If you look at Beretta USA's website they list the TRG's 338 Lapua at 27 and 1/8 inches. I also was lead to believe that true barrel length was measured from the face of bolt to end of muzzle. THis is how the ez calc load database has you measure to extrapolate how fast a load will go.
Stubby--Lapua
- Thread starter philny1
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Hi i would think that with a 26" barrel on a 338 win mag you will get a similar velocity as the 24" 338 Lapua i would send it back to the guy and see how you can council the payment it should have been advertised if any modifications like shortening the barrel were completed. I would not want that rifle with those modifications done to it it looses all of its colector value and some of its performance edge and that is what you pay for when buying those rifles.
Cheers Bil
Australia
Cheers Bil
Australia
philny1
Well-Known Member
Finally got ahold of the seller. Done deal, refuses to take it back.
I'm not that upset after reading Kirbys post. If nothing else, still one hell of a bear gun.
Have a scope mounted and sighted. Started some load developement with RL-22 and 225gr ABs. "Stubby" got hot at the onset, so all I did was sight in, could not compare the two Lapuas.
Thanks
Phil
I'm not that upset after reading Kirbys post. If nothing else, still one hell of a bear gun.
Have a scope mounted and sighted. Started some load developement with RL-22 and 225gr ABs. "Stubby" got hot at the onset, so all I did was sight in, could not compare the two Lapuas.
Thanks
Phil
davewilson
Well-Known Member
Kirby, have to disagree with you on the reason for the velocity difference in the 2 cartridges you listed above. the difference in bearing surface will account for some, but the main reason would be the surface area that's being pushed against.the 338 simply is a bigger diameter and therefore the bullet will receive more push than a smaller caliber. this is the reason for most of the velocity gain.
Fiftydriver
Official LRH Sponsor
Dave,
Not sure I agree with that. It has more to do with baring surface and sectional density more then anything and that can be proven time and again.
For instance, you take two rifles, just to keep things consistant the same 300 WSM and 338 WSM and take a bullet in each caliber that has the same sectional density as the other caliber bullet. In this case lets look at the 165 gr 30 cal with a sectional density of 0.248 and the 200 gr 338 bullet with a sectional density of 0.250.
In the same length barrels and same chamber pressures, the muzzle velocity of each bullet will be nearly identical. Variations in specific bullet and lot of powder will make more difference then anything else as to the velocity difference in these two bullets.
Why is that? in my opinion it has to do with similiar Section densities more then anything else and may be I should have stated that instead of baring surface.
Another example, look at a 7mm Rem Mag compared to a 338 Win Mag. Compare a 175 gr bullet in the 7mm with a SD of 0.310 with a 250 gr 338 bullet with a SD of 0.313.
In most cases the 7mm Rem Mag will get you around 2825 to 2875 fps in a 24" barrel. The 338 Win Mag will get you 2750 to 2800 fps with the 250 gr pill so again, basically identical with same SD bullets.
However if you go with the same weight bullets in each caliber, or similar, the 338 will smoke the 7mm REM Mag in velocity potential. Not saying ballistically it will be superior but as far as velocity potential it will be far superior.
The 7mm will also be much more dependant on barrel length as well.
Another example would be comparing a 22-250 to a 6mm-250 both using 55 gr class bullets. The 22-250 will top out around 3700 to 3800 fps depending on barrel length. The 6mm-250 will push 4000 fps with this bullet weight many times and generally well over 3900 fps.
If you compare same SD bullets in each caliber or at least similiar SD bullets such as the 55 grain bullet in 22 cal and the 70 gr pill in 6mm, the velocity potential will be very similiar.
I think your arguement has more in similiar with my comments then we think to be honest. Your saying the larger bore allows more PSI to be applied to the bullet base. Perhaps to some degree, but it also allows or requires the use of faster burn rate powder because of the higher expansion ratio to maintain that PSI on the bottom of the bullet. As such, that type of powder requires less inches of barrel to reach a certain velocity level simply because bullet accelation is more aggressive with a faster burning powder. This is the reason the larger bore diameters are less dependant on long barrels to reach full velocity potential.
Again, I probably should have talked about SD instead of baring surface because in fact, even though the Baring Surface on the 338 is shorter then the 30 cal bullet, because of its larger circumference it is probably at least as large measured in square inches then the 30 cal.
Sectional density is a much more accurate comparision number.
Kirby Allen(50)
Not sure I agree with that. It has more to do with baring surface and sectional density more then anything and that can be proven time and again.
For instance, you take two rifles, just to keep things consistant the same 300 WSM and 338 WSM and take a bullet in each caliber that has the same sectional density as the other caliber bullet. In this case lets look at the 165 gr 30 cal with a sectional density of 0.248 and the 200 gr 338 bullet with a sectional density of 0.250.
In the same length barrels and same chamber pressures, the muzzle velocity of each bullet will be nearly identical. Variations in specific bullet and lot of powder will make more difference then anything else as to the velocity difference in these two bullets.
Why is that? in my opinion it has to do with similiar Section densities more then anything else and may be I should have stated that instead of baring surface.
Another example, look at a 7mm Rem Mag compared to a 338 Win Mag. Compare a 175 gr bullet in the 7mm with a SD of 0.310 with a 250 gr 338 bullet with a SD of 0.313.
In most cases the 7mm Rem Mag will get you around 2825 to 2875 fps in a 24" barrel. The 338 Win Mag will get you 2750 to 2800 fps with the 250 gr pill so again, basically identical with same SD bullets.
However if you go with the same weight bullets in each caliber, or similar, the 338 will smoke the 7mm REM Mag in velocity potential. Not saying ballistically it will be superior but as far as velocity potential it will be far superior.
The 7mm will also be much more dependant on barrel length as well.
Another example would be comparing a 22-250 to a 6mm-250 both using 55 gr class bullets. The 22-250 will top out around 3700 to 3800 fps depending on barrel length. The 6mm-250 will push 4000 fps with this bullet weight many times and generally well over 3900 fps.
If you compare same SD bullets in each caliber or at least similiar SD bullets such as the 55 grain bullet in 22 cal and the 70 gr pill in 6mm, the velocity potential will be very similiar.
I think your arguement has more in similiar with my comments then we think to be honest. Your saying the larger bore allows more PSI to be applied to the bullet base. Perhaps to some degree, but it also allows or requires the use of faster burn rate powder because of the higher expansion ratio to maintain that PSI on the bottom of the bullet. As such, that type of powder requires less inches of barrel to reach a certain velocity level simply because bullet accelation is more aggressive with a faster burning powder. This is the reason the larger bore diameters are less dependant on long barrels to reach full velocity potential.
Again, I probably should have talked about SD instead of baring surface because in fact, even though the Baring Surface on the 338 is shorter then the 30 cal bullet, because of its larger circumference it is probably at least as large measured in square inches then the 30 cal.
Sectional density is a much more accurate comparision number.
Kirby Allen(50)
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I was out to the range this weekend breaking in a new barrel in 300 WSM. The barrel is a 23" sporter contour with a muzzle brake. Shooting 180 SMK I was getting 2975 fps.
My son's rifle which is the same caliber but with a 25" fluted varmint contour was getting 3050 fps.
We were both shooting the same load. Nothing different but the barrels.
We were using WXR which is pretty slow burning powder so I believe if I go to a little faster burning powder I might be able to duplicate his velocity.
My son's rifle which is the same caliber but with a 25" fluted varmint contour was getting 3050 fps.
We were both shooting the same load. Nothing different but the barrels.
We were using WXR which is pretty slow burning powder so I believe if I go to a little faster burning powder I might be able to duplicate his velocity.
The best powder for a given cartridge is based on case capacity in relationship to bore diameter.Barrel lenght is not a factor worthy of consideration.The specialty hand guns shooting rifle cartridges is a good proof od this.The handguns have short barrels and the same powders as the longer rifle barrels are used for best results........
davewilson
Well-Known Member
Kirby, with an answer like that you're gonna have to run for political office! in terms of SD, that would be a cross-section of the bullet, or the SURFACE AREA that's being pushed on. your example was 2 bullets weighing the same would have different bearing surface lengths resulting in less friction equating to more velocity. we'll have to make all the other parts of the equation equal like faster powder. of course you'll use faster powder,the expansion ratio is higher so it's needed to keep the pressure the same.the extra velocity is because of the increased surface area being pushed on, not a shorter, or less bearing surface.
now what office are you running for this fall? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
now what office are you running for this fall? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
philny1
Well-Known Member
Would you mind explaining the meaning of "expansion ratio". Don't believe I've ever heard that term before. Probably everybody else wants to know too.
Anyhow Stubby is gone, listed it on GB with a "Buy It Now", only lasted a few hours. And yes, I did list the correct barrel length & offered a three day inspection.
On a brighter note; was working on a load Goodgrouper had listed using RL-22. Worked up to the 225 gr Accubond over 96gr RL-22 and with a little tweak on the seating depth ended my session with a text book cloverleaf measuring .280. May back off a bit, have to run it through the chroni. Will take it out to 300 today.
While were on lapuas, how much prep do you recommend on Lapua brass. I ran then in the dies enough to put a round on the case necks, chamfered then and reamed the primer pockets which I don't think was necessary.
Anyhow Stubby is gone, listed it on GB with a "Buy It Now", only lasted a few hours. And yes, I did list the correct barrel length & offered a three day inspection.
On a brighter note; was working on a load Goodgrouper had listed using RL-22. Worked up to the 225 gr Accubond over 96gr RL-22 and with a little tweak on the seating depth ended my session with a text book cloverleaf measuring .280. May back off a bit, have to run it through the chroni. Will take it out to 300 today.
While were on lapuas, how much prep do you recommend on Lapua brass. I ran then in the dies enough to put a round on the case necks, chamfered then and reamed the primer pockets which I don't think was necessary.
Fiftydriver
Official LRH Sponsor
That was the whole point of my original point, if you take two rounds with the same powder capacity but with different bore diameters, the larger bore diameter will always produce higher velocity potential with the same bullet weights used in both rounds.
In my original comparision between the 300 WSM and 338 WSM, the 180 gr Ballistic Tip does have a shorter baring surface length then the 180 gr 30 cal Ballistic Tip.
Appropriate powders for the 300 WSM are in the class of Rl-22 and H-4831 with this bullet weight, with the 338 WSM and the same bullet weight the best powder I have found is Rl-15.
Because the larger more diameters can use faster powders they are less dependant on barrel length to reach their peak performance.
Not sure what point your trying to make here. Its common knowledge that a larger bore diameter will drive same weight bullets faster then smaller diameter bullets of the same weight.
As far as your comments about this is because there is more area for the pressure to push against I am not sure I agree with that. My reasoning there was that if you take same sectional density bullets over the same case capacity, you will get nearly identical velocity.
As you say, comparing a 180 gr 30 cal to a 180 gr 338 is like apples to oranges but when you compare apples to apples with bullets with the same sectional density, velocity is nearly identical or at least extremely similiar within the variations of each given system the rounds are fired in..
I personally do not thing bullet base diameter as a thing to do with it to be honest. I simply believe that the shorter, larger diameter bullet is easier to push down the barrel and because the expansion ratio is so much higher the use of faster burning powders promotes higher velocity potential in shorter barrels.
I apologize if my last post was confusing, I did not read it to be that way when I reviewed it.
Kirby Allen(50)
In my original comparision between the 300 WSM and 338 WSM, the 180 gr Ballistic Tip does have a shorter baring surface length then the 180 gr 30 cal Ballistic Tip.
Appropriate powders for the 300 WSM are in the class of Rl-22 and H-4831 with this bullet weight, with the 338 WSM and the same bullet weight the best powder I have found is Rl-15.
Because the larger more diameters can use faster powders they are less dependant on barrel length to reach their peak performance.
Not sure what point your trying to make here. Its common knowledge that a larger bore diameter will drive same weight bullets faster then smaller diameter bullets of the same weight.
As far as your comments about this is because there is more area for the pressure to push against I am not sure I agree with that. My reasoning there was that if you take same sectional density bullets over the same case capacity, you will get nearly identical velocity.
As you say, comparing a 180 gr 30 cal to a 180 gr 338 is like apples to oranges but when you compare apples to apples with bullets with the same sectional density, velocity is nearly identical or at least extremely similiar within the variations of each given system the rounds are fired in..
I personally do not thing bullet base diameter as a thing to do with it to be honest. I simply believe that the shorter, larger diameter bullet is easier to push down the barrel and because the expansion ratio is so much higher the use of faster burning powders promotes higher velocity potential in shorter barrels.
I apologize if my last post was confusing, I did not read it to be that way when I reviewed it.
Kirby Allen(50)
Fiftydriver
Official LRH Sponsor
Bearless,
Expansion ratio is a term that compares the capacity of a cartridge to the volume if a specific bore diameter.
For instance, and these are just numbers I am throwing out there to show what this is. Say you take a 7mm RUM that has a case volume of say 0.4 in cubed. If you have 24" of actual bore length( around 27" of total barrel length including chamber), the bore volume will be around 1.520 inches cubed.
To figure the expansion ratio, you simple figure how many times the case volume will have to multiply to fill the bore volume. In this case it takes 3.8 times the case volume to fill the bore volume.
If we take that same capacity and increase the bore diameter to 375 caliber in the case of the 375 RUM. With the same length barrel we have a bore volume around 2.651 inches Cubed. In this case, the case volume will need to expand 10.6 times to fill the bore volume.
In the 7mm, the powder volume will not be able to expand nearly as quickly as with the 375 so we need to use a very slow burning powder to maintain proper pressures in the bore without generating extreme pressure spikes.
In the 375 example, we need a much faster burning powder so that the powder can burn and expand fast enough to maintain proper pressure applied to the bullet to generate good velocity.
If we use to fast of a powder in the 7mm we get into severe pressure problems because the powder will expand at a rate greater then the bore volume will allow.
If we use to slow of a powder in the 375 we will not get good velocity because we will not be able to maintain proper pressure in the bore down the entire length of the barrel simply because the slow burning powder can not generate enough gas volume quickly enough to do this.
Its all a balance of bore diameter and volume to case capacity and bullet weight, basically sectional density is what we are talking about. The ratio of bullet weight to bore diameter.
Good Shooting!!
Kirby Allen(50)
Expansion ratio is a term that compares the capacity of a cartridge to the volume if a specific bore diameter.
For instance, and these are just numbers I am throwing out there to show what this is. Say you take a 7mm RUM that has a case volume of say 0.4 in cubed. If you have 24" of actual bore length( around 27" of total barrel length including chamber), the bore volume will be around 1.520 inches cubed.
To figure the expansion ratio, you simple figure how many times the case volume will have to multiply to fill the bore volume. In this case it takes 3.8 times the case volume to fill the bore volume.
If we take that same capacity and increase the bore diameter to 375 caliber in the case of the 375 RUM. With the same length barrel we have a bore volume around 2.651 inches Cubed. In this case, the case volume will need to expand 10.6 times to fill the bore volume.
In the 7mm, the powder volume will not be able to expand nearly as quickly as with the 375 so we need to use a very slow burning powder to maintain proper pressures in the bore without generating extreme pressure spikes.
In the 375 example, we need a much faster burning powder so that the powder can burn and expand fast enough to maintain proper pressure applied to the bullet to generate good velocity.
If we use to fast of a powder in the 7mm we get into severe pressure problems because the powder will expand at a rate greater then the bore volume will allow.
If we use to slow of a powder in the 375 we will not get good velocity because we will not be able to maintain proper pressure in the bore down the entire length of the barrel simply because the slow burning powder can not generate enough gas volume quickly enough to do this.
Its all a balance of bore diameter and volume to case capacity and bullet weight, basically sectional density is what we are talking about. The ratio of bullet weight to bore diameter.
Good Shooting!!
Kirby Allen(50)
Dave,
I understand and agree with what you are saying. But I happen to be an engineer and studied the physics that pressure acting over an area determines the force exerted over that area. In the example we are discussing here, if equal pressures (say 60,000 psi) are generated in two different cartridges over an equal duration of time, the force exerted on the base of the bullet with the larger diameter will be greater than the force exerted on the smaller bullet diameter. The area across the base of a 7mm bullet is about 0.0634 square inches. The area across the base of a .338 bullet is about 0.0897 square inches. The pressure generated by the cartridge acts against the base of each bullet. In the case of the 7mm bullet, the 60,000 psi creates a force of (60,000 lbs/square inch) X (0.0634 square inch) = 3804 lbs of force. With the .338 bullet the 60,000 psi pressure creates a force of (60,000 lbs/square inch) X (0.0897 square inch) = 5382 lbs of force.
We can see that even though the pressure is equal in each bore, much more force is applied against the base of the .338 bullet than the 7mm bullet, because the force exerted is a function of the area that the pressure is able to act on. And I think we can all agree that the greater the force acting on two different bullets of equal weight, the faster the bullet will be accelerated down the bore. Which is why bullets of <u>equal</u> weight will always be driven faster in a larger caliber, provided that the same pressures are maintained over the same length of time. So this simple example has a straightforward explanation.
What Kirby describes involving sectional density involves a greater number of variables (for example different bullet weights and even greater differences in bearing surfaces), and I find it interesting that in his emperical testing, he's come up with a general rule of thumb. I'm sure there is a mathematical explanation for it also, but it's more complicated than determining the forces that pressures exert on the base of bullets of different diameters. So I'll leave that one for the professors!
FWIW /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
I understand and agree with what you are saying. But I happen to be an engineer and studied the physics that pressure acting over an area determines the force exerted over that area. In the example we are discussing here, if equal pressures (say 60,000 psi) are generated in two different cartridges over an equal duration of time, the force exerted on the base of the bullet with the larger diameter will be greater than the force exerted on the smaller bullet diameter. The area across the base of a 7mm bullet is about 0.0634 square inches. The area across the base of a .338 bullet is about 0.0897 square inches. The pressure generated by the cartridge acts against the base of each bullet. In the case of the 7mm bullet, the 60,000 psi creates a force of (60,000 lbs/square inch) X (0.0634 square inch) = 3804 lbs of force. With the .338 bullet the 60,000 psi pressure creates a force of (60,000 lbs/square inch) X (0.0897 square inch) = 5382 lbs of force.
We can see that even though the pressure is equal in each bore, much more force is applied against the base of the .338 bullet than the 7mm bullet, because the force exerted is a function of the area that the pressure is able to act on. And I think we can all agree that the greater the force acting on two different bullets of equal weight, the faster the bullet will be accelerated down the bore. Which is why bullets of <u>equal</u> weight will always be driven faster in a larger caliber, provided that the same pressures are maintained over the same length of time. So this simple example has a straightforward explanation.
What Kirby describes involving sectional density involves a greater number of variables (for example different bullet weights and even greater differences in bearing surfaces), and I find it interesting that in his emperical testing, he's come up with a general rule of thumb. I'm sure there is a mathematical explanation for it also, but it's more complicated than determining the forces that pressures exert on the base of bullets of different diameters. So I'll leave that one for the professors!
FWIW /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Fiftydriver
Official LRH Sponsor
Phorwath,
Not sure what is implies by the comment "emperical testing", but I am only offering what I have actually seen in real world testing and comparision with many different calibers using the same capacity with different bullet weights. I have tested the following and all have resulted in very similiar results.
260 Rem vs 7mm08
7mm08 vs 308
6.5-06 vs 270 Win
270 Win vs 30-06
270 WSM vs 300 WSM
300 WSM vs 338 WSM
7mm RUM vs 300 RUM
300 RUM vs 338-300 RUM(Edge)
30-378 vs 338-378
7mm Allen Mag vs 300 Allen Xpress
300 Wby vs 340 Wby
In every case, when using same weight bullets the larger caliber produced significantly more velocity when loaded to what appeared to be similar chamber pressures which would back up what you and Dave are saying as well as what I have been saying.
But also, in every case, when using bullets in each example with similiar sectional densities and similiar bullet construction, resulting velocity output between the different caliber rounds was very similiar which leads me to believe that using sectional density as a comparitive number between same capacity rounds with different bore diameters offers more accurate comparisions between to very different caliber bullets.
Sectional density is also very useful when comparing or predicting terminal performance as well between bullets of different calibers but similiar construction.
For instance, a 250 gr Nosler parition in 338 loaded to 2700 fps will penetrate nearly identically to a 300 gr 375 cal nosler partition when driven to the same 2700 fps.
All I am saying is that Sectional density can be used much more effectively to compare bullets of different calibers as far as internal ballistics and terminal performance are concerned.
Not obviously if you take a 250 gr Sierra Matchking in a 338 Edge and compare it to a 300 gr Barnes X bullet in the 375 RUM, the results will be much different because even though your comparing two bullets with similiar sectional densities, they have dramatically different structure design.
When using Sectional density as a tool to compare internal ballistic performance and terminal performance, we MUST be comparing bullets of similiar construction or there will be no validity in the comparision at all.
Anyway, just what I am seeing in my testing.
As far as the larger caliber bullets being pushed harder in the rear by 60,000 PSI, that may well be a fact. It is also a fact that that pressure behind the 338 cal bullet will drop at a much high rate then the pressure behind the 7mm bullet in your comparision. As such, if you do not use a faster burning powder to compensate for the much higher expansion ratio, the performance of the larger caliber bullet will suffer greatly.
Again, with the 7mm bullet, if you use to fast of a burn rate of powder you will develope extreme pressure spikes which will be dangerous.
All I am saying is that when you compare same capacity rounds, you really should be comparing same or similiar sectional density bullets to get an honest idea of what each one will do with that specific bullet weight in each.
Again, comparing apples to apples as much as possible.
Kirby Allen(50)
Not sure what is implies by the comment "emperical testing", but I am only offering what I have actually seen in real world testing and comparision with many different calibers using the same capacity with different bullet weights. I have tested the following and all have resulted in very similiar results.
260 Rem vs 7mm08
7mm08 vs 308
6.5-06 vs 270 Win
270 Win vs 30-06
270 WSM vs 300 WSM
300 WSM vs 338 WSM
7mm RUM vs 300 RUM
300 RUM vs 338-300 RUM(Edge)
30-378 vs 338-378
7mm Allen Mag vs 300 Allen Xpress
300 Wby vs 340 Wby
In every case, when using same weight bullets the larger caliber produced significantly more velocity when loaded to what appeared to be similar chamber pressures which would back up what you and Dave are saying as well as what I have been saying.
But also, in every case, when using bullets in each example with similiar sectional densities and similiar bullet construction, resulting velocity output between the different caliber rounds was very similiar which leads me to believe that using sectional density as a comparitive number between same capacity rounds with different bore diameters offers more accurate comparisions between to very different caliber bullets.
Sectional density is also very useful when comparing or predicting terminal performance as well between bullets of different calibers but similiar construction.
For instance, a 250 gr Nosler parition in 338 loaded to 2700 fps will penetrate nearly identically to a 300 gr 375 cal nosler partition when driven to the same 2700 fps.
All I am saying is that Sectional density can be used much more effectively to compare bullets of different calibers as far as internal ballistics and terminal performance are concerned.
Not obviously if you take a 250 gr Sierra Matchking in a 338 Edge and compare it to a 300 gr Barnes X bullet in the 375 RUM, the results will be much different because even though your comparing two bullets with similiar sectional densities, they have dramatically different structure design.
When using Sectional density as a tool to compare internal ballistic performance and terminal performance, we MUST be comparing bullets of similiar construction or there will be no validity in the comparision at all.
Anyway, just what I am seeing in my testing.
As far as the larger caliber bullets being pushed harder in the rear by 60,000 PSI, that may well be a fact. It is also a fact that that pressure behind the 338 cal bullet will drop at a much high rate then the pressure behind the 7mm bullet in your comparision. As such, if you do not use a faster burning powder to compensate for the much higher expansion ratio, the performance of the larger caliber bullet will suffer greatly.
Again, with the 7mm bullet, if you use to fast of a burn rate of powder you will develope extreme pressure spikes which will be dangerous.
All I am saying is that when you compare same capacity rounds, you really should be comparing same or similiar sectional density bullets to get an honest idea of what each one will do with that specific bullet weight in each.
Again, comparing apples to apples as much as possible.
Kirby Allen(50)
davewilson
Well-Known Member
Kirby, since you don't agree with me and basic laws of physics,let me tell you who does. a tech at Sierra, Gerard Schultz and Bruce Baer all think that by far and away the extra surface area being pushed on is the main reason for the extra speed. i realize there are several things that can affect it, but let's try and use your argument to prove my point.and by the way i'm not disagreeing with most of what you've said, but let's keep to the extra speed debate. let's take 2 similar sectional density bullets that as you said, will be pushed to similar velocities.i'll just bet that the surface area of the 2 similar sectional density bullets, will be close with respect to bearing surface, with the larger if anything might even have more surface area to cause extra drag. so tell me, how can 2 bullets that have about the same amount of drag get the same velocity when they weigh considerably different? the reason is extra surface area. i realize there are many variables that go into this kind of thing, but all other things being equal,it's the surface area being pushed against, not the lesser amount of drag, that causes the extra velocity.
