whiskey three precision
- Thread starter TheFishBox
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
- Status
azsugarbear
Well-Known Member
As a general rule. rebated boat tails (RBT's) tend to increase the BC of a bullet, but not the sort of large increase necessary to explain the huge disparity between the W3P claimed BC and that of other similar bullets.
The Wilcat bullets used an RBT in their design as do some of the bullets currently being made by Matrix bullets (good company BTW). It helps boost BC's, but not anywhere near the range one would need to explain W3P's claimed BC's. This is why testing becomes so important. It lays to rest all arguments. Dial-ups don't lie and they cannot be explained away. It is what it is - regardless of what the printed advertisements state.
The Wilcat bullets used an RBT in their design as do some of the bullets currently being made by Matrix bullets (good company BTW). It helps boost BC's, but not anywhere near the range one would need to explain W3P's claimed BC's. This is why testing becomes so important. It lays to rest all arguments. Dial-ups don't lie and they cannot be explained away. It is what it is - regardless of what the printed advertisements state.
Michael Courtney
Silver Member
Rebated boat tails do not make a big difference in BC compared with regular boat tails. Most manufacturers of bullets with rebated boat tails (and the die makers) tout the accuracy advantages rather than any BC advantage, because of a cleaner exit when the back of the bearing surface clears the crown and because of the resulting flow of muzzle gases as the bullet exits.
I would estimate that when the BCs of these bullets are finally measured by a reliable method (velocity loss or near velocity and time of tlight), they will come in slightly lower than Bergers or Lapuas of the same weight and caliber. One contribution to the lower BC are the noticeable seams where the base of the aluminum tip meets the jacket. Our experience is that a smooth seam that has no visible width or depth is needed for a tipped bullet to have an optimal BC and that there is a lot of drag that results from a noticeable seam.
We once measured a Nosler T-Tip with a noticeable seam between the tip and base, and Nosler's advertised BC was 44% higher than our measurement. These manufacturing details are very important for optimizing drag, because every imperfection increases drag, not just by disrupting air flow and adding another shock front. Imperfections near the front also increase the bullet's overturning moment and can have the effect of increasing pitch and yaw or slowing the damping of pitch and yaw. This increases the quadratic, yaw-dependent term in the drag coefficient.
What's the circumferential ring visible on the jacket of the rbbt, just below the Al tip? Do the rbbts come with that visible ring on them, or was that something caused by your seater stem? Is it something you can feel by moving a finger or fingernail across it? Or is it only a light scuff mark on the finish of the surface of the jacket?
Michael Courtney
Silver Member
The circumferential rings are visible in most of the pics from the bullet maker even for unloaded bullets. Given the easy visibility of the rings in most pics as well as the appearance, I tend to think there is a significant surface feature that could easily be felt with a fingernail. Though examination of the bullet in person allows for greater confidence than examination of pictures.
IdahoRedneck
Well-Known Member
It does appear to be some sort of a light tooling mark, I can barley feel it with my nail as I rub across it?????
Attachments
gohring3006
Well-Known Member
How would you guys describe the ogive secant,tangent,or hybrid. It looks like a tangent but its hard to tell from the pics. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the high BC and what is making it so high. Is it the very sharp point or the ogive and rebated boat tail. I just wonder if its such a revolutionary design how come companies didn't run this design. Just thinking trough my keyboard. Haha
Literally? Someone typed a high BC number onto the W3P website.
gohring3006
Well-Known Member
Haha.
Michael Courtney
Silver Member
I think it may be more systematic than that. My hypothesis is that they use this formula:
1.5*(Berger's highest BC + Nosler's highest BC)/2
Michael Courtney
Silver Member
In all seriousness, W3P's path to rescuing their credibility is very simple:
Get a couple of reasonably accurate chronographs, go to the range, measure the BCs of your bullets, and begin publishing accurate BCs as quickly as possible.
It really is not that hard to measure BCs accurately. The needed equipment costs less than $1000. If providing accurate BCs were a priority, it is not hard to measure the BCs of 10-20 bullets in a day and have most of a small maker's bullets published with accurate BCs within a week or so.
What advantage could their possibly be in waiting month after month to provide potential customers with more accurate (measured) ballistic coefficients?
Get a couple of reasonably accurate chronographs, go to the range, measure the BCs of your bullets, and begin publishing accurate BCs as quickly as possible.
It really is not that hard to measure BCs accurately. The needed equipment costs less than $1000. If providing accurate BCs were a priority, it is not hard to measure the BCs of 10-20 bullets in a day and have most of a small maker's bullets published with accurate BCs within a week or so.
What advantage could their possibly be in waiting month after month to provide potential customers with more accurate (measured) ballistic coefficients?
TheFishBox
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2010
- Messages
- 688
So I didn't intend for this thread to turn into another bashing thread, but it somehow managed to but I heard that my bullets are on there way and am looking forward to giving them a try. idahoredneck shoot those bullets and give us a report. Even if the bc is lower than published should we really complain about having more bullet makers that are trying to make long range bullets and are willing to produce bullets that are overlooked by other manufactures?
I Think that we should wait and see before we toss w3p to the curb and if the bc's are close than that should be good enough and we can get them to publish accurate bc's but if they are so low that we might as well be shooting flat based round nosed bullets then lets complain.
I Think that we should wait and see before we toss w3p to the curb and if the bc's are close than that should be good enough and we can get them to publish accurate bc's but if they are so low that we might as well be shooting flat based round nosed bullets then lets complain.
- Status
