New "to me" made in Montana monolithic bullets ...

[codyadams]

Arrows without fletching have serious yaw problems. As those videos demonstrate they are only very slightly weighted in the front compared to total weight and as a result drop quickly. The way that is compensated for is by gripping the heavier front weighted shafts more forward.

Trying to make even comparisons too those weapons and a modern bullet that is already very light in the front end, or VLD's that are even lighter is like comparing a boulder to a Porsche.

I'm not trying to be argumentative at all on any of this, just discussion to me, so just to try to prevent it, let's not have this shift to a negative or demeaning/condescending argument

A properly tuned bow/rest/arrow set up can shoot a bare shaft surprisingly well, again, the fletching make the arrows much more forgiving. Obviously you want to use fletchings, however all I'm saying is arrows CAN shoot well without them. Again, the bow, rest, arrows, and shooter (as far as proper release) must be in tune for them to shoot accurately. Proof of this is many videos you can watch doing what is called "bare shaft tuning", this is often done out to 30 yards (maybe more) to fine tune a bow setup.

As far as only slightly front of center, it is still front of center.

And I don't understand how the laws of physics would apply to one projectile, and not another....to keep point forward, weight needs to be slightly forward on spears, even if only slightly. I know bullets are different, and I am by no means an expert at all in this, but to my understanding, stability is achieved by either having weight foc or by rotation. Bullets are not foc weight, however they are spinning at extremely high RPM's. I very well may be wrong, but shifting weight slightly more forward would seem to help stability?

 

[WildRose]

I'm not trying to be argumentative at all on any of this, just discussion to me, so just to try to prevent it, let's not have this shift to a negative or demeaning/condescending argument

A properly tuned bow/rest/arrow set up can shoot a bare shaft surprisingly well, again, the fletching make the arrows much more forgiving. Obviously you want to use fletchings, however all I'm saying is arrows CAN shoot well without them. Again, the bow, rest, arrows, and shooter (as far as proper release) must be in tune for them to shoot accurately. Proof of this is many videos you can watch doing what is called "bare shaft tuning", this is often done out to 30 yards to fine tune a bow setup.

As far as only slightly front of center, it is still front of center.

And I don't understand how the laws of physics would apply to one projectile, and not another....to keep point forward, weight needs to be slightly forward on spears, even if only slightly. I know bullets are different, and I am by no means an expert at all in this, but to my understanding, stability is achieved by either having weight foc or by rotation. Bullets are not foc weight, however they are spinning at extremely high RPM's. I very well may be wrong, but shifting weight slightly more forward would seem to help stability?

They apply because they are very different projectiles that are launched in very different ways and greatly different speeds.

They had to come up with all kinds of new math formulas for aerodynamics the close we got to the sound barrier for the same reason and for the same reason it's taken nearly fifty years to really come up with aircraft that can sustain hypersonic flight and still be able to land on a runway that's not five miles long.

As for the arrows, there's no way to control for yaw or induce the necessary spin for stabilization without fletchings.

For the same reasons ballistics changed dramatically as we progressed from round ball to mini ball to round nosed bullets and finally to the spire point type bullets we've been using for most of the last hundred years. We found out that when we added a longer nose there was less resistance to the wind and they would hold velocity much, much longer so the ballistic formulas had to change to accommodate for the new shape. Same things we've seen as we progressed to ever longer profiles with traditional ogives thence into hybrid and VLD's with a completely different geometry.

Some things are just more aerodynamic at low speed while others much more efficient at super sonic speeds.

As for moving the center of balance forward on a bullet, that's going to cause it to pitch down at least to some degree compared to a more traditionally styled bullet all else being equal and that means it's not going to ride the wind as well. You've got to account for that difference somehow in the rest of the bullet to avoid that. Time and bullets on target compared to similar weight bullets of traditional flat base or tapered bases will tell. Like I said, it's just a theoretical concern but no data yet to support it.

 

[WildRose]

If the bow is properly tuned a bare shaft arrow will still fly true. Read up on bare shaft tuning if you haven't already.

Read it and tried it when I was still shooting a bow a lot in the 90's. The idea was to tune to get best performance with a bare shaft and then fletch the arrow. I'm not unfamiliar.

 

[Deleted member 109523]

wow! This thread got way out there. But oh well.

I was bare shaft tuning arrows out to 50 yards, 25 years ago. It was the thing to do. I would want my bare shaft to land about 2 to 3" above my fletched group at 50 yds.
Any time we tried a hard helical vane set up, it hardly ever work out. It would always disrupt the fixed broadhead at the front too much. Our vanes are always straight at a very slight offset. Even with the new closed blades.
A big part of it is weight distribution and spine of your arrow. Always front of center

 

[WildRose]

let's not have this shift to a negative or demeaning/condescending argument

Just to be clear if I was trying to be rude I'd leave no doubt.

Boulders launched from a Trebuchet have very different aerodynamics than a Porsche zipping down the highway, a 120mm motar round, a rocket, or a bullet.

 

[Deleted member 109523]

I've always wondered what the BC is on my arrows

 

[WildRose]

I've always wondered what the BC is on my arrows

Not very high but the sectional density is outstanding, hence the great penetration at low velocity.

There's probably a Youtube Video you can find explaining it HA!

 

[Creedmoor shooter]

If your bow is 100% perfectly tuned the arrow doesn't need fetching to be stable. Lots of guys bare shaft tune. As said before, fetching is for stability and forgiveness if your bow isn't 100% tuned or even if your form is off slightly

 

[cohunt]

Ok, back to cbb and stability at distance.
Iirc, when Robert first came out with the tipped 168gr version- he had some guys shoot 1000 yard groups with 308w bolt action rifles....for those guys, they proved to be accurate and stable.

As I said in prior posts, I tried both the tipped 168, and non tipped 165 and they didn't impress me. I do like his 195 mkz's for subsonic 308- but not for the cavity- for the expansion properties at slow speeds.

There are quite a few guys shooting his bullets in the 6.8spc ar chassis for hogs that like them too.

His bullets are monithic/solid copper so its a good idea to copper strip your barrel before switching to his to avoid dis-similar alloy galling (excess copper build up)

I did not experience an "ease" of load development for the 165/168 nor the 195's but others have reported quick load build up. He has been making these bullets for at least 5 years now-- if you want more info on them try the 68forums lots of guys use his bullets there

 

[xsn10s]

Ok, back to cbb and stability at distance.
Iirc, when Robert first came out with the tipped 168gr version- he had some guys shoot 1000 yard groups with bolt action rifles....for those guys, they proved to be accurate and stable.

As I said in prior posts, I tried both the tipped 168, and non tipped 165 and they didn't impress me. I do like his 195 mkz's for subsonic 308- but not for the cavity- for the expansion properties at slow speeds.

There are quite a few guys shooting his bullets in the 6.8spc ar chassis for hogs that like them too.

His bullets are monithic/solid copper so its a good idea to copper strip your barrel before switching to his to avoid dis-similar alloy galling (excess copper build up)

I did not experience an "ease" of load development for the 165/168 nor the 195's but others have reported quick load build up. He has been making these bullets for at least 5 years now-- if you want more info on them try the 68forums lots of guys use his bullets there

Yeah if people search YT there are videos on pig hunts using 6.8 spc using CBB. I think some 6.5 also.

 

[FEENIX]

Ok, back to cbb and stability at distance.
Iirc, when Robert first came out with the tipped 168gr version- he had some guys shoot 1000 yard groups with 308w bolt action rifles....for those guys, they proved to be accurate an

I appreciate the info and for bringing it back on course. I found this 2018 info and looks very promising.

https://www.68forums.com/threads/168-grain-mkz-t-our-latest-projectile.112474/page-2

Ed

 

[Old Rooster]

Nope, I know you always put things to the test, and I commend you for your openness in giving them a shot.

I am not sure when I get around it, but I ordered the 168g too to try on my .30 Gibbs.

View attachment 328432

FEENIX how much longer are Cavity Back Bullets you bought?

 

[FEENIX]

FEENIX how much longer are Cavity Back Bullets you bought?

The OAL for the 168 CBB is 1.480."

 

[Old Rooster]

Thanks,the Hammer Hunter 166 gr I have is 1.406 so .074 longer than a Hammer Hunter so about 1/8 of an inch longer.
I was wondering if it was too long to use in a standard 308 win.Looks like it would fit just fine.
Thanks again