Independently verified BCs for Whiskey 3 Precision Bullets

[Michael Courtney]

A while back there was a thread on a W3PS, a new bullet company advertising very high BCs. There was some debate as to whether these new bullets really meet their specs, and various forum members mentioned acquiring bullets for testing.

Have any independent BC measurements been done with an accepted BC measurement method (near velocity and time of flight; near and far velocity)?

I think some 155 grain .308 bullets had been sent to Michael Eichele who intended to use the near and far velocity method and conduct a side-by-side comparison with the 155 AMAX. Are these results available yet?

Personally, I share the skepticism expressed by forum members that these bullets have BCs anywhere near what is being advertised. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I cannot find much in terms of evidence supporting these extraordinary BC claims.

 

[Pdvdh]

I haven't seen any velocity-based or time-of-flight based BC test results for these bullets posted on this Forum.

Michael Eichele hunts, and Alaska hunting seasons are in full swing now.

I've chronographed the 265gr .338 HAT aluminum tipped bullets at the muzzle and at 300yds years ago and the BC didn't live up to the values HAT's bullet tester stated he was receiving based on measured drops. This bullet had the same construction features as the W3P bullets. Rebated base boatails with a lead core and aluminum tip.

I've chronographed a 190 gr .308 rbbt aluminum-tipped custom bullet made by elkaholic using Corbin dies at the muzzle and again at 1000 yds. The BC I generated was good, and very close to what Rich told me to expect, but no where near what W3P is currently advertising for their bullet. And elkaholic's bullet looks identical to those being manufactured by W3P (also manufactured using Corbin bullet dies).

I shoot over a triplicate chronograph setup (skyscreens for three separate chronograph units mounted on a single 6 foot long rail), receiving three velocities for each bullet fired, so I have confidence in my measured velocities.

W3P has stated that their advertised BCs are mathematically generated using a software program based on the input of bullet dimensions (measurements). IF the advertised BCs for the W3P bullets were being realized by users of those bullets, I would expect W3P would be passing along that supportive product information on this Forum. Nothing...

I expect Michael Eichele will post his findings, but he warned us it would take some time due to work and scheduling.

 

[Michael Courtney]

I haven't seen any velocity-based or time-of-flight based BC test results for these bullets posted on this Forum.

Michael Eichele hunts, and Alaska hunting seasons are in full swing now.

Thanks for the update.

I've chronographed the 265gr .338 HAT aluminum tipped bullets at the muzzle and at 300yds years ago and the BC didn't live up to the values HAT's bullet tester stated he was receiving based on measured drops. This bullet had the same construction features as the W3P bullets. Rebated base boatails with a lead core and aluminum tip.

I've chronographed a 190 gr .308 rbbt aluminum-tipped custom bullet made by elkaholic using Corbin dies at the muzzle and again at 1000 yds. The BC I generated was good, and very close to what Rich told me to expect, but no where near what W3P is currently advertising for their bullet. And elkaholic's bullet looks identical to those being manufactured by W3P (also manufactured using Corbin bullet dies).

Right. I think a lot of companies depend on the fact that very few shooters will actually measure the BCs, but rather just be happy with good accuracy and high advertised BCs. We blissfully shot Noslers for years at ranges to 250 yards, and never noticed the BC problem until we started shooting longer range, which pushed us into measuring BCs with the near and far chronograph method. After we published our first BC paper in 2007, people began asking us to measure BCs of different bullets and to address more challenging drag problems (effects of Sg, air density, damping of pitch and yaw, etc.)

I shoot over a triplicate chronograph setup (skyscreens for three separate chronograph units mounted on a single 6 foot long rail), receiving three velocities for each bullet fired, so I have confidence in my measured velocities.

We've found that velocity measurements with infrared skyscreens are rock solid dependable. When we measure BCs, we start with two or three chronographs all in a row 10, 12, and 14 feet from the muzzle to confirm that all three are reading the same. Then we move the middle and far chronographs out to their positions, usually 160 and 310 feet or 310 and 610 feet. Sometimes we don't use the middle chronograph. The middle chronograph tells us more about stability and damping of pitch and yaw than it does about BC, so its use depends on the purpose of the experiment. Lining up three chronographs is more work and increases the risk of shooting one.

W3P has stated that their advertised BCs are mathematically generated using a software program based on the input of bullet dimensions (measurements). IF the advertised BCs for the W3P bullets were being realized by users of those bullets, I would expect W3P would be passing along that supportive product information on this Forum. Nothing...

This approach has been known for years to generate BCs that are overly optimistic by 20-30% compared with what real shooters will see. From 2004-2008 several of the bullet companies (Berger, Barnes, Hornady) moved to more reliable techniques based on actually measuring BCs. Sierra and Speer have long used real and reliable methods of BC determination.

 

[Pdvdh]

We can't hear you jfseaman. Could you force it out a little louder?

Is that the best you've got to offer regarding BC values? Where's your BC data for your W3P bullets? Oh, that's right. It's not important to you, so it's not allowed to be important to anyone else. That's a jfseaman regulation! Fully enforced with large ugly FONT by another Forum Marshall. Wannabe Marshall jfseaman.

Pssst... FYI, you're not important either. Tee hee!

Like I've stated on more than one occasion to you directly in the past - you still clearly don't know what to do - so just go away.

 

[cohunter14]

I have been waiting to see Michael Eichele's report, but figured he was busy hunting, as phorwath mentioned. Michael Courtney, do you have any plans on shooting them?

 

[Michael Courtney]

I have been waiting to see Michael Eichele's report, but figured he was busy hunting, as phorwath mentioned. Michael Courtney, do you have any plans on shooting them?

Not unless someone pays us to or we can evaluate credible information suggesting they show more promise for long range work than the high BC offerings from Sierra, Hornady, Berger, and Nosler.

If an independent source verified that they have measured BCs within 5% of the marketing claims, I probably couldn't keep my colleagues from buying some and testing the BCs the next time we set up the system.

Even a report of 10% within the published BC specs for the 220 and 230 grain RBT models would generate a lot of interest in determining the flight consistency and shot to shot consistency of the BCs.

It has long been known that a pointed tip can give higher and more consistent BCs than open tipped match bullets. Using steel may also enhance armor penetration. Taken together, the design elements might not just yield a bullet with consistent and high BCs, but it may also yield a bullet with excellent terminal performance with a chance of getting JAG approval for combat use.

Ever since the two Canadian snipers recorded kills over 2000m with the 750 gr Hornady A-MAX, there has been optimism that a tipped long range bullet could receive JAG approval. The closer the tip is to that of the M855A1, the higher the odds of JAG approval, since the M855A1 is already approved.

However, the demands for manufacturing consistency on this composite design are very high. Poor tolerances will yield a bullet with a lot of pitch and yaw in flight which will poorly impact accuracy and drag.

 

[Len Backus]

jfseaman, please do not post in this thread.

 

[bigngreen]

I've had W3P bullets paid for and on order for over 2 months, have not seen the order status change to shipped yet. I really want to get my hands on them, there have some good attributes that may make for a good ELR hunting bullet regardless of where the BC falls but you gotta put bullets in the air before you know!!

 

[IdahoRedneck]

I recieved my W3p bullets, after about a month of waiting, Al (aka swager62) was very helpful after I finally got ahold of someone concerning my order. Its my understanding that their backstock had been wiped out and they were waiting for some componets, so to those still waiting hopefully youll recieve them soon.

My plan is to test these next to the 230 bergers in my RUM. I do not have all the fancy equipment to test with like some here, but I figure my results next to the 230 berger hybrid target will yeild some information useful to some folks here. When I find each bullets accuracy node in my gun Ill shoot for drops out to 1200 or so.......

Ill first run a ladder with the two bullets with Retumbo and Re 33, which I have loaded and ready im just lacking time, I may be hunting with my 210 load this year as im not sure when ill be able to get these in the air but Ill report back here when I do.

 

[elkaholic]

W3P is using Corbins inflated b.c.'s! They finally admitted this (when they were still talking to me) Paul is correct in his post on my SXR's. They are seemingly making the same, or very similar bullet, and there is no way the b.c. is close to their advertising.......Rich

 

[idaho elk hunter]

I do not mean this as any type of derogatory statement towards anyone involved in this.

Why would one commit to a challenge and receive free product, to test for his self and state that he would report the findings to the shooting community to validate the honesty and integrity of the company that is being questioned by himself? only to take off with the product that he received for free and not fill his agreed on commitment?

I know life keeps us busy and hunting season is here. But in reality if a person did not have the time or perseverance to finish his commitment he should of never made the challenge or took the product. I would be disappointed in anyone that would of done this to me.

 

[cohunter14]

Micahel Eichele is on here a bunch and will not simply 'run off' with $50 worth of bullets...at least the is my bet.

 

[Pdvdh]

I know life keeps us busy and hunting season is here. But in reality if a person did not have the time or perseverance to finish his commitment he should of never made the challenge or took the product. I would be disappointed in anyone that would of done this to me.

If you go back and read his Posts, Michael Eichele provided full disclosure that it would take some time for him to develop a load and then chronograph the loads along side the control loads, which were going to be loaded with Hornady bullets.

Anyone that's ever conducted this load preparation and chronograph testing in a manner that provides credible and reliable data understands that this effort is a time sink. I surely wouldn't be critical if the length of time happens to exceed my personal level of patience.

Anyone could always undertake this testing on their own. Obtain the bullets and equipment and proceed with the research/testing.

An equally pertinent question might be, why would W3P not have provided BC data based on fired bullet measurements after being informed that the software program they used to establish their advertised BC values is known to produce inflated BC values compared to those determined by fired bullet measurements?

In their defense, it does take a lot of time. If it was simple, Bryan Litz couldn't earn a portion of his living providing this type of service.

 

[Azprc]

Anybody know which dies corbin made? They do not look like the 10s die and I don't think the 10s can run an aluminum tip. Maybe a 6?