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
Apex Outdoors Bullets - A Brief Summary
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="mcdil" data-source="post: 2617664" data-attributes="member: 112571"><p>Hard to say without modeling it up, but I think a 1:7.5" would be hard pressed to get to the teens. However, it's BC would move up substantially, and of course we'd design it with the Creedmoor as the "least velocity potential" cartridge. That helps a little as well with adding some mass.</p><p></p><p>As a side note, we mentioned this on another thread, but we don't subtract the nose, or part of the nose, when we calculate for stability. I know some calculators allow that as an option, but we don't use that functionality, making our results probably a bit more conservative than some others.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, if we are really splitting hairs, a cup and core option has its densest material near the centerline and its least dense material out at the perimeter, which, by "percentage of mass", means the rotational inertia has less authority over the bullet than a bullet that has a hollow point, or no mass at the centerline, with the majority of its mass closer to the perimeter. None of the calculators account for this phenomenon, and it just makes our results even more conservative.</p><p></p><p>We prefer to remain conservative and see our customers shoot shorter, lighter bullets with ideal accuracy and terminal performance rather than pushing the weight/length envelope and seeing erratic accuracy and subpar terminal performance. It's the laws of physics as they relate to copper bullets (not just ours), and we try and stay on the right side of the fence in that regard.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mcdil, post: 2617664, member: 112571"] Hard to say without modeling it up, but I think a 1:7.5" would be hard pressed to get to the teens. However, it's BC would move up substantially, and of course we'd design it with the Creedmoor as the "least velocity potential" cartridge. That helps a little as well with adding some mass. As a side note, we mentioned this on another thread, but we don't subtract the nose, or part of the nose, when we calculate for stability. I know some calculators allow that as an option, but we don't use that functionality, making our results probably a bit more conservative than some others. Furthermore, if we are really splitting hairs, a cup and core option has its densest material near the centerline and its least dense material out at the perimeter, which, by "percentage of mass", means the rotational inertia has less authority over the bullet than a bullet that has a hollow point, or no mass at the centerline, with the majority of its mass closer to the perimeter. None of the calculators account for this phenomenon, and it just makes our results even more conservative. We prefer to remain conservative and see our customers shoot shorter, lighter bullets with ideal accuracy and terminal performance rather than pushing the weight/length envelope and seeing erratic accuracy and subpar terminal performance. It's the laws of physics as they relate to copper bullets (not just ours), and we try and stay on the right side of the fence in that regard. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Apex Outdoors Bullets - A Brief Summary
Top