Berger 7mm 168gr VLD Hunting twist rate discrepancy

[Shootin4fun]

Wondering if anyone else has seen the discrepancies in Berger's listings/labels.

I've been shooting 7mm 168gr VLD Hunting all boxes P/N 28501 with good results.
I bought a couple of boxes at a time a few times. Got back to the 7 after a year off, focusing other calibers.

Much to my surprise after loading 40, I noticed that of the 5 boxes I have (2 older empties + 3 newer), 3 different BCs are listed and 2 different twist rates on the box label! I only loaded from 1 box that says for 1 in 9.

Savage 7mmRM 1:9 1/2 twist, 24" tube. Shot the rounds I loaded only at 100 yards and found 1 or 2 seating depths showing potential for a known good charge. Must retest.


Labels say:
G7 BC 316 G1 617 "For 1 in 10" twist or faster" (red/orange boxes)
G7 BC 316 G1 618 "For 1 in 9" twist or faster" (yellow boxes)
G7 BC 322 G1 618 "For 1 in 9" twist or faster" (yellow boxes)

Boxes of he same Lot#s say the same twist rates

Berger's website says for this P/N 28501,
G7 BC 316 G1 618 "For 1 in 10" NOT 1:9 like the box with those BCs. ??

I measured ogive to base of the bullets and they are .024 difference between the different BCs

 

[Dosh]

4, appears Berger has them labeled incorrectly or the newer bullets are from the new plant in Mesa, Az. Perhaps an E-Mail or phone call to Berger will shed some light on this. I have noticed their recommended twist rates have changed over the last several years. Please post their response.

 

[Shootin4fun]

Shot the rounds I loaded. The bullets labeled 1:9 do seem to stabilize in a 1:9.5 24" at relatively low velocity (2750), at least at 100 yards. Found a good jump at a good powder node and now need to work up speed and test further. Will email Berger and post reply.

 

[L.Sherm]

Berger changed there recommended twist rates I think a year or so ago, they backed off on there twist rates a little.

 

[Shootin4fun]

Berger changed there recommended twist rates I think a year or so ago, they backed off on there twist rates a little.

And they changed the dimentions of the VLD Hunting as well. .023" diff in base to ogive.

 

[L.Sherm]

I have found lot to lot differences that's why every single box I open I measure BTO. If it's the same lot I still check.

 

[Shootin4fun]

L- You are doing right to check each box BTO.
I emailed Berger and received this answer an hour later (great customer service!):

"This will explain the BC change :https://bergerbullets.com/12/ and https://bergerbullets.com/update-of-berger-bullets-performance-data/ The BC numbers for the 7mm 168gr VLD Hunting Bullet (28501) are now 0.618 = G1 BC , 0.316 = G7 BC .
New boxes will have a MINIMUM twist rate or faster of 1-10 . Old OPTIMAL barrel twist rate was 1-9 . Both are based on 59 degrees at sea level.
I regards to the lot differences in bullet base to ogive. This will explain :https://bergerbullets.com/information/why-berger/ .
When you change a lot of bullets. The first thing to check is the CBTO of the new lot against the CBTO of the old lot. It should be the same or very, very close. If there is a drastic difference and your seating die does NOT have a VLD bullet seating stem installed. Please get one. Big differences in CBTO or COAL are a key indicator that the tip of the bullet is contacting the base of the bullet seating stem cavity. This should never be the case with ANY bullet! If everything checks out between the CBTOs of the old and new lot. Reduce the powder charge 1 grain and work back up in 1/10th grain increments to get on your velocity accuracy node. This would also be the same if you changed lots of powders , ETC . If you have any more questions please feel free to contact us at any time! "

It's great to deal with a company who stands behind their products and keeps an open line of communication with their end users. Think about what the latter means. There are probably a hundred thousand+ people buying their bullets, and they respond to each one of them who has a random question. That is commitment right there. Not only that, but they publish articles explaining exactly how they arrive at their various conclusions (which can be seen in the links they provided above).

Thank you Berger!