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
Bullet Theory
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="abinok" data-source="post: 112486" data-attributes="member: 16"><p>Concave VS convex bullet ogive</p><p></p><p>Not sure what you mean here....</p><p></p><p>Rings around bullet wether recessed or raised</p><p>Like the barnes tripple shock? they are great for reducing bearing surface to increase velocity, but its hard to put them on a conventional bullet withoug going to a very thick and therefore, imprecise jacket.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I may have to pattent this next one, golf ball dimples on bullets bearing surface. Possibly even entire bullet. Never seen it on the bearing surface, but I have seen it on the ogive. don't work too well. Was tried with rocket nose cones too. Again, not too well.</p><p></p><p>I think it would be interesting to hear of different designed bullet being test, which Im sure they have been.</p><p></p><p>Also tungsten core bullets? </p><p></p><p>Like PRL's?</p><p></p><p>Lastly I would think by now all bullets would be cad designed for the highest BC possible per weight. It seem weird that alot of the more main stream weights seem to be better designed(ie higher BC) than others.</p><p>Examples:</p><p>Sierra MK 175 BC .505 and the sierra 180 is .475, why bother? I can ony think that some are hanging on shorter ogives for length purposses. </p><p>The 180 is an older design than the 175, and has a more relaxed ogive. There are 20ogive bullets in production today (most of the sierra SMKs are 7-9) with some custom shops doing as high as 23-25. ive seen lathe turned solids with a 32radius ogive. The problem is one of balancing weight/sectional density with length so as to not spin the most agressive bullets apart, while providing enough bearingsurface to get a good launch, while at the same time holding tolerances tight enough to actually get good accuracy. As technolegy stands today, anything past a 25radius ogive, conventionally constructed is pretty much the ragged edge. Id love to see a 20secant ogive tungsten core bullet with enough bearing surface that it won't be so tempermental... maybe fore and aft driving bands? Would be interesting.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="abinok, post: 112486, member: 16"] Concave VS convex bullet ogive Not sure what you mean here.... Rings around bullet wether recessed or raised Like the barnes tripple shock? they are great for reducing bearing surface to increase velocity, but its hard to put them on a conventional bullet withoug going to a very thick and therefore, imprecise jacket. I may have to pattent this next one, golf ball dimples on bullets bearing surface. Possibly even entire bullet. Never seen it on the bearing surface, but I have seen it on the ogive. don't work too well. Was tried with rocket nose cones too. Again, not too well. I think it would be interesting to hear of different designed bullet being test, which Im sure they have been. Also tungsten core bullets? Like PRL's? Lastly I would think by now all bullets would be cad designed for the highest BC possible per weight. It seem weird that alot of the more main stream weights seem to be better designed(ie higher BC) than others. Examples: Sierra MK 175 BC .505 and the sierra 180 is .475, why bother? I can ony think that some are hanging on shorter ogives for length purposses. The 180 is an older design than the 175, and has a more relaxed ogive. There are 20ogive bullets in production today (most of the sierra SMKs are 7-9) with some custom shops doing as high as 23-25. ive seen lathe turned solids with a 32radius ogive. The problem is one of balancing weight/sectional density with length so as to not spin the most agressive bullets apart, while providing enough bearingsurface to get a good launch, while at the same time holding tolerances tight enough to actually get good accuracy. As technolegy stands today, anything past a 25radius ogive, conventionally constructed is pretty much the ragged edge. Id love to see a 20secant ogive tungsten core bullet with enough bearing surface that it won't be so tempermental... maybe fore and aft driving bands? Would be interesting. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Bullet Theory
Top