Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Are we too critical of modern bullets?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael Courtney" data-source="post: 908212" data-attributes="member: 28191"><p>MC wrote:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is it BAD or WRONG to suggest that a manufacturer who exaggerates one specification may exaggerate others as well? I think it is prudent and reasonable. </p><p></p><p>We've measured a lot of BCs of Nosler bullets, and very few have met their published spec. See: <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555975.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555975.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>A figure from that technical report published by the Department of Defense is attached. It demonstrates the double whammy of BCs and expansion thresholds both failing to meet their spec. We tested the 150 grain Nosler E Tip. We measured a BC of 0.324 which was much less than their advertised 0.469. The lower BC reduces the effective range (assuming Nosler's lower expansion velocity of 1800 ft/s from 500 yards to 350 yards. If you then add that you only get 10-20% expansion at 1800 ft/s (in spite of Nosler's claim that the optimum performance window goes down to 1800 ft/s) and substitute a more reasonable 2200 ft/s lower velocity threshold (50% expansion), the effective range is reduced to 200 yards from a 7.62x51mm (.308 Win).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You and I may know this, but colleagues and I are continually fielding questions from DoD personnel, wildlife managers and others involved in public policy about why every possible shooting application cannot be met with lead free ammunition. Why can't lead free bullets be used at long range? Why can't lead free bullets be used in subsonic applications? Why can't we make infantry ammunition completely lead free? Etc. The idea that bullets have a lower velocity limit below which they do not perform well is new to many. And many of those with a cursory knowledge take manufacturer's ballistics tables (or computations with published BCs) as solid evidence of real field performance. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They have data for a couple of bullets in the 1700-1900 ft/s range, but nothing close to what would be needed to support the claim from the Barnes web site:</p><p></p><p><em>Do TSX Bullets always expand on game?</em></p><p><em>Because our TSX Bullets are solid copper and have a specially engineered nose cavity, it is nearly impossible for them not to expand. </em></p><p></p><p>Some public policy types and wildlife managers read this and conclude Barnes TSX bullets are suitable for use in subsonic culling operations of deer and wild hogs, since there is no mention of a velocity window, only "nearly impossible for them not to expand."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm waiting for a reply. Somehow I bet it falls short of a specific affirmation with supporting pictures and/or data for all their Long Range Accubond models.</p><p></p><p>Berger, Barnes, and Hornady became much better about publishing more accurate ballistic coefficients over the last decade since our group and other independent parties (Litz, etc.) began measuring and publishing more realistic BCs. But Nosler has resisted the trend toward more accurate specifications. Likewise, many of the handgun bullet companies got much better with gelatin testing as the result of the availability of independent test results. Now, it's time for the rifle bullet companies to improve their accuracy with respect to how their rifle bullets perform in gelatin, especially with respect to the lower end of the velocity window. I think one might be legitimately concerned that Nosler may be slow in this regard, just as they have been slow to improve their accuracy of published BCs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Courtney, post: 908212, member: 28191"] MC wrote: Is it BAD or WRONG to suggest that a manufacturer who exaggerates one specification may exaggerate others as well? I think it is prudent and reasonable. We've measured a lot of BCs of Nosler bullets, and very few have met their published spec. See: [url]http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555975.pdf[/url] A figure from that technical report published by the Department of Defense is attached. It demonstrates the double whammy of BCs and expansion thresholds both failing to meet their spec. We tested the 150 grain Nosler E Tip. We measured a BC of 0.324 which was much less than their advertised 0.469. The lower BC reduces the effective range (assuming Nosler's lower expansion velocity of 1800 ft/s from 500 yards to 350 yards. If you then add that you only get 10-20% expansion at 1800 ft/s (in spite of Nosler's claim that the optimum performance window goes down to 1800 ft/s) and substitute a more reasonable 2200 ft/s lower velocity threshold (50% expansion), the effective range is reduced to 200 yards from a 7.62x51mm (.308 Win). You and I may know this, but colleagues and I are continually fielding questions from DoD personnel, wildlife managers and others involved in public policy about why every possible shooting application cannot be met with lead free ammunition. Why can't lead free bullets be used at long range? Why can't lead free bullets be used in subsonic applications? Why can't we make infantry ammunition completely lead free? Etc. The idea that bullets have a lower velocity limit below which they do not perform well is new to many. And many of those with a cursory knowledge take manufacturer's ballistics tables (or computations with published BCs) as solid evidence of real field performance. They have data for a couple of bullets in the 1700-1900 ft/s range, but nothing close to what would be needed to support the claim from the Barnes web site: [I]Do TSX Bullets always expand on game? Because our TSX Bullets are solid copper and have a specially engineered nose cavity, it is nearly impossible for them not to expand. [/I] Some public policy types and wildlife managers read this and conclude Barnes TSX bullets are suitable for use in subsonic culling operations of deer and wild hogs, since there is no mention of a velocity window, only "nearly impossible for them not to expand." I'm waiting for a reply. Somehow I bet it falls short of a specific affirmation with supporting pictures and/or data for all their Long Range Accubond models. Berger, Barnes, and Hornady became much better about publishing more accurate ballistic coefficients over the last decade since our group and other independent parties (Litz, etc.) began measuring and publishing more realistic BCs. But Nosler has resisted the trend toward more accurate specifications. Likewise, many of the handgun bullet companies got much better with gelatin testing as the result of the availability of independent test results. Now, it's time for the rifle bullet companies to improve their accuracy with respect to how their rifle bullets perform in gelatin, especially with respect to the lower end of the velocity window. I think one might be legitimately concerned that Nosler may be slow in this regard, just as they have been slow to improve their accuracy of published BCs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Are we too critical of modern bullets?
Top