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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Bullet test a bust
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="Lightvarmint" data-source="post: 249351"><p>Advertised BC? We have not advertised any as of yet..... We only have some crude drop charts and expectations based on those drop charts. Specifically, we don't want folks to get the impression that instrumental BC testing has been performed. Once it has, then we will publish the numbers..... For example, if one used a BC of .860 through .930 at 3245 fps for developing models, you will find the drops are within the accuracy of the firearm being used for testing (typically .2 moa).</p><p></p><p>Remember, Gen II bullets (the ones Eddybo and I used) are much more ballistically friendly (higher BC) than their Gen I cousins. However since they offer a less abrupt frontal profile (longer nose) of resistance, they will not theoretically expand as rapidly as the Gen Is did with an abrupt nose given that the tips, cores, jackets and launch velocity are all exactly the same. But since the Gen Is are not being offered anymore due to the more sleek Gen II die being availble, it is all moot.</p><p></p><p>Since we have some real world expansion tests at various ranges with different calibers and weights, we are going to run some tests in reverse. Specifically, we are going to go to the known ranges of kill shots and replicate those exact shots in test media to seperate the known from the unknown. Then we can compare the test media results to the actual kill shots and lay the groundwork for future testing, future testing theories and future testing conclusions. This should be very enlightening to say the least. I even have a few Gen I 265s and 280s that can be tested in media at 1000 yards if we get the time.......</p><p></p><p>When comparing rifles that are chambered in the cheytac-based cases using the 300 SMK at the industry standard 3250 fps along side of a case the size of the 338 Lapua Improved using the 265 grain HATS at 3245, we have evidence that the Lapua-based case can equal or surpass the cheytac-based case performance simply by just using the HAT bullets. This is a fairly significant performance improvement without changing calibers to a larger case that burns 40 grains more powder for similar performance.......... However, when the larger cheytac-based case uses the 265grain or the 280 grain HATS, it sets the new performance standard for sub 50 cal BMG based cartridges........</p><p></p><p>Next, since a lot of you guys have 300 RUM-based cartridges on repeater actions, we are going to perform some experiments on these cases in both .30 and .338 configurations to find out which caliber is actually the best (user defined) performer when launched from the same volume cases when the barrels are throated to accept a OAL of 3.975 for use with the Wyatt extended length center feed magazine. This way, customers can order their barrels and/or guns based on configurations that produce the LESS DRIFT, LESS DROP and MORE POP for that rifle configuration and bolt face dimension. </p><p></p><p>We will be using a Hall Repeater action, Hart barrels, Jewell triggers, McMillan stocks, Nightforce optics, Kelbly rings and bases, Hodgdon powder and of course the HAT bullets. Running the intial data, it looks as if it will be very close. Some data models even indicate that one has the advantage at the shorter ranges is overtaken by the other caliber at say 500 yards or so. However, only actual testing will prove which configuration has the advantage using the full velocity potential of the 300 RUM cases with the HAT bullets.... </p><p></p><p>Merry Christmas and have a prosperous and Happy New Year.</p><p></p><p>Lightvarmint</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lightvarmint, post: 249351"] Advertised BC? We have not advertised any as of yet..... We only have some crude drop charts and expectations based on those drop charts. Specifically, we don't want folks to get the impression that instrumental BC testing has been performed. Once it has, then we will publish the numbers..... For example, if one used a BC of .860 through .930 at 3245 fps for developing models, you will find the drops are within the accuracy of the firearm being used for testing (typically .2 moa). Remember, Gen II bullets (the ones Eddybo and I used) are much more ballistically friendly (higher BC) than their Gen I cousins. However since they offer a less abrupt frontal profile (longer nose) of resistance, they will not theoretically expand as rapidly as the Gen Is did with an abrupt nose given that the tips, cores, jackets and launch velocity are all exactly the same. But since the Gen Is are not being offered anymore due to the more sleek Gen II die being availble, it is all moot. Since we have some real world expansion tests at various ranges with different calibers and weights, we are going to run some tests in reverse. Specifically, we are going to go to the known ranges of kill shots and replicate those exact shots in test media to seperate the known from the unknown. Then we can compare the test media results to the actual kill shots and lay the groundwork for future testing, future testing theories and future testing conclusions. This should be very enlightening to say the least. I even have a few Gen I 265s and 280s that can be tested in media at 1000 yards if we get the time....... When comparing rifles that are chambered in the cheytac-based cases using the 300 SMK at the industry standard 3250 fps along side of a case the size of the 338 Lapua Improved using the 265 grain HATS at 3245, we have evidence that the Lapua-based case can equal or surpass the cheytac-based case performance simply by just using the HAT bullets. This is a fairly significant performance improvement without changing calibers to a larger case that burns 40 grains more powder for similar performance.......... However, when the larger cheytac-based case uses the 265grain or the 280 grain HATS, it sets the new performance standard for sub 50 cal BMG based cartridges........ Next, since a lot of you guys have 300 RUM-based cartridges on repeater actions, we are going to perform some experiments on these cases in both .30 and .338 configurations to find out which caliber is actually the best (user defined) performer when launched from the same volume cases when the barrels are throated to accept a OAL of 3.975 for use with the Wyatt extended length center feed magazine. This way, customers can order their barrels and/or guns based on configurations that produce the LESS DRIFT, LESS DROP and MORE POP for that rifle configuration and bolt face dimension. We will be using a Hall Repeater action, Hart barrels, Jewell triggers, McMillan stocks, Nightforce optics, Kelbly rings and bases, Hodgdon powder and of course the HAT bullets. Running the intial data, it looks as if it will be very close. Some data models even indicate that one has the advantage at the shorter ranges is overtaken by the other caliber at say 500 yards or so. However, only actual testing will prove which configuration has the advantage using the full velocity potential of the 300 RUM cases with the HAT bullets.... Merry Christmas and have a prosperous and Happy New Year. Lightvarmint [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Bullet test a bust
Top