Bullet Construction vs Lethality

[cohunt]

Steve,
Are you saying that the ballistic app isn't correct and that the 199 grain bullet actually will defy its lower BC in some way? I'm trying to understand what that "test" would even prove?

Have a great day everyone!
Steve

Steve has actually done a test in the past iirc--- he did just what he suggested and fired a heavier slower bullet in the same wind conditions as his lighter faster bullets--- due to the reduced flight times of the lighter bullets they have an almost identical poi when the same hold overs are used.

Iirc he started testing this a while ago and started a thread on it-- I remember it a little but im not sure how far he went with it

 

[xsn10s]

Do it again in windy 800 yard conditions.

 

[BoomFlop]

Steve has actually done a test in the past iirc--- he did just what he suggested and fired a heavier slower bullet in the same wind conditions as his lighter faster bullets--- due to the reduced flight times of the lighter bullets they have an almost identical poi when the same hold overs are used.

Iirc he started testing this a while ago and started a thread on it-- I remember it a little but im not sure how far he went with it

But in the example given, no bullet manufacturer was mentioned for either bullet, and both bullets are within 5 fps of each other. No way is a lower BC bullet going to have the same POI with the same hold over and have the same drift. Its simply not possible.

 

[JAYgs8163]

Well I guess the OP kinda sort of in a round about way partially answered one of my questions. Hopefully he will cover the rest and it won't take almost another week.

When did 72 hours become "almost a week?" Kind of reasonable for such a detailed answer about just 1 of your questions.

 

[Petey308]

But in the example given, no bullet manufacturer was mentioned for either bullet, and both bullets are within 5 fps of each other. No way is a lower BC bullet going to have the same POI with the same hold over and have the same drift. Its simply not possible.

Correct. Like I mentioned here:

As far as BC…

So while I completely agree BC is important and that BC and muzzle velocity tell you everything you need to know about first order trajectory including wind drift

Where BC comes in is two ways: One, it makes it easier to hit your target with the uncertainties of wind. Secondly, higher BC will allow the bullet to retain velocity better which means higher impact velocity and greater terminal effect overall, with all else equal.

To imply/infer BC doesn't actually account properly for drop or wind and that there needs to be another figure is simply incorrect. If things happen as you did not expect, something else is wrong like the number you used somewhere.

 

[xsn10s]

But in the example given, no bullet manufacturer was mentioned for either bullet, and both bullets are within 5 fps of each other. No way is a lower BC bullet going to have the same POI with the same hold over and have the same drift. Its simply not possible.

Imcreased velocity is one way to overcome lower BC's. but one has to stay within pressures to be safe. One could always run the tests and then have the ammo pressure tested.

 

[cohunt]

I honestly don't remember what conditions Steve did the testing-- ill let him put in the details-- but iirc this is the same attitude that immediately popped up in his testing posts.

I like to see actual field test data no matter what it proves-- good or bad, if it promotes a certain manufacture or all of them--- hard proof/data is what we should be making our decisions off of. Every time a guy trys to show some field test data--- people immediately start degrading the thread-- hammer bullet, berger bullets, cutting edge, cleaning supplies, protecting/lubricating oils, scope tracking, better long range accuracy than short range, etc-- if we could all hold off for a while and just review the field testing and then try to add some field testing of our own to prove or disprove then we might all learn something.

Seems like lately, threads don't last long before they start to go the wrong way

 

[Brazos65]

As long as you use a bullet made for hunting applications, I think your most likely shot scenario has to be considered. If you're hunting timber, then something tough that can handle a quartering shot (any of the mono's, partitions, A-Frames, etc). If you're hunting open country, something that has a high BC and decent terminal performance (ABLR, Scirocco, heavy for caliber ELD-X). All the manufacturers do not recommend using target bullets for hunting, and I wholeheartedly agree. Use a hunting bullet for hunting, and a target bullet for all else.

 

[Petey308]

I honestly don't remember what conditions Steve did the testing-- ill let him put in the details-- but iirc this is the same attitude that immediately popped up in his testing posts.

I like to see actual field test data no matter what it proves-- good or bad, if it promotes a certain manufacture or all of them--- hard proof/data is what we should be making our decisions off of. Every time a guy trys to show some field test data--- people immediately start degrading the thread-- hammer bullet, berger bullets, cutting edge, cleaning supplies, protecting/lubricating oils, scope tracking, better long range accuracy than short range, etc-- if we could all hold off for a while and just review the field testing and then try to add some field testing of our own to prove or disprove then we might all learn something.

Seems like lately, threads don't last long before they start to go the wrong way

I completely agree with you that just throwing around accusations without substantiating evidence does no good and only gets emotions going.

I do know that not all field tests are accurate and useable. Many are done with unknown errors thrown in.

If you want really good evidence though of these things mentioned regarding BC, drop, drift, etc, Applied Ballistics has many good books on the subject with a ton of great substantiating evidence and breakdowns.

An error in your zero or sight height input, especially with a high MV, can drastically alter your results and produce a false or misleading result. That's one example. Incorrect BC input will produce a false result too.

I think we're all looking for the truth in what is what, at the end of the day. All tests are worth doing and examining. Not all end up being flawless and without issues though, so that ends up causing debates. And when old tests get rehashed, it can stir up the same debate all over again. Just my two cents, as the saying goes.

 

[Mike Matteson]

I knew that was coming, just like clockwork

Here we go again. It seem to me that his had gone on just over a year ago.

 

[Mike Matteson]

Besides my bullet is better than your's. I guess didn't learn. I should have learn the first or second time, but didn't.
I do like picture of wound channels and damage done to the animal. I'll determine what I think is good and back. GOOD LUCK!!!

 

[fordy]

Gday Aaron

You got one think right
I will reply


Man I actually thought better of you than this I just can't win over here & really is what I'm about to type up worth it
I really wonder sometimes but you want more so here it is

your assumptions
& please where did I push hammers throughout this thread ( or am I not even allowed to use hammers in jest ) & I thought I was coming from a wide enough base to not get labeled so I suggest you go back & read every single post of mine in this thread & get the thought of hammers out of your head as it reminds me a lot of this picture
Yes someone says one thing prior & your interpretation is clouded & that's what your doing you've got some bad issues with hammers getting in your head for some reason ,
I don't know why but ease up man I don't get it & that goes for others here also get over it
& yep great people of varying knowledge base on here as they are the smart people on here I'd love to have a free flowing discussion with warts & all but you can't have a in-depth conversation with them as the white noise from the peanut gallery gets this off track just look @ this thread

so I've shifted my pattern of trying to help in a different direction & that's to break it down into with different systems & please take note of my posts once again where did I push hammers no I didn't I pushed a system & used pics from various companies & please don't assume that crap again

I am a simple sole who likes to learn & help & quite frankly very disappointed @ the moment & that's a nice way of putting it but I also don't like BS or marketing crap but really that comes all under the one roof & just ask Steve how many times I've called his bullets $h-t yet he takes that on board & tells me to try this & little by little the bar has moved let I dare mention from a very high standard to begin with

What was my aim ? I'll tell you straight : just so no one gets any more of these assumptions yeah that's likely with some
Yep it's to get people to look @ different styles/systems then they can delve deeper if they wish & in this case of this thread do you think I'm going to recommend a hammer if a 1000 yard impact is it for a lot of 30 cal chamberings maybe a individual yep but no way of the bat & you'll be hard pressed to get a lot of other monos to work to a level that is going to kill well no not this time but im definitely not a dead critter is all that's needed guy so ea to their own & guess what it's exactly the same process that I do with c&c & isn't that what happens within the c&c debates by other members also but ultimately
More would need to be known before that could be entered into anyway & that will come so go grab a drink & your popcorn


It was in my post to taj starting to break down why the shedding monos are superior to the mushroom monos on a overall base without even getting into the individual pill designs once again no hammer pushing from me it's showing the system that works better for those who care to enjoy those benefits can do so , those who don't shoot what they want

I will & do show the weaknesses of every pill I test & this includes hammers & haven't I done that previously with hammers ???
I've also seen where hammers have failed or gave less than stellar performance for other individuals & I've learnt from those people so thankyou to them & I go out & try to replicate those with varying results so that information can hopefully get a good understanding to Steve to fix I even go to stupid extremes of twists to see what effect that had
Now let's make this also extremely clear I'm not the one who dictates they need to do this to get that as my theories are just that & im just lucky I can test others theories along with mine to see what holds water or not yes covering weaknesses & raising that bar

ive tested over 30 different mono companies to various levels off my own back I don't like handouts as that can be seen as a bribe for a good report so I just buy my own well most of the time as Steve has slipped some in the mail without me knowing also most companies won't know I test their pills as I also don't like the limelight & most of this testing was done for my own benefit & the ones close to me so I'd say I am also greedy but I've got a good base to work off .
I was also trying to see if I've used the companies taj works for & pills they have as I may have a insight into them or have no clue & learn what If I was missing something but I will %100 stand by my statement of a shedding out preforming a mushroom until I'm proven wrong ( with the good pills of coarse as it is from a factual base with some pretty big numbers behind that statement & here's a personal problem I'll not post ( but does slip out sometimes which has got me into huge conflict situations that I'd rather not be put in ) what I've done on big game animals of/like oh I shot this or that many & I know this many people as I don't like that look @ me syndrome coming to me , others I say na do what one feels comfortable with & think it would nice to be proud to say what I've done but I'm actually quite private & even my trip to Africa in June I've not posted any pictures or commented on a story or our critters as it feels like I'm gloating so I stay quite on that front oh & I didn't even use hammers that trip & some reasons for that but data I got , this is no way to look @ me it's to show why I do things I do & ever so uncomfortable to write & why I'll never write a book not that I could anyway lol

I try to do things thoroughly & the base I use
In by gone years Ea pill I tested back then I used to test 10 deer size & bigger critters & velocity impacts in 200 fps intervals from as fast as I could push them to minimum velocity of the company ( early days I went well below these & some companies never had recommended min or max velocities ) & 3quater too 3broadside 4quater away (2 left side 2 right side ) & measured impact to tip & a lot of autopsies today I just can't for varying reasons

I for one WILL &DO recommend a range of bullets to different people
& please the ones that I do this for no need to defend me as this is what I do so I'd respectfully ask you to do your research as a few on here now & this is the most important decision on what I base that decision off

1/ I take the range they will hunt to
2/ the most likely range of impact
3/ what velocity they are most likely to achieve in their chambering
4/ the type of critter
5/ look @ a range of bullets available
6/put those over calculators
7/look where ea of these fall in a velocity bracket across those ranges ( velocity brackets are completely different to velocity window )
8/ the resistance involved over different angles on that critter @ varying impacts

9/ look @ where the above fits with a individual pill

10/ make my recommendations putting all of that together to come out with the best case for that individual & whatever pill covers most of the bases gets my tick of approval & am I right all the time no way but I'm not one to just flippantly recommend just anything especially for a kid or on the trip of a lifetime for someone

Now is it my fault that hammers on the whole are the ones that cover most bases
That's out of my control & I'll recommend what covers the most for that individual so yes IM GUILTY of recommending hammers a lot but what would you do ?? I would hope the same & look @ the apex I held off saying a darn thing on them watching extremely closely & even liking peoples work & thoughts on the afterburners but once I seen a potential of that person getting into some real strife I spoke up & look what commotion that caused from the peanut gallery without just clearing one's mind as it was there all along I did nothing special I just know what to do to see if it exists once I saw it it was actually there in other tests in gel so I learned just not to the extent I done it @ yet was within the parameters of what that gentleman was going to potentially impact @ plus a touch from him
Now out of all of that I'm proud of 2 things
That the gentleman in question @ the time was aware of what would've happened if that shot occurred so he could either adjust his shooting spot or use another pill & also note why I did those tests on the afterburner as a young bloke was off on a trip of a lifetime & wanted to know the best possible pill he could use so to work I went for him & only shared to help the other gentleman so if that's a crime shoot me now yep I'll cease my part on LRH right away never to be seen again & then I didn't recommend a hammer there as it was a ceb that came out on top of the points above
Now mark I couldn't fault on what he did to fix a potential problem & tip my hat so now we all are aware what to do
I want no credit let's make that also clear as I'm just happy things are better now & some poor sole won't go into a situation that could end badly



Now let's take this away from the hammer parts that are top of the tree & where other pills are superior & yes the big one most seem to get fixated on & that's BC it's been bought up everywhere but if you have a company that dosent take meaningful discussions on terminal performance & gives us oh it's great terminal when the actual terminal results backed up by others I also add ( yes not me but I've used the first gen ) why could you possibly or more importantly HOW could you trust what they say ,
yes I get it's hard for a company to admit they have a flaw & ones like mark ( for people that don't know that's apex bullets owner ) & also be very careful assuming I've only tested one apex ) that took what I showed the way a good company should & addressed it not!!!! oh it's still preformed well when it didn't

Little do you even no how much I know about apex & as I have gave mark my word example I've never discussed his tip design
With anyone & yet I've had plenty of opportunity to give that out to his rivals but it's not pinching others designs it's allowing ea to learn as that's how we move forward & a greater diversity & i for one personally start to gain a better understanding of what does what under what conditions that gives us a bar that is raised & we as hunters gain but if your after a ranking that's also going to need to address those 10 points I put up & yes apex has been recommended to be totally transparent as has mushroom monos or c&c when they are the best to use so I don't know why one would settle for a mediocre ranking & I'll definitely not recommend it
IT's finding the most applicable pill for it's intended use & then I used to get into dual loads I still do look @ that side now & then but less need these days as the advancements in pill design has broadened what we can cover now with a pill so I'm no rose coloured glasses here



Yet your asking me to test different bullets
First off my body is shutting down so should I do what makes you happy with the limited time I have left that I can do it
Secondly I have already adjusted what impacts I test over now to what some people asked nicely if I would consider & I've obliged as I agree it was more useful for them & the general run of the mill peoples impacts note last lot of testing my rums didn't even go me na I've just got my 375 pill I can pretty well take anything in the world with ( good killing not just killing ) & that was working closely with Steve & Brian so if that's a sin shoot me once again

I know what I'm doing dosent please everyone & nor can I or ever will but with respect you sir are not going about that in the right direction to even get to first base on what I have planned on completing that I'd started some time ago

& some would love to see me go that I do understand completely & get that but unless I'm out of order or people think I'm better off giving the lesser pills a recommendation over a better pill to someone when the better pill will give them a higher percentage of great results

I'm here to stay although it won't be all the time & sorry no more personal stuff I've done way to much here
Time for zzz it's 2am here
Cheers

 

[JiggyIi]

I think that perhaps I would need a clear definition of "kill rapidly"!

Unless the hunter is hunting a very small parcel surrounded by private property ….most big game can cover 100 yards in only a matter of seconds!

For DRT, this usually requires a CNS shot, or a relatively small big game animal…..while avoiding any raking shots (deep penetration required) or hitting heavy bone!

As mentioned…..there aren't any magic bullets! memtb

As you well know, there is No Substitute For Hp️
Lol I said it 378 on whitetail, 375AI on Mink

 

[Petey308]

Here's an example on how small errors can make a big difference:

A 300 RUM loaded with a 124gr Hammer at 4200fps and a 1/2" error in sight height equates to a 1" difference in impact at 500 yards and 2" at 1000 yards. If your zero is off a half inch, it would be added to that.

Being off 1/2" on your 100 yard zero equates to just over a 2" difference at 500 yards and 5" at 1000 yards. So add that to a potential sight height error and it just gets worse.

So you can see how small errors can make a huge difference and make the results seem different than they really are.

I only say this to offer up some explanation as to why sometimes things seem to point to BC not mattering and doesn't seem to show that drop and drift correlates correctly. There are sometimes other variables messing with our results. I used that load example only because it's a common one and a high MV which exacerbates potential errors like I mentioned. It's simply an example though.

It's pretty easy to be off 1/2" on a 100 yard or even 200 yard zero. It's also easy to be off on your sight height.

If you take drop/drift data like that though, that is inaccurate due to other input errors, and you adjust the BC to match, you're just creating more errors. It can make you think the advertised BC Is way off or that BC isn't a good way to figure drop or drift because of how off it seems to be.

I'm just trying to add to the discussion here in a more positive and meaningful way. I feel like these are productive things to consider and discuss. Maybe I'm wrong.