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
fastest 338 caliber?Build advice?
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: 251610"><p>Kirby,</p><p></p><p>The number (3250 fps for 300 SMK) I used was the one that you quoted on 2-11-08 in a discussion about .338 caliber comparisons...... I merely used your number from that exact post as a standard for comparison during our testing of the HATS and the post I made in the above comparison...... If you run the numbers you quoted back then with what I posted from our testing, you will see what I am saying.......... All of our .338 test guns had the same 30" barrel length that you referenced in your 2-11-08 posting so getting a good comparison was just a simple task of developing loads and testing them against your 2-11-08 published data......</p><p></p><p>You may have missed it in my original post, but I understand and did mention that if one used the larger cheytac-based case with the HATS, that it would then again jump ahead in the comparison....... But, it takes much more powder to do it with the larger chamberings and I don't think it will help extend barrel life in the long run and it may even shorten it to some extent. Hopefully for the folks that have the bigger cased guns, it will not be an issue. We live in interesting ballistic times in that the standard that was in place on 2-11-08 can now be eclipsed by a smaller case using a new style bullet and less powder....</p><p></p><p>On the 265 grain Gen I bullets that you shot, the advertised chronographed instrumental BC from us was only a mere .770 or specifically almost the same as a 300 SMK at .768. However, if you got .88-.89 with the Gen I 265s from drop tests then that is a good indication of how rough and inaccurate the drop tests are for deriving accurate BC values since the atmospheric conditions and the accuracy of the gun are all equal factors in the final BC value when calculated by measuring drops. But, since the Gen I .338s will not be manufactured again due to a new and more BC friendly die being placed into service, those numbers are history. Even the expansion testing you performed with them is of no use now since the Gen IIs are completely different in geometry but the same in components.... BTW, how did you test the expansion characteristics of the Gen I 265s?</p><p></p><p>However, the Gen IIs are much more impressive and at least one of your shooting sticks was used to help prove it..... Specifically, at least one of your guns that you built did quite well on paper and on live game with them when shot by your customer at 800+ yards. I believe that they were launching at 3440 and at 800 yards the groups were very small. I was not there to witness it, but I believe the gent and the groups looked to be in the range of 2" give or take. As a matter of fact, your customer was so impressed he asked me if the insane BCs were real or not. I assured him that his results were real. Like we have stated before, we will get some chronographed instrumental BCs performed when the next batch of test bullets arrive. We do have a rough idea of the ranges where they should fall and those are the rough numbers I posted earlier..... We have developed some rules of thumb that are quite accurate in predicting BCs when comparing different bullet weights and configurations of the same ogive design.... Again, those are the rough numbers I posted earlier above..... FWIW, we are sort of in a quandry deciding if pursuing a 325 grain offering would be viable or in demand since the planned 300 grainer should come in very close to 1.100 and probably even exceed it. Do you think there would be a large enough market for a 325 grain .338 with a BC north of 1.100 to justify fooling around with it?</p><p></p><p>As far as expansion is concerned, all the results we have on live animals and the results that customers have gotten on live animals even out past 800 yards, indicate deadly energy transfer, excellent expansion with large exit wounds and best of all, each animal was dropped with one shot. Specifically, less drift, less drop and more pop. Most were with the Gen II configuration, but one Elk was killed with the Gen I configuration bullet launched from a Snipe-Tac built by Mr Dave Viers who I believe was the originator of the Cheytac-based case for a .338 chambering.</p><p></p><p>Again, thanks for taking your time away from your business, family and other "interests" as well as for confirming my point about the HATS when the same length barrels are used. Specifically, if the bigger cheytac-based chamberings are not using them, then the smaller Lapua Improved chamberings can use the HATS and equal or surpass the performance of the larger cheytac-based chamberings shooting standard conventional bullets such as the 300 grain SMK......... That was the whole intent and gist of my original post..... </p><p></p><p>In these progressive ballistic times in which we live, it seems to make more sense to first choose the bullet and then decide how much powder one wishes to burn and THEN select the case.</p><p></p><p>Good luck in 2009.</p><p></p><p>Lightvarmint</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lightvarmint, post: 251610"] Kirby, The number (3250 fps for 300 SMK) I used was the one that you quoted on 2-11-08 in a discussion about .338 caliber comparisons...... I merely used your number from that exact post as a standard for comparison during our testing of the HATS and the post I made in the above comparison...... If you run the numbers you quoted back then with what I posted from our testing, you will see what I am saying.......... All of our .338 test guns had the same 30" barrel length that you referenced in your 2-11-08 posting so getting a good comparison was just a simple task of developing loads and testing them against your 2-11-08 published data...... You may have missed it in my original post, but I understand and did mention that if one used the larger cheytac-based case with the HATS, that it would then again jump ahead in the comparison....... But, it takes much more powder to do it with the larger chamberings and I don't think it will help extend barrel life in the long run and it may even shorten it to some extent. Hopefully for the folks that have the bigger cased guns, it will not be an issue. We live in interesting ballistic times in that the standard that was in place on 2-11-08 can now be eclipsed by a smaller case using a new style bullet and less powder.... On the 265 grain Gen I bullets that you shot, the advertised chronographed instrumental BC from us was only a mere .770 or specifically almost the same as a 300 SMK at .768. However, if you got .88-.89 with the Gen I 265s from drop tests then that is a good indication of how rough and inaccurate the drop tests are for deriving accurate BC values since the atmospheric conditions and the accuracy of the gun are all equal factors in the final BC value when calculated by measuring drops. But, since the Gen I .338s will not be manufactured again due to a new and more BC friendly die being placed into service, those numbers are history. Even the expansion testing you performed with them is of no use now since the Gen IIs are completely different in geometry but the same in components.... BTW, how did you test the expansion characteristics of the Gen I 265s? However, the Gen IIs are much more impressive and at least one of your shooting sticks was used to help prove it..... Specifically, at least one of your guns that you built did quite well on paper and on live game with them when shot by your customer at 800+ yards. I believe that they were launching at 3440 and at 800 yards the groups were very small. I was not there to witness it, but I believe the gent and the groups looked to be in the range of 2" give or take. As a matter of fact, your customer was so impressed he asked me if the insane BCs were real or not. I assured him that his results were real. Like we have stated before, we will get some chronographed instrumental BCs performed when the next batch of test bullets arrive. We do have a rough idea of the ranges where they should fall and those are the rough numbers I posted earlier..... We have developed some rules of thumb that are quite accurate in predicting BCs when comparing different bullet weights and configurations of the same ogive design.... Again, those are the rough numbers I posted earlier above..... FWIW, we are sort of in a quandry deciding if pursuing a 325 grain offering would be viable or in demand since the planned 300 grainer should come in very close to 1.100 and probably even exceed it. Do you think there would be a large enough market for a 325 grain .338 with a BC north of 1.100 to justify fooling around with it? As far as expansion is concerned, all the results we have on live animals and the results that customers have gotten on live animals even out past 800 yards, indicate deadly energy transfer, excellent expansion with large exit wounds and best of all, each animal was dropped with one shot. Specifically, less drift, less drop and more pop. Most were with the Gen II configuration, but one Elk was killed with the Gen I configuration bullet launched from a Snipe-Tac built by Mr Dave Viers who I believe was the originator of the Cheytac-based case for a .338 chambering. Again, thanks for taking your time away from your business, family and other "interests" as well as for confirming my point about the HATS when the same length barrels are used. Specifically, if the bigger cheytac-based chamberings are not using them, then the smaller Lapua Improved chamberings can use the HATS and equal or surpass the performance of the larger cheytac-based chamberings shooting standard conventional bullets such as the 300 grain SMK......... That was the whole intent and gist of my original post..... In these progressive ballistic times in which we live, it seems to make more sense to first choose the bullet and then decide how much powder one wishes to burn and THEN select the case. Good luck in 2009. Lightvarmint [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
fastest 338 caliber?Build advice?
Top