Introducing Cutting Edge Bullet's new LAZER high BC copper hunting bullet

I was just being sarcastic, since they didnt list a price. Are you going to the next Townsend shoot Mark?


I would anticipate an increase in price with the additional labor required for the tip install (I have no idea what it amounts to). I think most of the bullets are still in the T&E stages.

I have my fingers crossed that the increase will be negligible.


t
 
I seriously doubt that these bullets really have BCs this high. It is very rare for an independent party to measure a G1 BC more than twice the sectional density for any bullet using a velocity loss (two chronograph) or a velocity and time of flight method. The highest BCs of .308 180 grain bullets that have been confirmed by parties independent of the manufacturer are close to 0.500, so the claim of these bullets seems exaggerated. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof.

Bullets with cannelures, grooves, or driving bands usually fare even worse, since the driving band or groove sets up a secondary Mach cone/shock wave which increases supersonic drag. Even if the bullets reliably expand down to 1700 fps, 1700 fps will come at a much shorter range if the BC is closer to 0.500.

Michael, If you check out some specs on let's say the MTH 338 252 gr D65 you will see that they list a BC of .720. The bullet is 1.811" long.

http://site.cuttingedgebullets.com/pdf/MTH%20Data.pdf

http://www.bergerbullets.com/products/hunting-bullets/

If we look at the Berger 338 250 gr Match Grade Hunter, you'll see the BC they list (which I trust) is .682 with an OAL of 1.630. The 2 bullets of basically the same weight have a .181 difference in length which is significant. It is just .009 shorter than the 300 gr Berger. Now, a bullet of equal SD which is longer will probably have a better form factor than the shorter bullet, but the longer bullet will have more surface area and drag. The CEB does have a driving band with a grove fore and aft but not really sure how that plays into the aerodynamics of the bullet. I'm guessing there is a narrow zone or bubble surrounding the fore bore riding surface that is undisturbed, created by the bow wave of the nose. Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking the 2 bullets will have close to the same BC. I have shot the CEB 308 180 C21's out of my 300 RUM out to 1K and the drops seemed close to advertised BC but were a little short. Definitely not a conclusive test.

Like Outlaw said, it would be good to get some real world field testing by a few of us to compare actual results.
 
Here's an interesting thread to reference.

Tipped .375 CEB rocking a 1.0 G1 past 2k yds.

.375 GSC 414 VS CEB 425 at 2050 yards



I don't personally know if the BC's will fall in or not. For them they did, they don't use static BC's they shoot them. Will that BC work for me? or Mark or Broz? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm willing to test a few :)


t
 
Michael, If you check out some specs on let's say the MTH 338 252 gr D65 you will see that they list a BC of .720. The bullet is 1.811" long.

http://site.cuttingedgebullets.com/pdf/MTH%20Data.pdf

Hunting Bullets | Berger Bullets

If we look at the Berger 338 250 gr Match Grade Hunter, you'll see the BC they list (which I trust) is .682 with an OAL of 1.630. The 2 bullets of basically the same weight have a .181 difference in length which is significant. It is just .009 shorter than the 300 gr Berger. Now, a bullet of equal SD which is longer will probably have a better form factor than the shorter bullet, but the longer bullet will have more surface area and drag. The CEB does have a driving band with a grove fore and aft but not really sure how that plays into the aerodynamics of the bullet. I'm guessing there is a narrow zone or bubble surrounding the fore bore riding surface that is undisturbed, created by the bow wave of the nose. Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking the 2 bullets will have close to the same BC. I have shot the CEB 308 180 C21's out of my 300 RUM out to 1K and the drops seemed close to advertised BC but were a little short. Definitely not a conclusive test.

Like Outlaw said, it would be good to get some real world field testing by a few of us to compare actual results.

When "real world field testing" includes accepted methods of BC determination (near and far velocity or near velocity and time of flight combined with measured environmental conditions ie: Kestrel), then I am in agreement.

However, when "real world field testing" amounts to pseudo science of "confirming" theoretical BCs from long range drops and not bothering to record the actual environmental conditions (temp, pressure, and humidity), then I am doubtful. We've seen a lot of copper and brass bullets fail to demonstrate measured BCs that were expected/predicted from their lengths and form factors. A lot of Nosler's numbers are inaccurate, and the BCs published by Barnes have gotten much more accurate (and lower) since they have actually been measuring their BCs on their 300 yard range.

Even Berger has gone through several rounds of adjusting their published BCs downward to better fit repeatable experimental measurements. They went through a first round of downward adjustments after Litz joined them, and then they even needed to adjust a .338 BC downward after independent testing failed to confirm an early experimental BC that was determined by Litz.

BCs that are really this high are an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary validation, including independent testing. We'll be happy to schedule BC testing of .308 bullets if someone sends them to us, but at price of buying these bullets off the shelf, we're no longer eager to spend our own money testing every new claim of extraordinary BCs. We've spent thousands of dollars testing these claims in the past, and we've been underwhelmed.
 
When "real world field testing" includes accepted methods of BC determination (near and far velocity or near velocity and time of flight combined with measured environmental conditions ie: Kestrel), then I am in agreement.

However, when "real world field testing" amounts to pseudo science of "confirming" theoretical BCs from long range drops and not bothering to record the actual environmental conditions (temp, pressure, and humidity), then I am doubtful. We've seen a lot of copper and brass bullets fail to demonstrate measured BCs that were expected/predicted from their lengths and form factors. A lot of Nosler's numbers are inaccurate, and the BCs published by Barnes have gotten much more accurate (and lower) since they have actually been measuring their BCs on their 300 yard range.

Even Berger has gone through several rounds of adjusting their published BCs downward to better fit repeatable experimental measurements. They went through a first round of downward adjustments after Litz joined them, and then they even needed to adjust a .338 BC downward after independent testing failed to confirm an early experimental BC that was determined by Litz.

BCs that are really this high are an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary validation, including independent testing. We'll be happy to schedule BC testing of .308 bullets if someone sends them to us, but at price of buying these bullets off the shelf, we're no longer eager to spend our own money testing every new claim of extraordinary BCs. We've spent thousands of dollars testing these claims in the past, and we've been underwhelmed.

I think were close to the same page. I agree we need to take environmental conditions into account, that's how I get my dope to figure my drops.

I do think by considering the bullets dimension, construction and shape we can get a good idea of its BC based on current offering and their known performance. This is what I did when the LRAB's came out. By considering the 308 210 gr dimensions, construction and shape and comparing it to existing similar bullets I figured it was going to be very close in BC to the 210 Berger and 208 Amax. Two members here have confirmed that in some thorough testing. I was present for one test in which they were shot through an Oehler 35 for MV and shot over an accustic SuperChrono at 1K. Drops were calculated based on a guesstimated BC from info to date. The vertical spread was less than .5 MOA @ 1K and the MV and 1K velocities all agreed with the BC which was very close the mentioned bullets.

Yes, I do remember Berger went through 1 overall revision of and did have to revise the BC of their 338 OTM. I think Brian would admit his work isn't perfect, but IMO, it's about as good as it gets. Factors like stability can also affect BC. If a bullet is over stabilized, it won't nose over properly down range which would be detrimental to BC.

I think I can reasonably say that the advertized BC of CE bullets that I have looked closely at like the C21'a and C22's "seem" to be close to reality. That said, Litz tested the C32's for a G1 BC of .478 while advertised is .560. But we should note that Litz velocity range was 3000 fps to 1500 fps whereas the CE tests were based on an MV 3250 which will give a higher BC result. I'm more interested in the G7 BC. Interestingly, CE's tests of their C21, a more aggressive version (better form factor and longer) of the C32, showed a G1 BC of only .570, almost identical to the C32, and the MV used was 3380 fps. I think the C21 BC is closer to reality. I'll be finding out for myself before long.

Cheers
 
Here's an interesting thread to reference.

Tipped .375 CEB rocking a 1.0 G1 past 2k yds.

.375 GSC 414 VS CEB 425 at 2050 yards



I don't personally know if the BC's will fall in or not. For them they did, they don't use static BC's they shoot them. Will that BC work for me? or Mark or Broz? Maybe, maybe not.

I'm willing to test a few :)


t

Thanks :)

I've had another work out & it appears the BC is just over 1.0.

I do give the Baro, temp, humidity, distance (PLRF10), angle & muzzle velocity at the start of the video.

I ended up with 52.5 moa up to the aim point from 100 yard zero & the impacts were 2moa high, so around 50.5 moa up from 100 to 2050 yards give or take, not a bad BC in anyones book.

The CE projectiles seal tite band doesn't stand out on the projectile as far as the drive bands of the GSC.

Which possibly won't be hurting the BC as much as the drive bands do.

I'm really looking forward to testing Dans new projectiles :)
 
Welcome,

After chatting with you on the 'Hide I thought it would be good info for the folks here.


That's a dern impressive BC >1.0... dang. I do have to say that i'm jealous.


Of course, now you've got me researching 375 parts.... :cool:




t
 
Welcome,

After chatting with you on the 'Hide I thought it would be good info for the folks here.


That's a dern impressive BC >1.0... dang. I do have to say that i'm jealous.


Of course, now you've got me researching 375 parts.... :cool:


t

They are pretty big projectiles, outside most guys understanding.



.223 on the left

The Lazer will be a long range projectile with great terminal performance.
 
Physics say it is dang near impossible to make a .308" diameter/180 grain bullet to reach the .600 BC mark unless you're driving them stupid fast. Around 3000'/sec, you're stuck with around .575. That's assuming it has a form factor equal to the 210VLD or the 208 Amax which is hard to do with jacketed lead in a 180 grain bullet. You can't have that much nose and boat tail and have adequate bearing surface. Since solid copper has roughly only 86% the specifec gravity of jacketed lead, it's more feasible to achieve a form factor equal to the 208/210s. Simply put, making a copper bullet the same dimensions as a 208 Amax, you'd end up with a bullet weight close to 180 grains. With that in mind, the lower section density of the 180 versus the 208 will limit its BC to around .575. Still not bad. I'd be happy with a 180 that had a BC of .575. If they'd expand at 1500'sec, I'd actually buy some.
 
Physics say it is dang near impossible to make a .308" diameter/180 grain bullet to reach the .600 BC mark unless you're driving them stupid fast. Around 3000'/sec, you're stuck with around .575. That's assuming it has a form factor equal to the 210VLD or the 208 Amax which is hard to do with jacketed lead in a 180 grain bullet. You can't have that much nose and boat tail and have adequate bearing surface. Since solid copper has roughly only 86% the specifec gravity of jacketed lead, it's more feasible to achieve a form factor equal to the 208/210s. Simply put, making a copper bullet the same dimensions as a 208 Amax, you'd end up with a bullet weight close to 180 grains. With that in mind, the lower section density of the 180 versus the 208 will limit its BC to around .575. Still not bad. I'd be happy with a 180 that had a BC of .575. If they'd expand at 1500'sec, I'd actually buy some.

Michael, I agree. The advertised BC of the 180 C21 is .570. It's form is almost identical to the 210 Berger with a BC of .63. I happen to have both in my hand. The measured length of the C21 is 1.491, the 210 is 1.482
 
Physics say it is dang near impossible to make a .308" diameter/180 grain bullet to reach the .600 BC mark unless you're driving them stupid fast. Around 3000'/sec, you're stuck with around .575. That's assuming it has a form factor equal to the 210VLD or the 208 Amax which is hard to do with jacketed lead in a 180 grain bullet. You can't have that much nose and boat tail and have adequate bearing surface. Since solid copper has roughly only 86% the specifec gravity of jacketed lead, it's more feasible to achieve a form factor equal to the 208/210s. Simply put, making a copper bullet the same dimensions as a 208 Amax, you'd end up with a bullet weight close to 180 grains. With that in mind, the lower section density of the 180 versus the 208 will limit its BC to around .575. Still not bad. I'd be happy with a 180 that had a BC of .575. If they'd expand at 1500'sec, I'd actually buy some.

Michael, after reading your post again I went back to the OP and realized the .6 BC claim for the .308 180 gr Lazer.

Not sure why the jump in BC from the CEB C21 of .570 to .6 for the 180 Lazer. I will say the 215 Berger has a significantly improved form factor over the 210 with significantly increased BC from .63 to .696. Maybe CE has also improved the form factor of the 180 Lazer? Going from .57 tp .6 is less of a jump than going from .63 to .696.
 
So this thread is a few years old but it begs the question - now that we've had a few years soak time for the Laser's to be used - are folks using them and how are they working compared to the MTH.

..any thoughts, experiences?

Jay
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top