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
The Basics, Starting Out
CALIBER CHOICES
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="milanuk" data-source="post: 52005" data-attributes="member: 376"><p><BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR><strong>I known that the higher B.C. the less deflection a bullet has but, does it just has to be a heavier weight bullet?</strong><HR></BLOCKQUOTE> </p><p></p><p>As I understand it, the B.C. is not directly a function of the _weight_ of the bullet. It corresponds more closely w/ the length of the bullet for a given caliber. Of course, reality seems to dictate that using conventional materials such as copper and lead, causes a longer bullet to be heavier as well, thereby off setting some of the benefits of the increased B.C. by reducing muzzle velocity. Its an interesting balancing act, but a sufficiently high B.C. seems to win out over high velocity for long range performance, at least as far as getting the bullet *to* the target. As far as perfomance once the bullet reaches the target, I'd personally prefer as much velocity as possible to make sure the bullet has enough oomph to penetrate/expand sufficiently.</p><p></p><p> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR><strong>What effect dose this have on game? Will a moose know the difference between a 30. cal 168gr going say 3000f.p.s than the 30. cal 175 or 200gr bullet say going 2400f.p.s.? </strong><HR></BLOCKQUOTE></p><p></p><p>Dunno for sure, but me thinks that as long as you put the bullet in the right spot, the difference would be minimal. From a .308 Win, my 700VS will drive a 175gr SMK at about 2750fps, and a 155gr SMK at about 2900-2950fps. I'd guesstimate the 168gr to split the difference. With that close of a gap in velocity, the 175gr walks all over the 168gr as far as retained velocity and energy beyond 300yds. Interestingly, the 155gr match bullets from Sierra, Hornady, and Lapua don't seem to fall down as much beyond 300, at least on the 'puter (haven't been able to get them to stabilize w/ the gawd-awful jump to the lands on my gun) as the 168grs. Combining the higher initial velocity, and a B.C. that isn't that far behind the 175gr bullets makes for some interesting reading. I'd love to experiment more, if I could get the 155s to shoot from my gun. I think that perhaps the extra fine-tuning of the 155s for Palma Match shooting contributes to their high B.C. for their relative weight/length, perhaps.</p><p></p><p>In any event, the proof is in the pudding. Shoot, and see how it works for you. Speaking of which, it's time for me to go to the range <img src="http://images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>Later,</p><p></p><p>Monte</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="milanuk, post: 52005, member: 376"] <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>[B]I known that the higher B.C. the less deflection a bullet has but, does it just has to be a heavier weight bullet?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I understand it, the B.C. is not directly a function of the _weight_ of the bullet. It corresponds more closely w/ the length of the bullet for a given caliber. Of course, reality seems to dictate that using conventional materials such as copper and lead, causes a longer bullet to be heavier as well, thereby off setting some of the benefits of the increased B.C. by reducing muzzle velocity. Its an interesting balancing act, but a sufficiently high B.C. seems to win out over high velocity for long range performance, at least as far as getting the bullet *to* the target. As far as perfomance once the bullet reaches the target, I'd personally prefer as much velocity as possible to make sure the bullet has enough oomph to penetrate/expand sufficiently. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>[B]What effect dose this have on game? Will a moose know the difference between a 30. cal 168gr going say 3000f.p.s than the 30. cal 175 or 200gr bullet say going 2400f.p.s.? [/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dunno for sure, but me thinks that as long as you put the bullet in the right spot, the difference would be minimal. From a .308 Win, my 700VS will drive a 175gr SMK at about 2750fps, and a 155gr SMK at about 2900-2950fps. I'd guesstimate the 168gr to split the difference. With that close of a gap in velocity, the 175gr walks all over the 168gr as far as retained velocity and energy beyond 300yds. Interestingly, the 155gr match bullets from Sierra, Hornady, and Lapua don't seem to fall down as much beyond 300, at least on the 'puter (haven't been able to get them to stabilize w/ the gawd-awful jump to the lands on my gun) as the 168grs. Combining the higher initial velocity, and a B.C. that isn't that far behind the 175gr bullets makes for some interesting reading. I'd love to experiment more, if I could get the 155s to shoot from my gun. I think that perhaps the extra fine-tuning of the 155s for Palma Match shooting contributes to their high B.C. for their relative weight/length, perhaps. In any event, the proof is in the pudding. Shoot, and see how it works for you. Speaking of which, it's time for me to go to the range [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Later, Monte [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
The Basics, Starting Out
CALIBER CHOICES
Top