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
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Ballistic Coefficient Question
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="NZ Longranger" data-source="post: 903293" data-attributes="member: 14"><p>Jeff,</p><p>I'm not disagreeing with you about radials verses directionals in most circumstances. Especially on flat dusty ground. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, because I know we agree in general. Its just some seem to suggest radials are impossible to shoot with because of this, and that their directionals don't blow dust back at the shooter at all, which is BS. The dust disadvantage with a radial is that some of the ports are always facing downwards. If shooting on a flat dusty plain or desert all the time, a radial has more downsides than positives, and will blow more dust up some of which will certainly settle on the front lens especially in a head wind.</p><p></p><p>You can minimize the downwards dust affects of radials to some extent by poking the muzzle out over a rock lip or similar. Most of our hunting lookouts are like this, shooting from a ledge across a deep valley, and judging by Shawn's videos a lot of yours are too. In this case the more widely dispersed all around 90 degree discharge from a radial is far less obvious than the concentrated backwards discharge from one of our rearward angled directionals. No matter where you put one of these, they do direct blast and debris back towards the shooter and especially his spotter. This is simply why they are the best at reducing recoil. With specialist heavy long range rifles where we want the maximum recoil reduction, we always fit directionals, but make no mistake, there are some disadvantages with these too. Especially if shooting out through a narrow opening in the bush, they can really direct blast and debris back into the general shooting area.</p><p></p><p>Everything is a compromise in some form, and there are some reasons where the advantages of a radial are more important than the disadvantages, as in walkabout rifles where you want to stalk with the brake off, but then wind it on by hand when you reach a lookout. Doing this continually with a directional will eventually end up with it getting out of index as they creep a little over time on the shoulder. For your situation where you said you never take your brakes off and want maximum recoil reduction, there is no reason why you would use a radial.</p><p>But mrb specifically asked this question about taking brakes on and off and using thread protectors, and I was explaining how we do exactly that in some situations with all purpose rifles that might be shot spook and shoot, and also long range. The majority of our rifle builds are lightweight hunting rifles that are used just like this, and a radial fits this application best. Clients want to hunt with them without earplugs in the bush, then screw the brake on and put their plugs in for a long shot when they get to a long range lookout. </p><p></p><p></p><p>And I don't try to guess pressures from visual pressure signs closely enough for this sort of caliber debate comparing velocities. Pressure testing gear is a real revelation, and its a shame its not more readily available. The bearing surface of the 215 is commensurately longer than the 208, and the velocity for the same pressure also drops commensurately. This is due to the longer bearing surface and the heavier weight. There is no magic bullet yet invented that defies the laws of physics. A longer bearing surface and more weight means less velocity for the same pressure. As I said, the lower velocity for the 215 I used from Hodgdon's 208 data matches the differential we've actually got across the Oehler 43 Ballistic Lab.</p><p></p><p>The problem I feel with most internet debates is they are often portrayed far too black and white, and life is rarely like that. And people can make flippant generalizations to make a point that on reflection they don't actually quite mean to that extent, and I can be just as bad at this as anyone. </p><p>None the less there is some really good information in this thread from some really experienced guys like you Jeff, and the info I've posted compliments what you're saying and fills in a more complete picture. Which is all good for those asking the questions and wanting information to help them make decisions, before they shell out what can often be quite large sums of cash!<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p>Greg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NZ Longranger, post: 903293, member: 14"] Jeff, I'm not disagreeing with you about radials verses directionals in most circumstances. Especially on flat dusty ground. Maybe I didn't make myself clear, because I know we agree in general. Its just some seem to suggest radials are impossible to shoot with because of this, and that their directionals don't blow dust back at the shooter at all, which is BS. The dust disadvantage with a radial is that some of the ports are always facing downwards. If shooting on a flat dusty plain or desert all the time, a radial has more downsides than positives, and will blow more dust up some of which will certainly settle on the front lens especially in a head wind. You can minimize the downwards dust affects of radials to some extent by poking the muzzle out over a rock lip or similar. Most of our hunting lookouts are like this, shooting from a ledge across a deep valley, and judging by Shawn's videos a lot of yours are too. In this case the more widely dispersed all around 90 degree discharge from a radial is far less obvious than the concentrated backwards discharge from one of our rearward angled directionals. No matter where you put one of these, they do direct blast and debris back towards the shooter and especially his spotter. This is simply why they are the best at reducing recoil. With specialist heavy long range rifles where we want the maximum recoil reduction, we always fit directionals, but make no mistake, there are some disadvantages with these too. Especially if shooting out through a narrow opening in the bush, they can really direct blast and debris back into the general shooting area. Everything is a compromise in some form, and there are some reasons where the advantages of a radial are more important than the disadvantages, as in walkabout rifles where you want to stalk with the brake off, but then wind it on by hand when you reach a lookout. Doing this continually with a directional will eventually end up with it getting out of index as they creep a little over time on the shoulder. For your situation where you said you never take your brakes off and want maximum recoil reduction, there is no reason why you would use a radial. But mrb specifically asked this question about taking brakes on and off and using thread protectors, and I was explaining how we do exactly that in some situations with all purpose rifles that might be shot spook and shoot, and also long range. The majority of our rifle builds are lightweight hunting rifles that are used just like this, and a radial fits this application best. Clients want to hunt with them without earplugs in the bush, then screw the brake on and put their plugs in for a long shot when they get to a long range lookout. And I don't try to guess pressures from visual pressure signs closely enough for this sort of caliber debate comparing velocities. Pressure testing gear is a real revelation, and its a shame its not more readily available. The bearing surface of the 215 is commensurately longer than the 208, and the velocity for the same pressure also drops commensurately. This is due to the longer bearing surface and the heavier weight. There is no magic bullet yet invented that defies the laws of physics. A longer bearing surface and more weight means less velocity for the same pressure. As I said, the lower velocity for the 215 I used from Hodgdon's 208 data matches the differential we've actually got across the Oehler 43 Ballistic Lab. The problem I feel with most internet debates is they are often portrayed far too black and white, and life is rarely like that. And people can make flippant generalizations to make a point that on reflection they don't actually quite mean to that extent, and I can be just as bad at this as anyone. None the less there is some really good information in this thread from some really experienced guys like you Jeff, and the info I've posted compliments what you're saying and fills in a more complete picture. Which is all good for those asking the questions and wanting information to help them make decisions, before they shell out what can often be quite large sums of cash!:) Greg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Ballistic Coefficient Question
Top