The Solid Bullet Debate

[edge]

MR,

I would place a great deal of confidence in Gerard's judgement regarding terminal effects also. Combining the concepts of precision, and frangible, seem oxymoronic to me... much like "accurate shotgun".

SNIP

IMO, an "accurate shotgun" is NOT what Gerald wants, unless I am mistaken!

Losing the nose is just the fastest way to get the "Best" shaped bullet for killing!
A "flat" nose is the best shape. and not a mushroom, and the flatter the better!

IMO, this is a good reading on terminal ballistics. Yes the author has his own conclusions, but gives a fair discussion to other theories ( some may not agree )

Whether you agree or not I think it makes for interesting reading.

Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories:
Terminal Ballistics


edge.

 

[noel carlson]

Edge,

We are in agreement that the Gerard design is, anything but, "shotgun" like in theory, or performance.

That article was great reading, thanks.

Paul,

The Match bullet is $1.30 at current copper prices... still expensive, but an "economy" alternative, and ballistically equivalent, to the hunt version. I have not priced the production cost of the ZA338/6.0-H out yet. I intended that it be used in the limited quantities directed against game only. The numbers will not work in any other way.

Best,
Noel

 

[MontanaRifleman]

...This is one reason I prefer a more frangible bullet than not. I want to ensure they open at lower velocities. At close range, they explode. On a deer size critter it isnt much of a concern due to the narrow nature of the target. At long range the bullet simply opens up like a typical hunting bullet. Is this better? This is subjective. It is just what works for me. Again, with deer size critters in mind here. These principals dont apply here for much larger game.

Michael,

I think a lot of folks are under this impression but it is not always the case. Highly frangibl bullets don't neccessarily open at lower velocities than more controlled expansion bullets. The AB and the VLD are advertised to open at about the same velocity. Some SP lead nosed bullets may open at even slower speeds. The trade off in the case of the VLD is usually higher BC. In the case of the the 30 cal 210 VLD and GS HV 177, they both have about the same "advertised" BC. The GS bullet will open at velocities down to 1600 fps, 200 FPS lower than the 210 and will have an MV of about 400 fps faster than the 210. The GS will retain anywhere from 100% to about 70% of it's mass, depending on impact velocity and the sheding of its petals.

The rest is for us to argue about as to which is better. I would like to see someone prove which is better. I doubt it will ever be done.

And people will always debate which is better. The problem of determing which is "better", is defing the term "better". Better is a subjective term and terminal ballistics can not be separated from other considerations such as external ballistics, cost, logistics, etc.

As for me, I already *know* which bullet is better, so I dont have to debate it

-MR

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Noel,

It looks to me like you have a good bullet. My only cautions are reliable expansion and terminal stability. I have read a few reports of poly tipped TTSX's and BT's not opening. These occcurances seem to be rare. But if I was shooting at a life time opportunity sheep and lost it because a bullet failed to open, I would surely be an unhappy camper. As it happens, I got my life time B&C ram with NPT's and they worked very well.. not bullets that I would pick for LR though.

Best wishes and success on your endevours to provide "better" ELRH bullets.

-MR

 

[Michael Eichele]

Sorry MR,

I realize this isnt always the case and I should have been more specifec. I am talking with mostly AMAX's in mind. I have not yet shot any game with VLD's or GS bullets. As for AMAX's, they do explode at high velocity and open like a normal hunting bullet at low velocity causing a normal wound track. At least in my experience. This is why I like to use them in my 308. I get very good expansion at 800 yards at 308 velocities with them. The only thing I wont use them on is anything bigger than a mule deer. When I step up to the 300's, my options are broader due to the higher impact velocity. Since I hunt mostly with a 308, the AMAX or other rapidly expanding bullet is my go to strategy.

 

[noel carlson]

Thanks MR,

The "better" ELRH bullet will be unveiled in two to three months with accompanying photographs, external/terminal ballistic data, and commentary by individuals who performed beta-testing.

Your caution on terminal stability is my only real concern, given the caliber/length ratio. So far no problems, but internal target tumbling is always a point of focus in a VLD design.

Best,
Noel

 

[edge]

SNIP.

but internal target tumbling is always a point of focus in a VLD design.

Best,
Noel

IMO, another reason to lose the nose as fast as possible to move the CG rearward!

edge.

 

[noel carlson]

Edge,

This may seem counter-intuitive, but "losing" the nose actually shifts both the CG, and CP forward (and brings them in closer relative position to each other).

Your point is well taken however. A projectile which is blunter, and shorter, will have less of a tendency to reorient within a soft target.

The design objective of this projectile is two-fold, and neither purpose is served by elimination of the tip;

- First, this is to be a truely ELR capable bullet... meaning that it will function comfortably well past 1,000 meters, and beyond the skill level of all but the most advanced marksman ie. , unless you use a computer-generated target solution, the bullet will "out shoot" you. The cost of this performance is, necessarily, longer projectile length.

- Second, to maintain affordability, the Match bullet must duplicate the hunt bullet ballistics. Removing the nose alters the CP in a way which can never be compensated for in the Match, and means practice with the Hunt bullet can only be done using the Hunt bullet.

The engineering challenge is to make a tip that expands easily upon impact. I believe I have achieved this. Testing will tell.

Best,
Noel

 

[edge]

Yes indeed, forward
Rearward would cause more overturning.

edge.

 

[Jon A]

My thoughts on the overall subject pretty much echo those well stated by Bryan earlier in the thread. The main thing I want to add is a comment about practicality.

Bullets needing really fast twist barrels start to require a bigger commitment depending upon degree. A decent percentage of people here (forget about regular hunters) don't have any problem buying specialized equipment, but even many here will be hesitant to buy a super fast twist barrel that may not shoot regular bullets as well (or even some at all) knowing the bullet maker may be waiting on raw materials, backordered forever, decide to charge $50 per bullet or simply go out of business and then they'll be stuck. This will be a bigger deal in smaller calibers, of course.

For what many here do, single shots are fine. Many others, however, really need magazine length rounds. The nose length can become quite excessive for such impressive form factors which means many rifle/caliber combos will be unable to use longer nose bullets and remain repeaters.

None of that means solid bullets won't offer the most ultimate potential in the end, but those are a couple practical advantages more dense bullets have to some of the typical users here. Those are some of the things where Tungsten Powder based bullets could really offer improvements if not for the cost.

Another thing worthy of discussion is the more dense bullets for a given weight, or even a given BC, can have the CG closer to the CP. I'm not sure I buy into everything written on the subject, but as I said it's a point worthy of discussion.

None of the above has anything specifically to do with your bullets, Noel. I hadn't followed along or heard much about them until now. They do look very promising and I'll be very interested to see what you come up with in 30 Cal.

Finally,

In the case of the the 30 cal 210 VLD and GS HV 177, they both have about the same "advertised" BC.

Unfortunately for many, many years debates like this have been ruined in the hunting world by the mono-metal bullet makers (mainly Barnes and GS Custom) feeding the public pie-in-the-sky BC's. Damage not limited to selling bullets to people who thought they were getting something they were not, but fundamentally affecting people's understanding of what gives a bullet a good BC.

I don't mean to direct that toward you, MontanaRifleman, it's not your doing--just an example of its perpetuation. It looks like Noel is doing things the right way having them independently tested so we should know what we're getting with his bullets. Bravo to him for that; I'm excited to see what his bullets will have to offer.

 

[noel carlson]

Jon,

I agree completely with your assessment of the extreme-performance solids market to date. These problems (and others) are well known to users of the "CheyTac" system.

I would point out some mitigating/contraindicating factors in the present context;

- Discussion of the 6.5, and 7.0, caliber projectiles has been left largely untouched, because this thread is not addressed to tactical shooters. Magazines make little, or no, sense with the flight times we are talking about in that setting.

The ZA338/6.0-M & H are magazine compatible in a Norma Magnum loading.

- The 1: 9" constant-twist barrel is readily available from numerous suppliers, and can be used with the Sierra, and Lapua 338's (although it does seem to be over-kill, figuratively speaking of course ). There are no incompatibility issues here.

- Tungsten is a useful tool for CG relocation, but has no future as a large component in small-arms ELR projectile manufacture, regardless of cost, precisely because of it's specific gravity, and other physical properties. It gets complicated, but we can discuss this if you like. Copper really is the ideal material.


As a tangent question, do you believe hunters would ever commit to a dedicated 30 caliber system?

Best,
Noel

 

[Bullet bumper]

Every style and design of bullet has its place and use and there is no real best of anything . Solid bullets have their advantages and lead core bullets have their advantages and its a simple as that. If you like one for a certain job and it does it well then thats the right one.

 

[noel carlson]

Bullet Bumper,

Not to be contrary, but there is a "best" of something for every application.

Bullet function is not so esoteric as to justify the multiciplicity of current designs, and cost/value ratio is the ultimate arbitrator.

Best,
Noel

 

[MontanaRifleman]

...For what many here do, single shots are fine. Many others, however, really need magazine length rounds. The nose length can become quite excessive for such impressive form factors which means many rifle/caliber combos will be unable to use longer nose bullets and remain repeaters.

None of that means solid bullets won't offer the most ultimate potential in the end, but those are a couple practical advantages more dense bullets have to some of the typical users here. Those are some of the things where Tungsten Powder based bullets could really offer improvements if not for the cost.

Jon,

Point of clarification here... The length of the bullet reall has nothing to do with with the COAL of the bullet seated to the lands. If you seat a bullet to the lands, whether it is more dense or monometal, the COAL is the same if the shape of the ogive is the same. It will be the shape of the ogive and the throat that determine COAL and not the bullet density. And as you know, High BC bullets have long narrow pointy noses. Also, many monometal bullets shoot best with a small jump to the lands (GS is not one of them) which gives them an advantage to many hunters who want their bullet to fit their mags.

None of the above has anything specifically to do with your bullets, Noel. I hadn't followed along or heard much about them until now. They do look very promising and I'll be very interested to see what you come up with in 30 Cal.

I dont believe Noel is planning on developing a 30 cal ATM, but I too would be very interestd in what he might come up with.

Finally,

Unfortunately for many, many years debates like this have been ruined in the hunting world by the mono-metal bullet makers (mainly Barnes and GS Custom) feeding the public pie-in-the-sky BC's. Damage not limited to selling bullets to people who thought they were getting something they were not, but fundamentally affecting people's understanding of what gives a bullet a good BC.

I don't mean to direct that toward you, MontanaRifleman, it's not your doing--just an example of its perpetuation. It looks like Noel is doing things the right way having them independently tested so we should know what we're getting with his bullets. Bravo to him for that; I'm excited to see what his bullets will have to offer.

Misadvertising of BC's is not something restricted to monometal bullet makers. E-Tips, from what I've read in here are very close to their advertised BC. In the case of the GS bullets, Gerard primarily developed his hunting bullets for uses less than 500 yds, where BC has little impact. He was not concerned with pinpointing BC and calculated them mathmetically. He said this in another thread. In the case of the HV 177, it shows a lot of promise to be close to its advertised BC. It is .005 longer than the 180 HAT (which I have a few in my possession) which was advertised with a BC of .7+ Except for the narrow HP meplat it is every bit as aerodynamic in appearance as the HAT. But you are right, never take BC's for granted, they must be proved in the field. There is an LRH member teating the 177's right now, and I expect that we will find out what their true BC is very soon.

On twist rates, I dont think many people who have a custom made will scoff at going from the standard 10 twist of the 30 cal to a 9 or even an 8. Most higher BC bullets available in 30 cal will work just fine with those twists.

Regards,

-MR