one of us
| My guess would go to GS HV bullets. Pretty long and sleek.
Turok |
| | | Posts: 219 | Location: Prince George, B.C | Registered: 07 March 2001 | 
IP
|
|
one of us
| My GUESS would be the 300 gr Sierra Matchking in .338 for general consumption. A rarer bird is the 400 gr bullet for the .408 Chey-Tac made by Lost River Ballistics. I think it's up in the middle to high .8 range. |
| | | Posts: 9647 | Location: Yankeetown, FL | Registered: 31 August 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Go with the plastic tipped hunting bullet that shoots best at long range testing in your rifle. I would make feeding them thru the magazine a requirement. While the Partition is the standard it's lead nose can be damaged by recoil and that can't be a good thing.
I think someone is kidding you on Matchkings and the X bullets are still in development. |
| | |
one of us
| Not kidding at all. They have thinner jackets than conventional bullets and at ranges where high BC is relevant they work very well. Obviously not "controlled expansion bullets" in the context of the Partition or Scirroco, but at lower velocities who needs that anyway? First order of business is to hit your target. If you think your bullets are going to be impacting at high velocity, BC is not relevant for the most part. I've seen the holes MK's make.......
FWIW, the Chey-Tac bullet is of the controlled variety. Lost River Ballistics makes a number of bullets in different calibers of that style.
That would be all I have to say on the subject. |
| | | Posts: 9647 | Location: Yankeetown, FL | Registered: 31 August 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| You know I never read that multipage MK thread! I did look at a couple of pages over time and maybe I got the ones that were just full of testosterone.
I am interested in MK's at least for long range varmints and I said I might make my own tests with my water filled cartons, which I have a lot of confidence in for uniformity, but the path of least resistance is to just use a real hunting bullet. I do know that MK's blow up far more than normal bullets at close range. Now that there are the new bonded core bullets we have even more choices.
One could carry more than one type of ammo with them also if a particular bullet was ideal at very long range and another better at close range. I do this with some rifles depending on circumstances.
But every other page of the new Sierra manual says "Sierra does not recommend MatchKing bullets for hunting applications" |
| | |
one of us
| I am setting up for a 450meter shot on a roe deer out at a friends place just for the fun of it, I think I will use a Lapua Scenar or a Sierra MK, in this occasion.
It might not be 1000meter shooting, but I am using a 6PPC! |
| | | Posts: 2286 | Location: Aussie in Italy | Registered: 20 March 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| I don't know if they have a website but I think the "lost river" (???I think I have the name right???) bullet is of super duper sleek design.
If I remember they are built somewhat like a barnes but have super high coeficients. I think I remeber some 30 cal bullets being in the .7's or maybe even .8's. |
| | | Posts: 2002 | Location: central wi | Registered: 13 September 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Yeah, a guy by the name of Warren Jensen runs that company, and come to think of it i do believe they have some of the highest B.C. big game bullets made. He posts on www.longrangehunting.com. Man he is one educated fella. |
| | | Posts: 926 | Location: pueblo.co | Registered: 03 December 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| |
| | | Posts: 9647 | Location: Yankeetown, FL | Registered: 31 August 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote:
But every other page of the new Sierra manual says "Sierra does not recommend MatchKing bullets for hunting applications"
Read the owners manual that comes with your rifle. They state not to use reloads.
Turok |
| | | Posts: 219 | Location: Prince George, B.C | Registered: 07 March 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| I seem to recall reading an article where the BC's of various premiums were tested. At the velocities of the 7 mm RUM, the Swift Scirocco, 150 gr. bullet was the highest at about .500.
BC varies with velocity. See Sierra's web site.
I'm curious what you want the information for. Bullets vary alot on how well they hold together, at what velocity they expand at all, and how much their BC's change in flight. Some high BC bullets, like Sierra's Palma bullet, don't shoot very accurately in some rifles. E |
| | | Posts: 1022 | Location: Placerville,CA,USA | Registered: 28 May 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Eremicus, just got the latest info. on the new Accubonds and noticed the 200 gr. .308 has a B.C. of .588, (i haven't seen any velocity-dependent multiple B.C. calculations yet for the bullet) but the wheels started turning anyway. Have a buddy of mine that's using a 16" 7.82 Patriot XP. He's getting slightly better than .30-06 performance from the rig. So i ran theoretical velocities through Gerald Perry's Exbal Ballistics Program for downrange energy/velocity/wind drift figures, just for the fun of it really. We are starting to shoot in a tactical manner afield, and it has been an educational experience to say the least. I guess i have an academically inquiring mind. |
| | | Posts: 926 | Location: pueblo.co | Registered: 03 December 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Pop, you guys have already been that-- thanks.
Just found out from my buddy that he called Nosler, and they "predict" that the .30 200 gr Accu. should expand down to 1600 f.p.s., which just might make it a contender for elk out of his BIG pistol. |
| | | Posts: 926 | Location: pueblo.co | Registered: 03 December 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Rsy, have you ever seen a 1000 yd. benchrest competitor use a round nose bullet? If your equation was correct then the whole science of external ballistics would not exist. The equation B.C.=B.S. is a mathematical and physical impossibility.
[ 05-07-2003, 20:19: Message edited by: sscoyote ] |
| | | Posts: 926 | Location: pueblo.co | Registered: 03 December 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| sscoyote:
Touch�, mon ami.
Kudos on the usage of "quantitate." Triple-word score, for sure.
I admit, after reading your post, again, that you have made the commendable point of putting on-game performance before trajectory and accuracy.
So many have the bullet-choice process reversed in their minds. Like you, I first look for what I want the bullet to do on arrival at destination. Then, and only then, do I consider the task of getting it there accurately.
In a nutshell, I say sectional density before ballistic coefficient. It appears you think along those same lines.
In answer to your original question, I'd say the Swift Scirocco's may be the way to go.
Good luck,
RSY |
| | | Posts: 785 | Location: Central Texas | Registered: 01 October 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote:
Originally posted by sscoyote:
Rsy, have you ever seen a 1000 yd. benchrest competitor use a round nose bullet? If your equation was correct then the whole science of external ballistics would not exist. The equation B.C.=B.S. is a mathematical and physical impossibility.
Hey! What happened to "quantitate?"
To answer your question...no. But, I assumed we were talking about hunting applications since you mentioned "controlled expansion big game bullet." Bechrest is a whole other arena.
Maybe I should have qualified my equation by saying B.C. = B.S. at normal hunting ranges.
RSY |
| | | Posts: 785 | Location: Central Texas | Registered: 01 October 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Idle curiosity: RSY, define "controlled expansion" for me, and "normal range". Your personal spin is fine. Fill in the blank: BC for a given form and caliber is proportional to ___________________. POP, don't get all het up now...Do game bullets have to be "controlled expansion"? What are solids? I knew somebody would jump in, ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif) let 'er rip boys! ![[Razz]](images/icons/tongue.gif) BTW, I lied. I'M BAAACK! "Often times it happens we live our life in chains, and never even know we have the key." ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) |
| | | Posts: 9647 | Location: Yankeetown, FL | Registered: 31 August 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote:
Originally posted by RSY:
that you have made the commendable point of putting on-game performance before trajectory and accuracy.
How do you ever get it "on game?"
quote:
So many have the bullet-choice process reversed in their minds. Like you, I first look for what I want the bullet to do on arrival at destination. Then, and only then, do I consider the task of getting it there accurately.
Talk about reversed.... Who cares what it will do "at destination" if you don't get it there first?
No, it isn't a big deal for woods hunters. Some of us hunt in the wide open spaces. And the wind blows (compare the wind drift of your favorite round nose to that of a SPBT at 400 yards).
Silly me. All this time I thought accurate shot placement was important or something. ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif)
sscoyote,
Give the 200 Accubonds a try. |
| | | Posts: 920 | Location: Mukilteo, WA | Registered: 29 November 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Jon:
I never said to ignore accurate shot placement. I just think it's secondary, however slightly, to on-game performance.
C'mon, man. I looked at your bio...you're an engineer, after all. Shooting an animal is no different from any other process you might analyze.
You start with the ultimate desired result:
1. Dead deer (for example). How do I get that?
2. By pushing a suitably destructive bullet through it's vitals. How do I do that?
3. By using a suitable bullet that can also be delivered consistently to the point of my choosing, within reason.
It does us no good to accurately hit our animal with a bullet that doesn't do what we want when it gets there.
It would be like me mailing you a check for some funds I owed you, only to have it bounce:
What's the problem, I got a check to you? Well, it didn't do what you wanted it to when it got there. Oh, yeah...that was the whole point, after all, wasn't it. Sorry 'bout that.
RSY |
| | | Posts: 785 | Location: Central Texas | Registered: 01 October 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| RSY Brilliant analogy with the check. As to the question, if I HAD to push the envelope it would be with Accubonds........I'd still rather crawl a little closer. Gabe |
| | | Posts: 410 | Location: Granite City, WI | Registered: 10 March 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Excellent points one and all. I swear seems like bullet performance on big game is like pizza. Everybody's got their own flavor-- for sure. RSY, sectional density is always in the back of my mind, but unfortunately it won't help me print out a trajectory curve and energy chart to ponder. I think my partner and i will be trying some of those Accubonds shortly.
P.S. RSY, whenever i play scrabble my mother always beats me-- Touche' back atchya. |
| | | Posts: 926 | Location: pueblo.co | Registered: 03 December 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| quote:
Originally posted by RSY:
It would be like me mailing you a check for some funds I owed you, only to have it bounce:
What's the problem, I got a check to you? Well, it didn't do what you wanted it to when it got there. Oh, yeah...that was the whole point, after all, wasn't it. Sorry 'bout that.
Just what do you think will happen when a 200 AccuBond is accurately placed in the vitals of a deer? Think it'll bounce off?
Do you realize its SD is .301? Have you seen how thick its jacket is (and it isn't soft pure copper like the Swifts)? You realize it's bonded, right? You realize it weighs 200 grains?
You realize 243's kill deer pretty well with accurate shot placement, right? If you don't think this bullet is tough enough for a deer I'd hate to see what you think is required for elk. ![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif) BTW, I do plan on using them on elk unless testing shows they don't live up to my expectations. |
| | | Posts: 920 | Location: Mukilteo, WA | Registered: 29 November 2001 |
IP
|
|
![[Mad]](images/icons/mad.gif){kind=icon}
