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
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Bullet stability
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="RockyMtnMT" data-source="post: 2824764" data-attributes="member: 7999"><p>Before we started making bullets I shot marginally stable bullets regularly. I didn't know any better. If it shoots good then it will work good, right? When we started making bullets and impact testing, particularly low velocity, we got eye opening results. Basically the higher the sg the more reliably the bullets will properly expand on impact. When we saw stability factor directly related to the same bullets ability to function properly at the same impact velocity, it was a lightbulb moment. Memories of bullets that we used over the years that gave less than desirable effects on game, tumbling, that we chalked up to poor bullet performance. Likely not the bullets fault, but operator error not giving the bullet enough stability for proper terminal performance. It has been long accepted that dangerous game bullets should run a minimum sg of 2.0 for good straight line penetration. There is difference between enough stability to fly well (ballistic stability) and enough stability to kill well (terminal stability). </p><p></p><p>The Miller formula, Berger and JBM both use this, is the most common formula. We have come to the conclusion that it is close but flawed. It's the best tool we have though. It doesn't take into account material density and there wasn't bullets so long for caliber when the formula was developed. The more "normal" for length a bullet is the more forgiving it is for stability. The longer bullets get for caliber the more particular the the stability factor gets. We have adapted to this by calculating for hunting by only using standard atmosphere at sea level for a minimum sg of 1.5. People that are hunting at low elevation and cold temps should beware that minimum twist rates calculated by a ballistic calculator not a terminal stability calculator, could have issues on game.</p><p></p><p>In the end, it is not worth it to push minimum twist rates in order to get a heavier or higher bc bullet. You will get better performance on game with a lighter or higher stability bullet. You just can't beat physics.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RockyMtnMT, post: 2824764, member: 7999"] Before we started making bullets I shot marginally stable bullets regularly. I didn't know any better. If it shoots good then it will work good, right? When we started making bullets and impact testing, particularly low velocity, we got eye opening results. Basically the higher the sg the more reliably the bullets will properly expand on impact. When we saw stability factor directly related to the same bullets ability to function properly at the same impact velocity, it was a lightbulb moment. Memories of bullets that we used over the years that gave less than desirable effects on game, tumbling, that we chalked up to poor bullet performance. Likely not the bullets fault, but operator error not giving the bullet enough stability for proper terminal performance. It has been long accepted that dangerous game bullets should run a minimum sg of 2.0 for good straight line penetration. There is difference between enough stability to fly well (ballistic stability) and enough stability to kill well (terminal stability). The Miller formula, Berger and JBM both use this, is the most common formula. We have come to the conclusion that it is close but flawed. It's the best tool we have though. It doesn't take into account material density and there wasn't bullets so long for caliber when the formula was developed. The more "normal" for length a bullet is the more forgiving it is for stability. The longer bullets get for caliber the more particular the the stability factor gets. We have adapted to this by calculating for hunting by only using standard atmosphere at sea level for a minimum sg of 1.5. People that are hunting at low elevation and cold temps should beware that minimum twist rates calculated by a ballistic calculator not a terminal stability calculator, could have issues on game. In the end, it is not worth it to push minimum twist rates in order to get a heavier or higher bc bullet. You will get better performance on game with a lighter or higher stability bullet. You just can't beat physics. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Bullet stability
Top