CEB 140grn G10 MTH & 6.5 WSM-

[bigngreen]

With the excellent experience you have had with the Bergers, what is your expected application for the CEB's? Put another way, what sort of advantage are you looking for from the CEB's?

Not really looking for an advantage from them, just something interesting and new, the bore rider is interesting to me and I'm seeing some good things about it. The CEB does not seem to be an overly hard bullet and it has no tip, all things I like so we'll give them some air time. I like to try to give things an honest try and be open minded before deciding if something is just Koolaid or brings the goods!

I'm also interested in keeping up to date with the best of the copper bullets just so if I or someone I know has to shoot them in some area I won't get caught flat footed and I can pull a bullet out that I've already proven.

To get an advantage over the 140 Berger you'd have to add weight and that is why we've done so much with the 155 Cauterucio last year and this year we'll see if the Matrix can bring it, really just looking for better action on elk at far end of a 6.5's effective range.

 

[benchracer]

In my view, the .375 and .338 diameter CEB's offer some very clear advantages over other available bullets. I have been looking at the smaller diameter bullets and wondering where they would fit in terms of performance. If I had a 6.5 capable of generating enough speed to make normal cup and core bullets impractical, a monometal bullet would be the obvious choice. Other than that, I hadn't really been able to come up with an application for the smaller bore CEB's.

I am curious to see what you learn from your experiments regarding ballistic and terminal performance of the CEB's and the Matrix bullets. I am particularly interested to see how they perform on larger game like elk.

I find this all very stimulating and enlightening. Thank you for sharing your results!

 

[bigngreen]

Shot the last of the CEB 140's last weekend, I got decent accuracy at 1030 yards around a half MOA till I got a wicked switching tail wind. I wanted to get one of the last couple into water jugs but I was on one side or another, couldn't hit that stupid jug for anything but I did dig up a bullet which was interesting. Impact speed was around 1930 fps and I found the bullet about 2in under the dirt standing straight up after going through a 2x6, bullet was a banana with zero opening which kinda bummed me out, this is the only bullet other than a Barnes that I've not had open at this berm. Unfortunately won't be going hunting with the CEB's, gotta have a bullet that will have a hope of opening at long range.


I also whacked a 3/8 steel plate at 600 yards, coolest thing I've seen! The CEB was caught by the plate which was interesting, we've shot through this plate many times with 140 Bergers and 160 Matrix which blow half inch holes through it.

 

[Broz]

BnG, once again it is proven there are short range bullets and long range bullets. Also the Myth that a bullet has to hold together to penetrate. I shoot what works best for me at long range yet still work well at short range.

Your findings here should be interesting to some and hopefully will help them decide for them selves.

Jeff

 

[Outlaw6.0]

That is very interesting & somewhat disappointing. It's unfortunate that you don't have any more CEB's to test. I would like to see more of a test than what we have here. The preliminary results are definitely unsatisfactory but I don't think i'm being unfare when I use the word inconclusive in the same breath.


I wouldn't think the 130's I use would be constructed differently.... Was there any expansion testing at closer ranges? My thought on the steel plate test is that the bullet actually started expanding sooner than the Berger or Matrix explaining your results.


If my rifle would stabilize them I wouldn't be hesitant to test more, call me curious.

How much velocity different between the CEB & Berger?

Your results really do get my wheels turning


t

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Interesting. The banana shape is usually indicative of tumbling and instability which would not be conducive to opening. I would say the 140's are on the edge of stability from a 1:8 twist barrel and at long range don't maintain terminal stability. I'll be testing both the 130's and 140's from a 1:8 at various ranges and velocities. It should be noted that CE recommends a 1:7 twist for the 140's.

Thanks for the report BnG

 

[Broz]

It is only one bullet but if it didn't expand after going through a 2x6 and into solid dirt that means it had two good chances to expand and blew them both at 1000 yards and 1900 fps. So those results count as double Outlaw...lightbulb So can we say the results were double conclusive on that one bullet?

Jeff

 

[MontanaRifleman]

If a bullet starts to tumble, that will impede it's ability to open, especially non-tipped bullets.

What we have here is a test of a bullet from an 8 twist barrel which the makers recommend a 7 twist for. We knew this going into it to see if they might work in an 8 twist at higher altitudes and velocities.

It would be interesting to see the 2x6 exit hole.

More tests to come.

 

[Outlaw6.0]

Jeff you make valid points,

All bullet manufacturers experience failures & never has there been a 100% conclusive determination stemming from a single test.

I'm just not that quick to turn up my nose I guess. This is the exact type of testing we need to share with the manufacturer if we want to see an improved product.

I do understand the fact that there was no expansion for one bullet encountering two different test mediums, that is most definitely cause for concern. I guess that makes two failures (one bullet) for one test. definitely a two'fer

It looks as though there could be an issue here, it's not the end of the world & I guarantee I won't stop using the 130's due to this. I will share this info with Dan (CEB Pres) in hopes of helping to improve their product.

I do wonder if a faster twist can have any effect in this situation. I can't say, sure couldn't hurt.


t

 

[Beng]

I would say the 140's are on the edge of stability from a 1:8 twist barrel and at long range don't maintain terminal stability.

Stability increases with range.
Bullet rotation decreases much slower than velocity. With decreasing velocity yawing and pitching motions induced by imperfections in the bullets symmetry decrease also.
A bullet that is marginaly stable at short range will be more stable at long range than any of your stable hunting loads at 100yard.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Stability increases with range.
Bullet rotation decreases much slower than velocity. With decreasing velocity yawing and pitching motions induced by imperfections in the bullets symmetry decrease also.
A bullet that is marginaly stable at short range will be more stable at long range than any of your stable hunting loads at 100yard.

Greater stability factor is required for terminal performance (hunting) verses paper punching. A bullet that is stable in flight may not be stable once it encounters flesh, bone, wood, dirt, water, etc.

Also, another member recently tested the CE 308 200 gr bullets in his RUM. They stabilized @ 200 -300 yds and lost stability around 500 as I recall.

 

[Beng]

They stabilized @ 200 -300 yds and lost stability around 500 as I recall.

Thats dynamical stability failing, not gyroscopical as implied by twist rate.

Greater stability factor is required for terminal performance (hunting) verses paper punching. A bullet that is stable in flight may not be stable once it encounters flesh, bone, wood, dirt, water, etc.

Right but again gyroscopical stability will be fine at long range or the bullets will show signs of keyholing at short range.

 

[bigngreen]

Jeff you make valid points,

All bullet manufacturers experience failures & never has there been a 100% conclusive determination stemming from a single test.

I'm just not that quick to turn up my nose I guess. This is the exact type of testing we need to share with the manufacturer if we want to see an improved product.

I do understand the fact that there was no expansion for one bullet encountering two different test mediums, that is most definitely cause for concern. I guess that makes two failures (one bullet) for one test. definitely a two'fer

It looks as though there could be an issue here, it's not the end of the world & I guarantee I won't stop using the 130's due to this. I will share this info with Dan (CEB Pres) in hopes of helping to improve their product.

I do wonder if a faster twist can have any effect in this situation. I can't say, sure couldn't hurt.


t

I would not take what I posted as proof positive because of the small sample size, heck I don't and I shot them into the berm! Nor would I say that you should stop shooting them, they are a dang good bullet but not up to the task I'm asking them to do, I do feel that if I can get one into a jug of water and let the nose experience hydraulic action it may open, unlike cup and core bullets mashing the nose over does not expose softer bullet so it really needs to open from and undamaged tip. I'm not writing them of entirely for sure, just for the intended purpose of this particular rifle which is being capable of doing an elk dirty at a grand with a 6.5 gun)

I hit the 2x6 three times and only found one bullet in the berm, all had clean holes like a drill through them, these bullets are stable without a doubt since I'm running a 1.6 stability factor. At my elevation I can easily run one inch less twist and be good and stable and I have had 100% straight clean holes at every range I've shot them. The bending comes because they are trying and usually successfully to porpoise up out of the dirt because they are not open, much like we find at 2000 yards with a 300gr SMK, every bullet will do it eventually at some range and speed.

I don't know what would help this bullet open better at range other than a tip, the copper is very soft so I don't think annealing would help like it did with the Matrix, a larger hole would help but that's not conducive to BC. I may be that just adding frontal area as in going to a 338 cal would be it and the 6.5 just won't make it that far, I have a 338 and some CEB's

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Rhian,

That is interesting that the CEB's penetrated the 2x6 leaving perfect holes. One would think they would have begun to open, but them again, Berger advertises their bullets don't begin expansion until about 2-3" - but then again one would think they would expand in the dirt.

On stabilization, if you used the Berger calculator to determine your SF, your probably a little high. The CEB's have a lesser specific gravity then the Bergers and will have a lesser SF for the same inputs. I'm guessing your actual SF might be about 1.4, which puts it right on the border line for terminal stability. They may have had enough stability to penetrate the 2x and started tumbling afterward. This is all speculation of course but I think it's reasonable speculation and could be close to reality.

I'm also interested in how you calculated your terminal velocity. Is there a chance the actual velocity was a little lower? I'm actually not surprised if they aren't opening @1900 fps bieng a monolithic cunstruction with such a small meplat. I know Gerard Schultz was adamant about having a larger meplat for terminal performance and comparing his 308 177's, they are definitely larger than the CEB's and he advertises 1600 fps opening velocity, but as you said, that's not good for BC.

For a greater perspective, Joel Russo reported that he and some assosiates had "killed a bunch of elk at 500-1300 yds" with the 338 300 gr bullets in the initial testing of those. I wonder what his terminal velocities were at 1200-1300 yds? Maybe he can chime in if he reads this. I wonder if larger bullets with greater momentum facilitate opening at lower velocities better than the smaller bullets?

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/cutting-edge-bullets-terminal-performance-67985/

Thanks again for your report and pics, I found them very informative and useful.

Hopefully I can add to it with some more results and data. I would like to compare the results with the 130's vs the 140's in stability and terminal performance out of an 8 twist at higher altitudes.