Gel Test Data part 2

[74honker]

My basic feeling is the 214 HH is pretty specialized, meaning a rifle built around it would be needed to get full advantage. I think a production rifle was a big element in the test.

I almost never see it mentioned, this thread is the first I've seen in awhile it comes up. Maybe Steve can mention how it sells comparatively.

Anybody following this thread using the 214 HH?

I assumed this also regarding the 214 and I also agree the factory gun is the way to go with this testing. With that said, IMO, I feel if a lighter weight pill with less BC can match or exceed the heavier higher BC pill then that really says something. And as others have stated, terminal performance trumps all for hunting.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Without looking it up, I would guess the 199g Hammer Hunter out sells the 214g Hammer Hunter 5-1. Between required twist and coal the 214g Hammer Hunter is much less used.

 

[Muddyboots]

I assumed this also regarding the 214 and I also agree the factory gun is the way to go with this testing. With that said, IMO, I feel if a lighter weight pill with less BC can match or exceed the heavier higher BC pill then that really says something. And as others have stated, terminal performance trumps all for hunting.

^^^^^^^^
The whole point is perfectly summed up here. A lighter bullet with lower BC with higher velocity can stay with heavier slower higher BC bullets with better terminal performance.

Past my bedtime, good night y'all.

 

[jcc]

I see where you are coming from. I came at this from the aspect of the best setup for the bullet brand in the chosen cartridge. My objective was to show that the Hammer Bullet could run with or exceed a bullet that is considered by many to be the best there is. I wanted to make this comparison from muzzle to beyond what 90% of hunters will ever shoot to on game. I'm not looking to make a bullet like anyone else. I am intending to make a bullet better than anyone else. I still have some of these loaded. If we find a good place to shoot farther, I'll compare them again. I likely won't have a film crew available. I wouldn't mind finding the range where the Berger passes the 199g Hammer Hunter in some way. Judging by the gel test it will have to happen above 2000 fps to 2200 fps for the Berger to have good terminal results. By my standards. I am pretty sure there is no way the Berger can out perform the 199g Hammer Hunter in drop, wind, or terminal performance within it's effective hunting velocity range.

I really like this test format you used. It is the same example that Litz gave in his WEZ analysis chapter from "Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting." High BC, Heavier, slower MV vs Lower BC, Lighter, and faster MV both shot from the same rifle.

Here is a link to part of the chapter that includes the information for anyone interested.

https://appliedballisticsllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Weapon-Employment-Zone-Analysis.pdf

In the test you performed I think you showed that given high confidence in wind estimation, range estimation, rifle precision and velocity consistency, the faster projectile does not have a disadvantage out to the distances tested. This is not an unexpected result. The High BC argument comes into play when the confidence in wind call is reduced. Knowing the limitations of the system that we are deploying is really what it all comes down to. There are two questions that I ask myself. At what range and environmental conditions does my hit percentage rate drop below my personal acceptable limit? What is my expectation of terminal performance throughout the distances of my acceptable hit range percentage?

Thanks for posting!

 

[IllinoisBurt]

Aside from stabilizing the bullets at their lower velocity, do we know if the reduced start rpm would have a significant impact on observed terminal performance versus what we expected to see from a full velocity (and rotational speed) bullet when it impacts downrange? I don't believe the rotation decreases anywhere near as quickly as velocity over time/distance due to the difference in air resistance on the spinning side bearing surface compared to the front bearing surface pushing through the air. So in your testing we started with a full speed bullet from 1:8 twist versus reduced speed 1:9. My math may be off a little but it would seem a better comparison for the reduced start load be somewhere around 1:6 to approximate the rotation.

 

[Hard rock]

Sedancowboy,
X2. Well said and in my opinion, quite accurate.
Len's recent poll on LRH confirms that 95+% of hunters shoot to <500 yds.
Increased twist does better stabilize bullets and improves terminal performance and straight penetration.
I'm still chuckling. We realize that higher BC is of little extra value to the majority of us, and yet we insist on trying to "stack the odds" in our favor. Nothing wrong with that - just human nature. Higher BC sells bullets today!
Keep it coming all. This is great stuff. And thank you Steve! (He & Brian are working on a higher bc bullet as we speak)!

Sedancowboy,
X2. Well said and in my opinion, quite accurate.
Len's recent poll on LRH confirms that 95+% of hunters shoot to <500 yds.
Increased twist does better stabilize bullets and improves terminal performance and straight penetration.
I'm still chuckling. We realize that higher BC is of little extra value to the majority of us, and yet we insist on trying to "stack the odds" in our favor. Nothing wrong with that - just human nature. Higher BC sells bullets today!
Keep it coming all. This is great stuff. And thank you Steve! (He & Brian are working on a higher bc bullet as we speak)!

X3 couldn't have said it better, thanks for a very explanatory post .

 

[Hard rock]

Interesting, though I politely don't concur




con·cur
/kənˈkər/

Why not , especially being that lead is denser than copper , I think most of us realize a124 gr copper bullet is usually compared too a 140 gr cup and core in the 6.5 cal .

 

[RockyMtnMT]

Aside from stabilizing the bullets at their lower velocity, do we know if the reduced start rpm would have a significant impact on observed terminal performance versus what we expected to see from a full velocity (and rotational speed) bullet when it impacts downrange? I don't believe the rotation decreases anywhere near as quickly as velocity over time/distance due to the difference in air resistance on the spinning side bearing surface compared to the front bearing surface pushing through the air. So in your testing we started with a full speed bullet from 1:8 twist versus reduced speed 1:9. My math may be off a little but it would seem a better comparison for the reduced start load be somewhere around 1:6 to approximate the rotation.

The goal with the reduced velocity was to have stability above 1.5 sg on the Miller formula. The 9" twist did this at 1.63sg with the muzzle velocity at 2157 fps. This is calculated at sea level without adding in the 3000' elevation at the shooting position. So, well above full stability. You are correct that the rpm's are lower than the full tilt load in the 8" twist. In all honesty, I did not consider rpm's for the test. I was focused on making sure both bullets were fully stable. Both bullets dealt with the same 9" twist for the 300y shot. The Hammer was lower in stability due to the lighter weight and longer oal.

 

[Hard rock]

So next time you would like to see a lighter Berger compared to the Hammer?

That would be interesting, good question

 

[ButterBean]

X3 couldn't have said it better, thanks for a very explanatory post .

X-4

 

[ButterBean]

That would be interesting, good question

I don't think they would like the results as the 199 is already hanging with the 215

 

[ButterBean]

Why not , especially being that lead is denser than copper , I think most of us realize a124 gr copper bullet is usually compared too a 140 gr cup and core in the 6.5 cal .

That was what I was trying to say , Thank You

 

[Northkill]

I understand, but with all being equal I would think to compare weight class as close to equal as possible? Just like you did with FPS, you got that as close as you could is all I'm saying. Thanks

This wasn't designed as a BC test or comparison... And anyone with experience with monos vs C&C knows that monos are much longer for the same weight, so matching the weight would necessitate a size differential and you're still then not apples to apples. One could also argue that with Steve setting them up for similar impact velocities at range, he was in effect disadvantaging his own bullet due to its lighter weight... So many ways to look at this. Biases will always determine our sense of fairness.

 

[IllinoisBurt]

The goal with the reduced velocity was to have stability above 1.5 sg on the Miller formula. The 9" twist did this at 1.63sg with the muzzle velocity at 2157 fps. This is calculated at sea level without adding in the 3000' elevation at the shooting position. So, well above full stability. You are correct that the rpm's are lower than the full tilt load in the 8" twist. In all honesty, I did not consider rpm's for the test. I was focused on making sure both bullets were fully stable. Both bullets dealt with the same 9" twist for the 300y shot. The Hammer was lower in stability due to the lighter weight and longer oal.

I suspect rpm difference could show up as a measurable change in bullet performance though it may be small. Still it seems easy enough to do a control in something like .224 barrels where faster twist is common to see if it's significant enough to matter. I know it's not apples/apples but maybe firing reduced load of a bullet dimensionally equivalent (bearing surface to length ratio of 22 versus 308) through 1:9 and 1:7 or something similar could provide data to potentially rule in or out the variable.

** Quick math here, we had about 30-33% initial velocity reduction so the rpm start would be equal reduction, so 1:7 v 1:10 or 1:8 v 1:12.