Bullets, Ballistics, and Theories Discussion Thread

[barnesuser28]

Michael, thank you for your input. I wasn't trying to say anything was better than another, I was trying to subjectively figure out why it is deemed "necessary" for the larger calibers when what was possible 20 years ago with smaller calibers.

Your opinion was excellent and I agree completely, everything has its place. I was simply comparing the 7mm's to the .338's ONLY because that had been brought up on here before, but we never truly got into the meat & taters of WHY? I agree with everything you said. I understand the basic reasons why people choose them, but was curious to the ballistic aide of things.....I would love to see a ballistics gel test with both calibers side x side at that distance. I think that would be cool to see the differences of the 2 terminally at 1500 yards.

Send me some 180 grain (10 or 15 to find where i need to be for velocity) bergers and i will send them into some wet newspaper at a reduced velocity to simulate a 1500 yard impact, i have some 300 grain berger otm i can test side by side. Bigngreen, i still got your 252 CE to test, i SHOULD be able to test them this weekend if the rain ever stops, we are supposed to get 3-4" tomorrow and friday. ( i will use wet newspaper to also compare results with the 180 bergers if someone decides to send me some.)

 

[Michael Eichele]

Another advantage the bigger rifles have is barrel life, a hopped up 7mm will have the throat changing in it and you have to stay with it to keep the ELR accuracy and consistency, the 338's tend to stay very consistent and change slower, you can focus on improving yourself and skills instead of chasing your load or finessing your rifle.

Spoken like a man who has toyed with hot rod calibers. You spend more time adjusting charge loads and seating depths than getting to the long range line. Many say hot rods aren't that bad. It makes wonder how much shooting they actually do. 338RUM, 338 Edge or Lapua life's are short enough but they do offer much slower negative effects. MUCH better than the 300 RUM or 30-378 let alone hot 7mms like the 7RUM. I won't say the STW cause I'm not that familiar with them but can't imagine them being as good as a 300 win mag or 338 edge.

 

[MMERSS]

I'm asking someone to read my theory and discuss why it is or is not plausible and possible. I mentioned all of it just to digress to my theory.

Your discussion is plausible and possible. With all considerations equal, a higher BC bullet (heavier) with equal velocity is also plausible and possible with realistically more consistent results.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Michael, I currently only have target 180 VLD's b/c like an idiot I didn't buy them quick enough before it was too late. When I get a box of the hunting 180 VLD's I'll be glad to send a few for testing. I would send the targets, but they have a thicker jacket and won't expand quite like a hunting VLD will.

 

[MudRunner2005]

Your discussion is plausible and possible. With all considerations equal, a higher BC bullet (heavier) with equal velocity is also plausible and possible with realistically more consistent results.

Ok, so basically if I break it down to....A faster, lighter bullet with near equal BC to a slower heavier bullet, they will impact with similar energy at the same designated distance? You are agreeig that that is both possible and plausable?

 

[barnesuser28]

Michael, I currently only have target 180 VLD's b/c like an idiot I didn't buy them quick enough before it was too late. When I get a box of the hunting 180 VLD's I'll be glad to send a few for testing. I would send the targets, but they have a thicker jacket and won't expand quite like a hunting VLD will.

Sure thing, send me a PM when you get some, i may try to find a pack of the bullet proof samples with the 180 berger hunting.

Riley

 

[bigngreen]

You aren't understanding....I don't care what caliber vs what caliber.....That was merely an example.

I'm asking someone to read my theory and discuss why it is or is not plausible and possible. I mentioned all of it just to digress to my theory.

Also, bigger bullets, while heavier and harder to move from wind drift, also posses a larger cross-section which would make them more succeptible to wind or rain or moisture in the atmosphere. Isn't that also correct?

I understand, but I used those examples because I know what they do and though you would get the underlying current despite using specific examples.

You really have to look at BC the big 300gr has a .419 G7 BC and the 180 has a .337 G7 BC, you can push the smaller bullet hard enough to kinda stay with or even for the short run surpass the bigger one but velocity fades fast and it take a lot of it to make up for short BC but in the end the BC wins plus when it lands it has the weight and momentum that give it terminal performance past the smaller one.
Thee only area the smaller bullet wins sometimes is in elevation but elevation is the easiest variable to account but wind will kick your BUTT but this is where BC trumps velocity and gains you some wiggle room on your windage. The little bullet can also win if you compare a 180 Berger to a big Partition or ballistic brick as it's known, but compare the best of the best will give you relevant info.
There is a point and range you can kinda get the results your looking for BUT you have to run the smaller bullets at the edge of insanity and you will usually end up having to run an even poorer ballistic choice because the good bullets won't hack the speed.

Bryan Litz's book Applied Ballistics, get it

 

[MudRunner2005]

I have been meaning to grab that book as well. I also understand what you're saying. This response feeds more into what I was asking, caliber-irrelevant, of course. Thanks for the additional response.

Now we're making head-way on this discussion! Let's keep up the comments.

I would love to have one of the monster bores, but unfortunately, around these parts the biggest animals we have to kill are small black bears and whitetail deer, so as far as justification for thick-skinned heavy large game, I could say we're out in that department. Around these parts you could get by with a .270, .30-06, or a 7Mag and be just fine and never need to stray from those.

Maybe one day I will break down and buy a monster like a .408 Cheytac or .50 BMG...Just to add some diversity to the collection...But they would serve me no legit purpose, other than to have a long range cannon.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

You aren't understanding....I don't care what caliber vs what caliber.....That was merely an example.

I'm asking someone to read my theory and discuss why it is or is not plausible and possible. I mentioned all of it just to digress to my theory.

Also, bigger bullets, while heavier and harder to move from wind drift, also posses a larger cross-section which would make them more succeptible to wind or rain or moisture in the atmosphere. Isn't that also correct?

Wind drift is effected by velocity and BC only. Nothing else. That said, when you change bullet size and shape you will usually affect the BC. The reason bigger bullets usually buck wind better is because they usually have higher BC's. Now if you compare the 7mm 180 VLD with a BC of .764 to the 35 cal 250 NP with a BC of .446, the 180 VLD is going to buck wind much better and all the more with a higher MV. But if you compare the 180 to the 300 gr OTM with a BC of .818, the 180 will have a slight edge in wind resistance past 1000 yds using your velocities, less than 1 MOA in a 10 mph wind.

Flat trajectory is useful for point blank shooting to maybe 500 yds but is of no real consequence at longer ranges.

In hunting, the advantage of the 338 cal 300 gr bullet is it's larger frontal and greater mass which will cause more destruction.

You can answer your ballistic questions by playing with the ballistic calculators. And you can deduce that larger bullets will have a greater destructive potential.

Bottom line, you can kill a game animal with a 7mm bullet or whatever, but the higher you climb the caliber ladder with like shape and construction bullets, the more effective the bullet will be and the more you improve your odds of a successful quick kill at longer ranges.

 

[MudRunner2005]

See, this is good info....Keep it coming!

Everyone who has responded so far, I have anticipated a response from, and the response is anticipated.....But I want to hear from everyone.

Thanks again Mark for the response.

 

[cohunter14]

I will touch on a couple of your questions with my own personal opinions/thoughts:

So my brain begs to know why do we actually "need" these enormous calibers with all the weapons and bullet technology we have today. If people could successfully do it without them back then, why do we "need" them now?

I think this just goes along with increases in knowledge and technology. Why do we NEED higher BC Bullets? You see, for example, companies like Nosler trying to enter that market and get better results than Berger. It is just like anything else, you always want better. Why would a golfer on the PGA Tour want the latest and greatest driver when they could use a three year old one (or an old persimmon one for that matter)? It is always about increases in technology. Do we NEED to use range finders for yardages? No, but it is a heck of a lot easier and more accurate than guessing

I just want to know WHY you bought what you did, and WHY you felt it was the only option for your task at hand, forsaking all other calibers out there?

The caliber I bought was what I felt I could get the best ballistics out of while using it as my only gun for Antelope, Deer, Elk, Moose, Bear, etc. I don't have the money to have multiple setups, so I had to pick what I felt was best, overall, for those animals without going too large or too small.

I think the larger bores with the heavier bullets might carry the energy farther out, but they also move slightly slower from the get-go, and with a much larger overall mass and more bulbous shape, would lose velocity a great deal faster, which is why you need so much powder and a such a large case capacity for them to be efficient at such long ranges......

Wouldn't a faster moving bullet that weighs less, and has a more aerodynamic profile, follow a better trajectory to the same target at the same distance, which in turn, even though it is a lighter bullet, will expel the same amount of energy, based on the higher velocity it maintains as it reaches the intended target, as compared to a larger, slower moving projectile with a rapidly decreasing velocity?

I think another way of looking at this would be to ask this: why don't you load up your STW with 140gr pills instead of the 180's? For the exact reasons others choose larger caliber, higher BC bullets.

Just my $.02 on everything

 

[MudRunner2005]

I choose the 160+ bullets for my 7Mags and 7STW b/c I have had better luck with them, and they tend to group better out of my guns. I have some 140's, but now I just use them exclusively for my 7mm-08, since it has always loved the 140's.

I use what I use b/c it works well in my guns. Example, my .308 likes everything from 168's to 210's....It is honestly my most versatile and forgiving caliber. So don't think I am anti big-bore.....I am simply asking why people chose what they did, and also what people think about my theory.

Keep the answers coming.....

 

[str8shoot]

Here's my theory...


I think the larger bores with the heavier bullets might carry the energy farther out, but they also move slightly slower from the get-go, and with a much larger overall mass and more bulbous shape, would lose velocity a great deal faster, which is why you need so much powder and a such a large case capacity for them to be efficient at such long ranges......

Wouldn't a faster moving bullet that weighs less, and has a more aerodynamic profile, follow a better trajectory to the same target at the same distance, which in turn, even though it is a lighter bullet, will expel the same amount of energy, based on the higher velocity it maintains as it reaches the intended target, as compared to a larger, slower moving projectile with a rapidly decreasing velocity?


These are just thoughts I have, and I would love to hear everyone's opinion on them.

One of the holes in your theory is that it seems to assume that smaller bullets are more aerodynamic, and retain velocity better than larger ones. If this were true a 7mm 140gr vld could have a higher bc than a 7mm 180gr vld.

It also implies that a larger, slower projectile is losing its velocity faster than a smaller, faster projectile. In reality if they have the same BC, the smaller faster bullet is slowing down faster than a larger slower bullet. BC calculators will prove this.

Your theory would really only hold up when comparing large bullets with low BCs to small bullets with very high BCs. This is not a fair comparison as larger bullets actually have a higher BC potential.

 

[Mikecr]

BC wraps everything up nicely, and is all you need to consider with the ballistic comparisons here.

Doesn't matter size/cal, or weight. A bullet's BC is either higher or lower than another.

Bullet A, G7 BC @ 3Kfps, ICAO = .295 BULLET WEIGHT 140gr 28cal
Bullet B, G7 BC @ 3Kfps, ICAO = .295 BULLET WEIGHT 180gr 30cal

Stabilization aside, they are equal w/resp to external ballistics, at any range.
The example 180gr bullet does not slow down faster than the example 140gr. If it would, it's BC would reflect this. Same with wind drift.