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
Why .260 slower than 708?
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="britz" data-source="post: 164043" data-attributes="member: 7865"><p>I was bored and did a little math. I thought that the bering area would go up as the cal went up. Not the case. </p><p></p><p>I took 2 barns bullets, 160g 284 and a 165 grain 308. I guessed that .666 of the bullet length for that particular brand was baring and I calculated the surface area of the two. the .284 had a berring surface of .75427" squared and the .308 had a bering surface of .7324276 because of the great affect that bullet length has to do with the surface area (Pie D times H). So the short fat bullet has the best of two out of three, loosing bigtime in BC.</p><p></p><p>This all comes out on paper, but I just looked at some loading charts comparing same weight bullets of a 325 and a 300 wsm, getting pretty much the same velocities out of same weight bullets. Go figure?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="britz, post: 164043, member: 7865"] I was bored and did a little math. I thought that the bering area would go up as the cal went up. Not the case. I took 2 barns bullets, 160g 284 and a 165 grain 308. I guessed that .666 of the bullet length for that particular brand was baring and I calculated the surface area of the two. the .284 had a berring surface of .75427" squared and the .308 had a bering surface of .7324276 because of the great affect that bullet length has to do with the surface area (Pie D times H). So the short fat bullet has the best of two out of three, loosing bigtime in BC. This all comes out on paper, but I just looked at some loading charts comparing same weight bullets of a 325 and a 300 wsm, getting pretty much the same velocities out of same weight bullets. Go figure? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Why .260 slower than 708?
Top