Cutting Edge Bullets, What Works For You?

[benchracer]

For those who have experience using Cutting Edge Bullets, have you noticed any patterns or "Best Practices" that helped you get the most accuracy from these bullets?

I have followed the loading instructions on the Cutting Edge website, but haven't been satisfied with the results. For those who are using CEB's successfully, I am interested in your feedback regarding what you have found to work best in your rifles. I am particularly interested to know if there is a pattern as to preferred seating depth or jump tolerance characteristics.

 

[bigngreen]

I've had mixed luck with them but I think I'm getting more comfortable with shooting them and getting them dialed in after this last rifle. I found I could move my powder change quite a bit and not see much of a difference so I concentrated on seating depth, not of the o-give but of the seal ring. All my chambers are set up for VLD's and the throats are tight so really I ended up working with the very narrow area between the neck of the case and the start of the lead. I found giving them as much jump as I could WITHOUT putting the sealing band inside the case neck was were I needed to be.
It's a narrow range to the tune of about .004 that they shoot absolutely incredible in my 6.5 SS, I vary much from that and they open up.

I also found them much more touchy about bullet run out, I saw a difference at long range with the run out being the only variable in the load, much more critical than I've seen with cup and core bullets.
Being a bore rider I think they start down the barrel how they leave the case, the bore will not align them as much and they don't bump up, this could also mean the the bore diameter is more critical with them also which I've read some comments about.

 

[Joel Russo]

You can try all the "best practices" but you will still have accuracy woes. Do a quick search on the topic, we discussed it here last year. Inconsistency is apparent no matter what solid bullet you shoot. I have shot the CE on paper at a mile, and they have never been able to "hang" with the solid core bullets. I'm not talking one rifle, one time, I'm talking multiple rifles/calibers, multiple times....

 

[Broz]

You can try all the "best practices" but you will still have accuracy woes. Do a quick search on the topic, we discussed it here last year. Inconsistency is apparent no matter what solid bullet you shoot. I have shot the CE on paper at a mile, and they have never been able to "hang" with the solid core bullets. I'm not talking one rifle, one time, I'm talking multiple rifles/calibers, multiple times....

Uh Oh..... There is that "Solid" word again. Be careful how you use that word Joel. I still have a few teeth marks from using it in reference to a 100 % copper bullet the other day. Even though the bullet is copper clear through with no jacket you can not refer to it as "solid". There are other fancy names for these bullet today. You know more politically correct not as prejudice as "solid".

Jeff

 

[royinidaho]

Pardauxn my french Jeff, but . . . ****. . . solid is solid whether it's copper, brass or ice.:roll eyes:

And it is generally accepted by those that know that bore diameter to bullet diameter is critical.

Recall the Lost Rivers? They weren't solids as the points were a separate component, on the J36s at least. I saw the machine that made them from "solid" brass rod.

Oh, and using an inertia bullet puller the J36 point came out first then the bullet came out of the case. Yep, it sure did.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Uh Oh..... There is that "Solid" word again. Be careful how you use that word Joel. I still have a few teeth marks from using it in reference to a 100 % copper bullet the other day. Even though the bullet is copper clear through with no jacket you can not refer to it as "solid". There are other fancy names for these bullet today. You know more politically correct not as prejudice as "solid".

Jeff

Awww, c'mon Jeff... you really consider those teeth marks? I know you have tougher skin than that gun)

 

[Broz]

solid is solid whether it's copper, brass or ice.

Careful there Roy, your skating on thin ice. You could be the next to commit a bullet terminology faux pas.

Jeff

 

[jmason]

I can tell you that you need to follow his twist guide lines if you use them. Running them harder in a slower twist still doesn't cut it. Even if you meet what is required in RPMs they will de-stabilize.

 

[AKGuide]

I can tell you that you need to follow his twist guide lines if you use them. Running them harder in a slower twist still doesn't cut it. Even if you meet what is required in RPMs they will de-stabilize.

I can vouch for following the twist guidelines. Cutting edge now lists using a 9.5 twist to stabilize their 200 grain C22 bullet for .308. Before they changed the guideline they used a 300 Tomahawk at 3200 fps in a 10 twist to do testing and it worked for them. I still have a handful loaded for my 10 twist 300 RUM and at 3250 they destabilize at 600 yards. Then again I shoot in subzero temps at sea level. I may give the 180s a try if they shoot as good as the 200s. I found that in my rifle they liked a .010" jump which in my chamber had the seal tight band in the case neck. Find a powder charge with a low es and sd and play with seating depth is my recommendation.

Reuben

 

[Pdvdh]

You can try all the "best practices" but you will still have accuracy woes. Do a quick search on the topic, we discussed it here last year. Inconsistency is apparent no matter what 'solid' bullet you shoot. I have shot the CE on paper at a mile, and they have never been able to "hang" with the 'solid core' bullets. I'm not talking one rifle, one time, I'm talking multiple rifles/calibers, multiple times....

'Solid' means a mono-metal copper bullet and 'solid core' bullet means a lead core jacketed bullet? Is that the correct interpretation of your use of these two terms?

 

[Joel Russo]

Uh Oh..... There is that "Solid" word again. Be careful how you use that word Joel. I still have a few teeth marks from using it in reference to a 100 % copper bullet the other day. Even though the bullet is copper clear through with no jacket you can not refer to it as "solid". There are other fancy names for these bullet today. You know more politically correct not as prejudice as "solid".

Jeff

Bring on the hate mail fellas, I got my big boy pants on....

I call 'em what they are, if they are turned out of a homogenous piece of solid copper, then they are solids in my book.

The fact of the matter is, they shoot no better than a bonded core bullet, and they kill no better than a bonded core bullet.

I really wanted them to work in the big 338, as they were much flatter from 650 out to 1,789 when I was testing them against the SMK.

You want data... Okay, here's your data. I'm not going to give you everything, but enough to prove my point.

30" barrels, twisted appropriately, 3,200 fps for both of the 300 grain CE, and the SMK.

650 CE 8.5. SMK 9.5
785 CE 11.5. SMK 12.5
1,293 CE 25.5 SMK 27.75
1,460 CE 31.25 SMK 34.75
1,789 CE 44.25 SMK 49.25

You see why I wanted them to work....

Shot them over and over on paper at 1,760, and could never get a consistent group under moa.
The SMK would shoot sub 12" groups routinely, and occasionally dip, into the single digits, and a best of 3.806".

I quit wasting time, powder, primers, and my patience, and turned my cheek at the CE.

Go ahead and hate.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Bring on the hate mail fellas, I got my big boy pants on....

I call 'em what they are, if they are turned out of a homogenous piece of solid copper, then they are solids in my book.

The fact of the matter is, they shoot no better than a bonded core bullet, and they kill no better than a bonded core bullet.

I really wanted them to work in the big 338, as they were much flatter from 650 out to 1,789 when I was testing them against the SMK.

You want data... Okay, here's your data. I'm not going to give you everything, but enough to prove my point.

30" barrels, twisted appropriately, 3,200 fps for both of the 300 grain CE, and the SMK.

650 CE 8.5. SMK 9.5
785 CE 11.5. SMK 12.5
1,293 CE 25.5 SMK 27.75
1,460 CE 31.25 SMK 34.75
1,789 CE 44.25 SMK 49.25

You see why I wanted them to work....

Shot them over and over on paper at 1,760, and could never get a consistent group under moa.
The SMK would shoot sub 12" groups routinely, and occasionally dip, into the single digits, and a best of 3.806".

I quit wasting time, powder, primers, and my patience, and turned my cheek at the CE.

Go ahead and hate.

No hate from me Joel. I don't have any favorite pet bullets. I'll use what ever shoots best for me out of my rifles whether it's a CEB or Berger or whatever.

I don't have a lot experience with the CEB's yet but the 180's shot well for me out for my 300 RUM. Didn't really shoot a group on steel or paper but at 1K they seemed to be well under MOA shooting at a rock.

From what I've been reading on them some guys have had good accuracy and some haven't. Not totally surprising since that seem to be the case for most bullets. Some rifles like some bullets better than others. At least that's been my experience.

 

[AKGuide]

MontanaRifleman just curious as to what your load was for the 180 CE in you 300 RUM? The C22 200s shoot well for me but lose stability at long range.

Reuben

 

[MontanaRifleman]

MontanaRifleman just curious as to what your load was for the 180 CE in you 300 RUM? The C22 200s shoot well for me but lose stability at long range.

Reuben

Reuben,

I shot the C48's and C32's and used 98 gr of Retumbo for both. I didn't shoot the 48's to long ranges but they grouped a little better than the 48's which I did shoot to 1K. Velocity was close to 3450 out of a 26" Sendero. I'll be trying the 200 gr C22's as well in my 10" twist. I'm expecting to push them to over 3200 out of a 27" nitrided barrel. I was able to push 200 AB's to 3200 out of the Sendero. Depending on the Retumbo load results, I might try RL33 but suspect it may be a little to slow for them.

What was your load for the C22's?