring to center fire matches. I forgot about the many muzzle loaders who shoot competition all over the world. Your point is made and my excluding these shooters was not deliberate but an oversight.
My limited knowledge of muzzle loading will show itself quickly but don't all or most muzzle loaders use lead? If this is true then it may speak to Bryan's point on this material density consistency. It may also just be an easier material to cast and its density lends itself to better overall performance (forming and shooting).
Noel,
I agree with you that this is hardly a debate. Berger offers a product and you are offering a product. From everything I have read these products are very different. In the end only a rifle will be able to tell us which is better. It may be true that each is better in certain applications.
You suggest that your bullet is not revolutionary. I disagree because even though characteristics of your bullet and the system you speak of have been around for a long time they are not available to the shooting public. Further, based on your report they have only recently been used as a system. This is also revolutionary in shooting since so few developments involve a shooting system.
I look forward to your offering becoming readily available and the resulting improvements to the shooting experience. Based on your performance claims, I should consider myself lucky that you are only offering a 338 cal bullet.
Moving our discussion to this thread was based on my desire to separate it from the Barnes article conversation. I have no basis on which to debate with you further. My opinion of existing solids has not changed. You do not defend or imply that you want to defend existing solids. I wish you luck in changing these perceptions with your new solid.
To All,
A brief word about bullet failures to perform as expected. (This is a sidebar discussion that was mentioned in other posts on this thread and has nothing to do with my discussions with Noel) We are pursuing this topic because our goal is to enhance the rifle shooting experience. If we can achieve 100% performance (no bullet has achieved this) then the rifle shooting experience will be enhanced.
We spent about 5 years solving the "bullet failure to reach the target" result. This is what led to our making the bullets that are part of our Target line with thicker jackets. I mention this because we have proven that we do not ignore such results and will not stop until we find a solution that does not reduce the precision performance of our bullets.
One of the greatest challenges with "hunting bullet failure" is the infrequency of the results. If it were related to the manufacturing process then we would expect more failures within given lots. The reports have been so infrequent that we have not had one lot mentioned twice.
Another tremendous challenge to overcome is the many wide ranging variables that exist in the shooting system and the target. I am not suggesting that every failure is the fault of the shooter but the many variables in the shooting system (which includes the shooter) makes it difficult to zero in on a root cause.
To date, no one who has used factory loaded ammo that comes with the Berger Hunting VLD has reported a failure to perform as expected. It is also true that far fewer animals have been taken with factory loaded ammo using Bergers than those that were hand loaded.
Additionally, when the target is an animal and not a sheet of paper the variables that exist within a population of all the animials shot by our bullets further complicates the analysis. Everything from size, shape, impact location, impact velocity, bullet path, state of the animal and toughness of the animal affects the outcome.
We are committed to enhancing the shooting experience and will publicly discuss our progress on this project. I am not afraid of negative results but am very concerned that we do not dismiss and ignore them like some other brands might.
Regards,
Eric
Last edited:
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
Eric,
That was a class response.
I trust that my earlier statement, regarding the value of a debate, can be better interpreted as regards specific solid projectile designs.
As a category, there is tremendous potential in solids design, and I have not even addressed less conventional projectile configurations in this thread. Very little work has been done in this field ever since the heavy-hitters in engineering moved on to more rewarding areas of endeavor better than seventy years ago. That really is how far back we have to reach, to see the path forward in ELR small-arms development.
My primary focus is in military application, because I believe the dangers we face as a nation have changed in a qualitative way... with indications going back as far as the Reagan administration, through 9-11. When an attacker is more likely to come at our soldiers with a Toyota-mounted heavy machine gun, than a T-72, you can be sure the rules of warefare have fundamentally changed.
I have not really appreciated the benefits to the sporting community this work could have, but I do agree with you that if a manufacturer is foolish enough not to learn from their own mistakes, they have subsidized the learning curve of their competitor.
To anyone else that might have questions/comments feel free to continue. I saw this thread as more of a theoretical, and applied mechanics discussion of projectile design anyway. The accounts of field experience, especially in terminal ballistics, which some of the posters have offered has been both welcome, and valuable to me.
Best,
Noel
That was a class response.
I trust that my earlier statement, regarding the value of a debate, can be better interpreted as regards specific solid projectile designs.
As a category, there is tremendous potential in solids design, and I have not even addressed less conventional projectile configurations in this thread. Very little work has been done in this field ever since the heavy-hitters in engineering moved on to more rewarding areas of endeavor better than seventy years ago. That really is how far back we have to reach, to see the path forward in ELR small-arms development.
My primary focus is in military application, because I believe the dangers we face as a nation have changed in a qualitative way... with indications going back as far as the Reagan administration, through 9-11. When an attacker is more likely to come at our soldiers with a Toyota-mounted heavy machine gun, than a T-72, you can be sure the rules of warefare have fundamentally changed.
I have not really appreciated the benefits to the sporting community this work could have, but I do agree with you that if a manufacturer is foolish enough not to learn from their own mistakes, they have subsidized the learning curve of their competitor.
To anyone else that might have questions/comments feel free to continue. I saw this thread as more of a theoretical, and applied mechanics discussion of projectile design anyway. The accounts of field experience, especially in terminal ballistics, which some of the posters have offered has been both welcome, and valuable to me.
Best,
Noel
Noel has developed a hunting version of the ZA.338/6.0 bullet, with a polymer tip. Snipers Hide member Rockz provided the test by firing the bullet into wet newspaper @ 500 yards, MV 2990 fps.
L to R: ZA338/6.0 Hunting(257 gr), Recovered(197gr), ZA338/6.0 Match(274 gr), 300gr Lapua Scenar
Top: Unfired Bottom: Fired recovered projectile
Expanded projectile frontal view.
Expanded projectile lateral view.
The following is a link to the discussion on the Snipers Hide Forum:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1212176#Post1212176
L to R: ZA338/6.0 Hunting(257 gr), Recovered(197gr), ZA338/6.0 Match(274 gr), 300gr Lapua Scenar
Top: Unfired Bottom: Fired recovered projectile
Expanded projectile frontal view.
Expanded projectile lateral view.
The following is a link to the discussion on the Snipers Hide Forum:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1212176#Post1212176
Last edited:
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
This prototype bullet is identical to the current version from the first band forward. Revisions aft of the forward band added stability, boosted BC, and increased weight by 9 grains in the one which will be released publicly. The core in this projectile was non-bonded, and lost one petal completely upon impact.
Experiments with this bullet design in a hollow-core (therefore a lower mass) configuration, as depicted in photograph, fragmented the nose entirely with high predictability... hence the ease of a frangible version should this be desired. All that is necessary is a deeper hole, and a pure bismuth core.
Look closely at the engraving pattern. You will see that the bullet body has no engraving marks. What is not visible is the difference in engraving width. The forward band has a wider engraving pattern as a result of side swaging, and becomes progressively narrower in following bands, until the primary rear sealing band is reached. The primary-band maintained a perfect gas seal.
This effect was produced in a constant twist barrel, and the axial-aligning process took place within just the distance of the footprint length.
Experiments with this bullet design in a hollow-core (therefore a lower mass) configuration, as depicted in photograph, fragmented the nose entirely with high predictability... hence the ease of a frangible version should this be desired. All that is necessary is a deeper hole, and a pure bismuth core.
Look closely at the engraving pattern. You will see that the bullet body has no engraving marks. What is not visible is the difference in engraving width. The forward band has a wider engraving pattern as a result of side swaging, and becomes progressively narrower in following bands, until the primary rear sealing band is reached. The primary-band maintained a perfect gas seal.
This effect was produced in a constant twist barrel, and the axial-aligning process took place within just the distance of the footprint length.
Last edited:
jmden
Well-Known Member
Noel,
What's the est. G1 and G7 BC on that hunting version? Waiting for Bryan to test?
What's the est. G1 and G7 BC on that hunting version? Waiting for Bryan to test?
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
jmden,
I have a pretty good idea of what the BC of the hunt bullet depicted in Argorn50's post is. When a core is used, the weight/balance is virtually identical to the Match projectile, and the Match projectile hits ~.2 mils lower than the 300 grain Scenar at 1,200 yards, based on his recent testing at Camp Atterbury.
The revised projectile has a higher BC than the Lapua, but I would prefer that Bryan present those results in the clear, methodical, manner to which we have all become accustomed.
Best,
Noel
I have a pretty good idea of what the BC of the hunt bullet depicted in Argorn50's post is. When a core is used, the weight/balance is virtually identical to the Match projectile, and the Match projectile hits ~.2 mils lower than the 300 grain Scenar at 1,200 yards, based on his recent testing at Camp Atterbury.
The revised projectile has a higher BC than the Lapua, but I would prefer that Bryan present those results in the clear, methodical, manner to which we have all become accustomed.
Best,
Noel
The 500 yard testing looks great, but has anyone done wet newspaper testing where the impact velocity is 1800 fps or below?
IMO, the lower the velocity to open properly the better the bullet....as long as it holds together at the higher end which a solid almost always will.
edge.
IMO, the lower the velocity to open properly the better the bullet....as long as it holds together at the higher end which a solid almost always will.
edge.
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
Edge,
Your comment shows how little I know about terminal ballistics.
I was considering this test to be a failure because of excessive mass loss. It is the reason that I moved to a bonded, progressive resistance core.
As mentioned in a prior post, the engineering challenge, with tellurium copper, is moderation of explosive expansion. Cory Trapp, of The Gunsite Academy, will be publishing much more professionally structured expansion test results prior to projectile release. Low velocity expansion is really a non-issue.
Best,
Noel
Your comment shows how little I know about terminal ballistics.
I was considering this test to be a failure because of excessive mass loss. It is the reason that I moved to a bonded, progressive resistance core.
As mentioned in a prior post, the engineering challenge, with tellurium copper, is moderation of explosive expansion. Cory Trapp, of The Gunsite Academy, will be publishing much more professionally structured expansion test results prior to projectile release. Low velocity expansion is really a non-issue.
Best,
Noel
MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
We had a long drawn out discusssion about terminal balistics and testing using different media such as wet newspapers, etc., almost a year ago. The bottomline is that the only real way to test a bullet for it's affect on flesh and bone is to shoot it through flesh and bone. Other mediums can give you a general idea what the bullet may do, but not necessarily at what speeds it will expand or how far it will penetrate or how stable it might be. Bullets do not penetrate paper as deeply as they do flesh and may expand at lower velocities in paper.
Actual velocites and distances on flesh make the best tests for stability and other factors. I have noticed from some long range kills made by LRH members, to show bullet expansion below advertized velocities at longer ranges. Specifically with NAB's and possibly SMK's and Bergers. I haven't heard or read of a reason for this phenomena and wonder if heat friction over a prolonged TOF may *soften* the jacket.
I wouldn't call loosing a petal a failure, depending on what the bullet did after loosing it. The GS bullets are designed to loose their petals at higher velocities and form a slightly mushroomed front to continue penetration and permament wound channel. I would think that the petals would act like shrapnel and cause more damage.
Stability is important to ensure proper penetration in the intended direction of travel through the vitals.
-MR
Actual velocites and distances on flesh make the best tests for stability and other factors. I have noticed from some long range kills made by LRH members, to show bullet expansion below advertized velocities at longer ranges. Specifically with NAB's and possibly SMK's and Bergers. I haven't heard or read of a reason for this phenomena and wonder if heat friction over a prolonged TOF may *soften* the jacket.
I wouldn't call loosing a petal a failure, depending on what the bullet did after loosing it. The GS bullets are designed to loose their petals at higher velocities and form a slightly mushroomed front to continue penetration and permament wound channel. I would think that the petals would act like shrapnel and cause more damage.
Stability is important to ensure proper penetration in the intended direction of travel through the vitals.
-MR
Last edited:
noel carlson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 214
MR,
I just happen to know someone who is uniquely situated to shoot hogs at 1,200+ meters. Perhaps I should give him a call.
So give me a considered opinion... do I want an expansion design to loose mass, or not?
Best,
Noel
I just happen to know someone who is uniquely situated to shoot hogs at 1,200+ meters. Perhaps I should give him a call.
So give me a considered opinion... do I want an expansion design to loose mass, or not?
Best,
Noel
Eric Stecker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 292
Speaking for Berger, the exact low end velocity at which the bullets will work is not a precise enough number to allow for closer impact velocity recommendation. This is especially true when talking about several different calibers and weights being used on a wide variety of animal sizes.
We recommend 1,800 fps as a minimum impact velocity because we know that all our VLD Hunting bullets will work at this velocity. It does not mean that a given bullet can't work at a lower velocity but such is the nature of recommendations provided to a large population of users.
Consider how loading manuals list information that is comfortably on the conservative side. Also consider that our twist rate recommendation must account for all environments and potential muzzle velocities. Many know that the exact twist need to stabilize a given bullet in a given rifle at a specific atmosphere is likely different than our recommendation but our recommendation will work also.
Regards,
Eric
