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
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Two New Hammers
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="RockyMtnMT" data-source="post: 1182603" data-attributes="member: 7999"><p>What you are asking for is going to be the next phase. Our greatest concern now as we get ready to start taking orders is accuracy first. Our bullet design now is very forgiving and easy to load. Pretty much been no tuning needed. Just load to mag length or just off the lands, get to velocity, and you are good to go. </p><p></p><p>We had that exact discussion this morning when I cut these two proto types. Shorter bearing surface/longer ogive. They will have to get lighter but should still gain in bc. Lighter always loses bc and it has to be made up in form. The question is if the better form can get better than the heavier bullet. I think it can, and we will get after it. </p><p></p><p>The smaller meplat is what we started with. 1mm. We did all of our hunting last fall with that design. Killed 25 big game animals perfectly. We started testing low velocity impacts and found that the 1mm hole is just not reliable at this time. There will be more testing in the future with other alloys to try and make it work. Better bc will always be a goal for us. Terminal ballistics will never be sacrificed for bc in a hunting bullet. We changed to a 1.5mm hollow pt and a more aggressive ogive. In testing last weekend we found little or no change in bc, but much better low velocity impact terminal ballistics. Accuracy had no change. We will also work on a target line of bullets that will have bc and accuracy as the primary goals.</p><p></p><p>Bare with us, we will get you what you want.</p><p></p><p>Steve</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RockyMtnMT, post: 1182603, member: 7999"] What you are asking for is going to be the next phase. Our greatest concern now as we get ready to start taking orders is accuracy first. Our bullet design now is very forgiving and easy to load. Pretty much been no tuning needed. Just load to mag length or just off the lands, get to velocity, and you are good to go. We had that exact discussion this morning when I cut these two proto types. Shorter bearing surface/longer ogive. They will have to get lighter but should still gain in bc. Lighter always loses bc and it has to be made up in form. The question is if the better form can get better than the heavier bullet. I think it can, and we will get after it. The smaller meplat is what we started with. 1mm. We did all of our hunting last fall with that design. Killed 25 big game animals perfectly. We started testing low velocity impacts and found that the 1mm hole is just not reliable at this time. There will be more testing in the future with other alloys to try and make it work. Better bc will always be a goal for us. Terminal ballistics will never be sacrificed for bc in a hunting bullet. We changed to a 1.5mm hollow pt and a more aggressive ogive. In testing last weekend we found little or no change in bc, but much better low velocity impact terminal ballistics. Accuracy had no change. We will also work on a target line of bullets that will have bc and accuracy as the primary goals. Bare with us, we will get you what you want. Steve [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Two New Hammers
Top