Two 7mm (0.284") caliber monolithic 130gr bullets:

No. 1 with BC of 0.577 and

No.2 with BC of 0.253.

Which of the two is the more stable and reliable bullet and why?

You didn't mention the twist of the barrel they will be fired from.


Also, Where did you find a 130 w/ a BC of .577? I need to get some of those. .577 BC, 130grns, and a MV of around 3400 fps! Talk about flat, that is if they were accurate by any means.

Reloader

Twist = 1:9.5"

Flat indeed and very accurate! Premium grade stuff!

From your reply above I derive that the 0.577 is the one - why? That is, apart from the flat trajectory.

I for one am not sure.
I am of the opinion, bullet #2 is a round nose, and bullet #1 is obviously a very arodynamic bullet.
For a 7 mm 130 gr Bullet to have such a high BC, I can only picture a bullet very little berring surface. Probably leading to less stability than the Round nose(if thats what it is) witch has a long berring surface.
So a givin rifle would likly stabalize #2 better , but down range #2 would begin to woble or loose stabilty sooner than #1.
Do I get the job MR Nosler ?
...tj3006

The two bullets -

No. 1


No. 2


Reloader, Thomas, your comments and reasons, please.

quote:

Originally posted by Jagter:

Which of the two is the more stable and reliable bullet and why?

Stable how, in flight or in tissue?

Reliable how, accuracy? Terminal performance? Expanding or not expanding bullets?

Same twist and velocity?

Assuming a lot of things, and talking in very general terms, shorter bullets stabilize easier and are less likely to tumble both in flight and in flesh. Assuming the low BC bullet is shorter, it would tend to be more stable.

There's more to the equation though...I'm merely talking about in flight resistance to tumbling...

Jagter,
There is an error in the mail I sent you yesterday. The BC should be .477 and not .577. I am currently working with spitser bullets (no hollow points) and made a lookup error. Sorry about that.

Reloader, that was a good call. BC of .577 would indeed be something to crow about on a hollow point hunting bullet.

Sorry for that, gentlemen. Thanks for the correction, Gerard.

Still, BC of 0.477 compared to BC of 0.253 on two monolithic bullets of same diameter, 0.284" and both 130gr - bullet lengths should be very close.

CDH:

quote:

Stable how, in flight or in tissue?
In both.

Reliable how, accuracy? Terminal performance?
Both.
Expanding or not expanding bullets?
Expanding.
Same twist and velocity?
Probably the same twist, but not necessarily the same velocity!

Any ideas?

/

After the above from Alf it is obvious that bullet no. 1, the GSCHV, is the more stable bullet in flight over all distances - the short and the long ranges.

I know that field results are not accepted as scientifically 100% correct researched and tested results - no problem with that either.

Yet, if I have to make a choice between the two bullets, I am positive that no meat hunter would blame me if I start running when somebody try to convince me to use the bullet described in the next paragraph!

A field result report on the no. 2 bullet by a professor said: "A large oval hole of 150mm to 170mm in the Blesbuck was proof of the bullets ability to kill."

However, for a bullet to perform time and again reliable 'in target' - that is straight line penetration, minimum meat damage - shot out of both my own .308, 7mm Rem Mag and my son's .270, into targets ranging from Springbuck, Impala, Blesbuck, Bluewildebeest and Kudu, is for me far more than enough evidence to fully support the GSCHV product all the way.
Even if the BC is not 0.577!

So what your saying is that the TSX or bullet #2 expanded too much? If thats so thats the first time i have heard anyone accuse the TSX of over expansion. Dollar for dollar the terminal effects of the TSX is un-matched, too much bone and muscle it will shed petals and keep on truckin. As far as in flight properties, BC really only makes a difference after about 500yds, way too far to be shooting animals at.

The worth of BC is under rated.

Comparing two bullets of differing BC, as is done here (bullet no 2 is not a TSX, by the way) a look at the downrange numbers show:
Condition: Both bullets are fired at a MV of 3200 fps, zeroed at 200m and wind is 3 o'clock at 15mph.

Bullet 1 with a BC of .477


Bullet 2 with a BC of .253


Looking at the trajectory, if both are zeroed at 200m, the difference at 100 is insignificant. Of course it is 0 at 200m for both and any hunter worth his salt can deal with the 2" lower trajectory of the lower BC bullet at 300m. At 400m the gap is much wider and at 500 it is a no contest. However, the majority of us do not shoot much beyond 200 and those who do, have tables and tall turrets to help them.

That is not where it ends. At 200m, bullet 2 has double the wind drift of bullet 1 and from there things go downhill fast. Time of flight difference is .016sec and an animal that spooks as the shot breaks, will easily move upwards of 3" in that time difference. At 300m the time of flight difference is two and a half times that, or 7.5" and quickly becomes the difference between an animal tracked or skinned. At 200m the higher BC bullet will deliver 15% more momentum and 32% more energy and at 300 it will deliver 25% more momentum and 56% more energy. Take another look at BC numbers. It is not just about trajectory.

/

I find this all rather interesting, the high bc bullet might be real good in my CZ 550 full stock, its chamberd for 7X57, and if it shoots them acuratly enough, it might push my range up 50 or a 100 yards,
but frankly I really should not be shooting 400 yards anyway,
If I was to load them into my 7mmSTW I could probably push them to 35 or 3600, Mabye some shooters would find that usfull, but I think a whole bunch more would try , even though they are not really good enough shots to take advantage of them.
I bought the STW awhile back thinking Extream velocity and flat trajectory, would
coupled with a 4.5X14 scope would make a city boy into sargent york, I was rong !!! ...tj3006

/

Please note: No brand name was ever mentioned by myself for bullet no. 2. Defintely not a TSX!

fgulla wrote:

quote:

So what your saying is that the TSX or bullet #2 expanded too much?

Not at all, but it definitely tumbled in a horrendous way to create a crater of 150mm (5.9") to 170mm (6.7") in diameter.

Alf:
If the GSCHV tumbles at all (which I doubt very strongly) it definitely tumbles not nearly as horrendous as bullet no. 2 does.
In other words it just, just might happen after the petals were shed.

However, as I said I strongly doubt that, simply because the exit holes were caliber size only in the cases I have seen and mentioned earlier.
Só, for the GSCHV flat nose cylinder - still being longer than it's own width - it would be miraculous to exit nose or tail first just at the point of exit, don't you think?

/

quote:

The Boat tailed bullet will now have a FN configuration pointed forward

Alf, you mean with the FN configuration pointed backward, right? It is an unlikely scenario though. In the design stages with HV bullets we have seen that an HV, that has shed the petals, only tumbles in target under extremely severe conditions. (Excluded the last inch or two of travel) The only significant instances of HVs tumbling in the target during a new design work up, have been when the bullets failed to open. This is then remedied by a redesign of the bullet nose. We have also seen well designed HVs that tumble on impact because they arrive at too much angle of attack (as opposed to a too high angle of incidence) and, without fail, that is fixed by shooting from a faster twist rate or by going to a shorter boat tail and shaft, but with the same nose design. In this instance, decreasing the Sd substantially increased the terminal peformance of the bullet.


As an aside, we design for good performance at high angles of incidence but cannot accommodate high angles of attack. High angles of attack is not a bullet problem but a mismatch problem caused by incorrect choices or obstacles encountered between muzzle and target.

As with the other tests and design parameters you quote for hardball mil projectiles, we have seen in practise that there is no way that a non deforming, pointed or ogived shape will remain nose forward during penetration. The laws of physics (Skyler or otherwise) dictate that it must tumble. For a hunting bullet, tumbling is not an option as it invariably results in a curved path from impact to exit/rest.

quote:

Originally posted by fgulla:
BC really only makes a difference after about 500yds, way too far to be shooting animals at.

500yards too far? i think not. watched a guy shoot 3 goats in a row @ 1000 yards with a 7mm WSM. depends on the person as to where they draw the limits with range, Id be happy to shoot over 500 yards on deer.

Gerard's reply to RIP on another thread -

quote:

Now if you want a 308 win to come alive and turn into a real good grief rifle, use the 130gr HV at 3150 to 3200 fps. Our last field trials with that bullet included 7 eland, from 80 to 200m and bush shooting on black wildebeest, down to as close as 30m.

RIP wrote: quote:
Smaller than .308 is for varmints .. unquote

What have you been smoking, your socks?

Every owner of a 7mm will tell you how wrong you are. You have opened the door to some serious flaming and I suggest you shut it quickly.

Gerard wrote:

quote:

For a hunting bullet, tumbling is not an option as it invariably results in a curved path from impact to exit/rest.

Exactly, straight line, complete penetration leaving behind a permanent wound channel through which you could push a dowel stick of caliber size from entrance to exit wounds. Wound channel in between maybe slightly larger due to secondary projectiles' effect in the penetration process.

Having selected the right bullet length matching your rifle's twist, drive those bullets at manufacturer's recommended maximum speed. All you need to do more is to place those shots properly and down they'll go from Springbuck, Impala, Blesbuck, Bluewildebeest to Kudu.
All the above with .270; .308 and 7mm Rem Mag.

Rather large varmints these are, don't you think?

/

/

yes they were wild goats, unsure of his load or velocity although he did tell me. the rifle was his own custom built one with reloaded rounds. nightforce scope etc, cleaned up the F class comp @ 1000yards with it(over here anyway). conditions were perfect. used a leica 1200 RF to get the distance. actually i think he was using heavy A-Max projectiles.loads were hot, well over what any book says

nesika action, shillen barrel and a mcmillan stock. nightforce scope. 162 GR A-MAX .620 BC 3000fps+ which is only 85 come up clicks at 1000 yards, if it was zeroed at 300.believe it, its easy.

A magnificent BC of 0.620 for a 7mm bullet!!!

If a 130gr bullet drops 346 inches over a 1000 yds, what will a 162gr do?

- shooting animals at 1000 yds, I don't buy!

220.1 inches, if its doing 3000fps. all in the BC isnt it?

Could you post a picture of the specific bullet and all it's dimensions, please?

Out the front of our shop, when it still functioned as a gunshop, there is a parking lot, then a dual carriage way street, then two aparment blocks and, visible through the space between the two, a third behind them.

The ranged distances are: Postbox on the edge of the parking lot - 52 meters, divider of the dual carriage way - 100m, the front of the apartment blocks - 130m and the third apartment block - 310m.

The number of guys who told me of their 700m to 1000m shots with factory ammo in their 270/303/30-06 or whatever is legion. I would listen to the story and then say "700/1000m? About like the front of that aparment block behind the one across the street?" Regardless of distance claimed, every single liar, with the exception of one, used to say that it was about the distance. The one (he claimed a 700m shot on a running kudu) said that the far apartment block was at least 1000m.

Most claims, such as the one Paul from nz makes, are absolute trash - if the equipment and shooter are scrutinised and found wanting. However, do not make the mistake of underestimating all who make such claims, across the board. The instinctive reaction is to disbelieve, because the liars have trained us to do so, but there are some very capable shooters out there and they have equipment that is devastatingly accurate.

I was sent some pictures by a reloader recently who recovered HV bullets from his range backstop at 1000m. He said that he did not chrono the shots at 1000m because he was scared of hitting the screens.

There are shooters out there who can do what Paul claims, make no mistake about that.

A friend of mine, (I'll put it no stronger than that since he would not like to be known) once when we were at a 200 yard range on a fun competition day, instead of aiming at the target as such he took out the four pins holding the target to the frame. He was a one off, who could do allmost unbelieveable things with a rifle.
He would not take part in club competitions when there was a prize to be won, he thought it unfair on others. He was a professional soldier, he deemed such things infra dignitatem.

it was not me who shot them, we were just watching him do it, i even ranged them myself and they were a little over 1000yards, he does do bench rest shooting so the rounds he was using were of bench rest quality reloaded ones and the rifle was completly custom, pretty much bench rest quality. he does reloading and shooting for other people as a profesion. I myself would not be able to shoot a 1000 yards and deffinately not with the rifle i have. and i think he was using the 162gr hornady amax, its on the hornady site but doesnt have a BC there so i just searched for it.

Paul from nz wrote:

quote:

watched a guy shoot 3 goats in a row @ 1000 yards with a 7mm WSM.

I still doubt that, 1 goat maybe - 3 only if they were paper goats that didn't get spooked by the other two goats dropping dead nearby!

And then you gave the exact details below -

quote:

nesika action, shillen barrel and a mcmillan stock. nightforce scope. 162 GR A-MAX .620 BC 3000fps+ which is only 85 come up clicks at 1000 yards, if it was zeroed at 300.believe it, its easy.

Also very confidently -

quote:

all in the BC isnt it?

Yet, now you say -

quote:

and i think he was using the 162gr hornady amax, its on the hornady site but doesnt have a BC there so i just searched for it.

It all came over as that typical BS story!

As Gerard said, "but there are some very capable shooters out there and they have equipment that is devastatingly accurate." Agree.

Let's put that behind us now and see what is really important as far as BC goes.

The two tables above and Gerard's discussion thereof are some of the important points being overlooked when comparing monolithic bullets and there capabilities with each other.

On the market are lots of new monolithic bullet producers, all trying to get a piece of the cake by introducing their goods, promoting it as best as possible. Usually bulked up by a lot of highly satisfied users' field reports, for what it may be worth! - yet very few users study the bullet's design and all its features in depth - only to be disappointed later when it is too late.

This is exactly what this was all about when started off with the question about the more stable bullet.

Anybody prepared to guess what make bullet no. 2 is?

quote:

The one (he claimed a 700m shot on a running kudu) said that the far apartment block was at least 1000m.

quote:

The one (he claimed a 700m shot on a running kudu) said that the far apartment block was at least 1000m.

At first I though you said a running DikDik and I thought ,"yea, right", now I see it was a running Kudu and I think,,,,,,,,,,"yea, right"!

/

you obviously dont understand what a goat is mate, they aint that smart. they are like shooting at farmed sheep. and its not that hard to shoot 1000 yards with a benchrest rifle. dont believe it then, but it happened.

quote:

quote:
On the market are lots of new monolithic bullet producers, all trying to get a piece of the cake by introducing their goods, promoting it as best as possible. Usually bulked up by a lot of highly satisfied users' field reports, for what it may be worth! unquote

Dont you think it's tough talk in a neigbourhood where many existing bullets have proven themselves on the worlds long range target competitions ?

Maybe, but in the first part of the above sentence I clearly said: "On the market are lots of new monolithic bullet producers," - meaning new manufacturers that recently entered the market with their totally new products. That immediately cut the Barnes, Sierra and for that matter GSC's out of the range of my comment. (Yet, one has no other option than to compare them with these well proven products available on the market.)

But still, you're right it is tough talk even on these new manufacturers pushing products not properly designed and researched into the market claiming their fare share of the market. In the process the end user is the guy who has to carry the burden if these sub-standard stuff doesn't stand up to what they were supposed to do in the first place. Don't you think that's a tough luck attitude by some of these manufacturers who don't care a hood once they made the sale?

Follow this link to see another example of these sub-standard products available on the market.

quote:

What is most telling about them is that they are widely available and not that expensive.

I think I know what you're trying to say here! But you know Alf, one must simply place an order for a premium product, not that expensive either, and sure as hell, you'll get them!

quote:

Then there are the speciality bullets like Berger. I think they currently have the long range market well covered.
Maybe, don't know for how long, though!
I mean even the South African squad who won the 2005 world championships in the "farky class" shot Bergers. Why did they not go with a homegrown product like GSC?
Don't know either! They are aware of GSC, but let us rather keep it at that for the moment.

We have limited access to Bergers bullets and I must say they are something special.

Só, the very good things tend to be scarce - limited access to them - that's what you're saying.
Alf, please be fair and consistent in your views and comments, and by that I don't say that there can't be more than one special type of bullet, not at all. Just the other day you told us all on AR how brilliant GSCHV bullets are:

quote:

Now as to the reason your 265's (that's in .375) work so well is your design as with all monometal expanders you have managed to harness and control the shedding of energy. It is captured and limited by virtue of the bullet's unique construction.

So controlled expansion and limited fragmentation.

Now you add a second dimension, you limit the weight and add the ribs to the bullet and you have a perfect combintation. You can drive velocity because pressure is brought down by the ribs.

In fact they can be shot at higher velcoties than their conventional counterparts, enough velocity so that the bullet sheds its petals along the way and now you are left with a cilinder of sufficient remaining mass and energy to still penetrate adequately.

This is modern ballistics science harnessed in an ingenious manner, In fact I would venture to stat that it is revolutionary ! it does not rewrite the rules but it is an alternative never thought of application of existing rules!

What is more the cilinder that is left due to it's geometric shape is the most stable configuration there is. It is the ideal scenario for large bodied game.

You do have access to them - just place an order!

This post and others referred to in it were never intended to jump all over older bullet styles, but rather to inform hunters of sub-standard products that are also available on the market and perhaps neatly disguised as being the best outright.

Trust that many hunters benefitted from all this and what may follow hereafter. As I see it that is why we share info with each other on AR - to mutually benefit from it all.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul from nz:
you obviously dont understand what a goat is mate, they aint that smart. they are like shooting at farmed sheep. and its not that hard to shoot 1000 yards with a benchrest rifle. dont believe it then, but it happened.

Hey Paul, Being relatively new to this Board, you may not be aware of how limited the knowledge level is of alf and jagter.

Here is a thread that should make it clear for you concerning their lack of understanding anything related to Ballistics.
---

As you can see here, alf can't even get his act together from thread to thread:

quote:

Originally posted by jagter:
Alf, please be fair and consistent in your views and comments,...

You are really wasting your time trying to make sense of ANYTHING they have to offer.

Best of luck to you.

Those who think logically are in contrast to the village idiot who doesn't think at all! - Author Unknown.

I need say no more, Hot Core!

Jagter Bullet #2 looks to be a Northfork. My trivia for the day.

As for the long shots on goats.........I believe that not only can the shot be made but I think the goats will stand there and watch thier buddy die. I had it happen to me on a doe cull. I hit one in the brain, the one next to her just stood there looking. I lined up on her too but decided I shoudn't take her. That's a different story and irrelevent.

For those naysayers unfamiliar with long range skill.
Or maybe this would be better. ( Direct link)

With the optics and rangefinders available to us today long range has become common place I think. Think back to the tale of Jimmy Dixon. It's been proven possible itself.

Welcome to the board Paul. Nate

/

Thanks BigNate, I saw that specific video previously.
I noted that just about two or three shots roughly were really 1000 yds or a little more.
All the others were anything from 465yds up to 760yds more or less.

Secondly, these guys shot from the prone position using bipods and highly sophisticated telescopical devices - just to make a video through which you can see the crosshairs being placed on the buck just before the shot is fired and directly thereafter is proof of this.
Só yes, as I confirmed what Gerard said earlier, it is possible and there are guys out there doing it.

But then again, I fully agree with what Alf says, namely:

quote:

As I have said and it will remain, a 1000 yard shot under hunting conditions is a difficult proposition doing so 3 times in a row? I would like to see it happen.

We don't know yet what make of bullet no. 2 is!