• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

World's Longest Shot 'Quit Your Bitchin' ELR match

D

Dan Warner

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 11, 2017
205
195
We'd like to congratulate all the winners at the World's Longest Shot Challenge 'Quit Your Bitchin' ELR match this past weekend.
We'd also like to recognize the accomplishments that we were able to contribute to:
Winner of the 375 Class: David Mann shooting 400gr Flatlines in the 375 Warner cartridge!
John Baker was the only shooter to hit the 2650 yard target and he did it cold bore with a 256gr Flatline... yes that's a 338!
David Tubb kept the ELR Record in the Tubb family by going 3 for 3 at 2200 yards! David was shooting his 33XC with our new 285gr 338 Flatline.
Great Shooting Gentlemen!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Geno C., wildcats, Longshot85 and 11 others
Yes, amazing run for the Flatlines. Awesome to see these things putting up the hits in the competitions! And nice work by the trigger pullers and wind callers as well. Love to hear about this type of performance.
 
Hi Dan,

I have been out of touch for a while. Moved shop and house this year.

Why was the event not listed in ELR C? Could not find anything over there.
 
That's great shooting! Any pics of the shoot? 338 at 2650 is awesome, what velocity is the bullet getting at the bore? 2799 fps?
 
Hoffer- You are asking the wrong guy. Although I could speculate, it wouldn't be right. That question should be directed toward the MD and ELRC themselves; I had nothing to do with it in any way.

Hk996- The MV on the 338 that hit 2650 was 3354fps.

Since I was not there, I have no pictures to share. Perhaps someone who was can share here. You can see some pictures on the WLSC Facebook page however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seymour Fish and Mooseknuckles
Dan Warner said:
Hoffer- You are asking the wrong guy. Although I could speculate, it wouldn't be right. That question should be directed toward the MD and ELRC themselves; I had nothing to do with it in any way.

Hk996- The MV on the 338 that hit 2650 was 3354fps.

Since I was not there, I have no pictures to share. Perhaps someone who was can share here. You can see some pictures on the WLSC Facebook page however.
Click to expand...

Do you know the barrel length and load data for the 338 LM, 3354fps is the highest speed ive seen posted so far
 
White Mamba said:
Do you know the barrel length and load data for the 338 LM, 3354fps is the highest speed ive seen posted so far
Click to expand...
And White Mamba, remember the Flatlines have been engineered to have a materially reduced surface bearing area, an advantage of using CNC, not swaging, to fabricate the bullet. The practical result of this is reduced in-bore friction and as result, faster MV for the same pressure. I have certainly observed this characteristic in my use of the 198gr Flatline in a 308.
 
And that Tubb (shooting 33XC) used a nose ring on the bullet; something that is not commercially available (yet).
 
It was a 33XC, not a LM. While we do not yet have the Tubb nose ring mod available yet on our website, you can order them if you call us. We'll have the option on our website very soon. So far, we have them added to all the larger bullets in our line up; .338 and larger. I have had requests to add it to the 198's and will do that as well. Not sure if there will be call to add it to the smaller bullets, but will add as the demand shows itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McCrazy
Dan Warner said:
I have had requests to add it to the 198's and will do that as well. Not sure if there will be call to add it to the smaller bullets, but will add as the demand shows itself.
Click to expand...

About how much BC does the nose ring add? I'm interested in it on the 198 gr Flatline. How much additional cost will it entail?
 
Please excuse my ignorance but what is the nose ring? Got any links or photos? Thanks.
 
The Tubb ring actually reduces the BC by about roughly 3 to 5%. Nothing to dramatic there. Here's a shot of some 375 361gr Flatlines with the ring.
To clarify my previous post... we have not yet added the rings to our smaller bullets, and we will do this in an order based on demand. 198s are next. We will have the option added to our website very soon. Until that is complete, please call us to order your Flatlines with the Tubb ring.
 

Attachments

  • 20180622_082810.jpg
    20180622_082810.jpg
    396.7 KB · Views: 125
Dan Warner said:
The Tubb ring actually reduces the BC by about roughly 3 to 5%. Nothing to dramatic there. Here's a shot of some 375 361gr Flatlines with the ring.
To clarify my previous post... we have not yet added the rings to our smaller bullets, and we will do this in an order based on demand. 198s are next. We will have the option added to our website very soon. Until that is complete, please call us to order your Flatlines with the Tubb ring.
Click to expand...
So, if you don't mind me asking, if the rings actually reduce BC what is the real advantage of having them in first place? I'm somehow lost here.
 
The nose ring essentially helps the longer ELR bullets to transition thru the transonic mach zone better. It reduces the aerodynamic yaw and pitch... (coning)... caused by the shock wave as it travels unevenly down the length of a spinning bullet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TiroFijo and LastShot300
Theis, Milepost and Lefty thanks for the replies. Now, I have a second question about this, is there any actual proof to support the easier transition claims? Or is it just speculation? At least something akin to a field report would be nice to have in lieu of better evidence.
 
LastShot300 said:
Theis, Milepost and Lefty thanks for the replies. Now, I have a second question about this, is there any actual proof to support the easier transition claims? Or is it just speculation? At least something akin to a field report would be nice to have in lieu of better evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this will shed some light on your question but this is an interesting video treatise on supersonic and subsonic bullet flight.

 
  • Like
Reactions: BCX, LeftyJason, Nebulous and 1 other person
Longshot231 said:
I don't know if this will shed some light on your question but this is an interesting video treatise on supersonic and subsonic bullet flight.
Click to expand...
The video is fine and educational on shock waves, though there is nothing there that may support the claims about the reduced yaw and pitch or transonic transition due to the rings, at least not anything I can actually draw out the video .
 
LastShot300 said:
The video is fine and educational on shock waves, though there is nothing there that may support the claims about the reduced yaw and pitch or transonic transition due to the rings, at least not anything I can actually draw out the video .
Click to expand...
That is true. Nonetheless, I thought it was still an interesting video. The imagery of the shock waves in the supersonic and subsonic range may help us to understand how the nose ring helps to stabilize the bullet.

I know what happens to an aircraft wing when going from supersonic flight to subsonic flight but not sure how a nose ring will help stabilize the bullet.

If I remember my aerodynamics correctly, the shock wave over an airfoil in the supersonic range is behind the wing. As the aircraft slows down, the shock wave moves forward over and under the wing.

In supersonic flight, we were told, that it was impossible to over G an aircraft. I can't remember why that was true but we were cautioned to not be in a tight turn while supersonic and slowing down while in the turn. Doing that could cause us to over G the aircraft when it slowed to a subsonic speed.

I'm guessing that the presence of the nose ring disrupts the shock wave as it moves from the rear of the bullet to the front when slowing down. This begs the question as to why we would want to disrupt the shock wave. It's my guess that the spinning of the bullet may have an effect on the shock wave that an aircraft wing doesn't. The nose ring disrupts the shock wave in a uniform manner. In other words, the disruption to the shock wave is more predictable than the disruption caused by the spinning of the bullet.

That's my guess, if I'm wrong, please correct me as my curiosity is killing me on this subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seymour Fish and LastShot300
So we are continuing to test these in order to garner the specific gain the ring adds to transition. The theory us that by creating a small shock wave up front, the turbulence created by the rifling in the bullet is lost in the boundary layer and coning is thus reduced.

There are two ways to do this and neither are conducive to winter in the north east. One is to shoot them far enough to see the difference at transition. Hell, we have difficulty shooting them far enough to see the end of super sonic flight around here. This test will be run, however, very soon in the dessert SW. It will be a side by side test where the only variable will be the ring itself. It will be shot to and beyond the transition point in order to garner the specific transitional affects the ring has. The other way is to shoot them through an insanely fast twist with MV just over the sound barrier. We are working on setting up this test, but these things take time. As soon as we have results here, we will report.
However, you can't argue with results. Everything David Tubb has done with this feature shows it as a benefit. The slight decrease in BC is almost negligible and his shooting, as well as the other winning accomplishments of the OP match suggest that they certainly fly well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TiroFijo, Hoffer, LastShot300 and 1 other person
Have you figured out a way to determine how far down the ogive the nose ring should be placed or is that mostly trial and error?
 
Longshot231 said:
Have you figured out a way to determine how far down the ogive the nose ring should be placed or is that mostly trial and error?
Click to expand...
That has been experimented with; we've moved it a couple of times on David's request. As we are able to more readily test the transition, we will see specifically what slightly changes of location have.
 
Hi,

The nose ring placement is not going to be a one location and done type thing. It is completely dependent on the projectile design itself.
It will be one location on the Flatlines (If not different location per different weight projectiles of same diameter) and one location on another monolithic design.

Then on the other side guys like Boatright mention his design does not need it at all....

It really is all dependent on the projectile design and IMO the ring cannot just be turned into all monolithics as a generic practice. As it will help some designs and potentially hurt other designs.

Sincerely,
Theis
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bender, Seymour Fish, Hoffer and 1 other person
Regarding the shape of the groove of the nose ring; is it a "V" shape, "U" shape or a squared type of groove?

Is the groove machined into the ogive so it's perpendicular to the surface or the longitudinal axis or oriented differently?

Sorry for so many questions but the subject of a nose ring to increase stabilization if pretty darn fascinating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LastShot300
Longshot231 said:
That is true. Nonetheless, I thought it was still an interesting video. The imagery of the shock waves in the supersonic and subsonic range may help us to understand how the nose ring helps to stabilize the bullet.

I know what happens to an aircraft wing when going from supersonic flight to subsonic flight but not sure how a nose ring will help stabilize the bullet.

If I remember my aerodynamics correctly, the shock wave over an airfoil in the supersonic range is behind the wing. As the aircraft slows down, the shock wave moves forward over and under the wing.

In supersonic flight, we were told, that it was impossible to over G an aircraft. I can't remember why that was true but we were cautioned to not be in a tight turn while supersonic and slowing down while in the turn. Doing that could cause us to over G the aircraft when it slowed to a subsonic speed.

I'm guessing that the presence of the nose ring disrupts the shock wave as it moves from the rear of the bullet to the front when slowing down. This begs the question as to why we would want to disrupt the shock wave. It's my guess that the spinning of the bullet may have an effect on the shock wave that an aircraft wing doesn't. The nose ring disrupts the shock wave in a uniform manner. In other words, the disruption to the shock wave is more predictable than the disruption caused by the spinning of the bullet.

That's my guess, if I'm wrong, please correct me as my curiosity is killing me on this subject.
Click to expand...
Don't worry there are at least more than two driven by the same curiosity:oops:

Perhaps Dan Warner can conduct a simple experiment and fire-test the bullets with and without the rings and trying to figure out at distance if any evidence of reduced yaw and pitch (Yaw Cards may come handy, at least a simple version of them) is really present.

BC may be much more elusive to weigh out though. I'm not trying to be pesty but without any hard data is difficult to swallow the hypothesis being claimed of by David. I did some homework and what I've seen is that in the end, what we are really taking about is Dynamic Stability.

Also it would be nice to understand the rationale behind David's reasoning that led him to come up with this idea.
 
Hi,

I cannot find the images of a monolithic solid that was made in either Austria or Germany that "COULD" have led to this nose ring rationale but I definitely cannot speak for David.

Picture a SLAP round but as a monolithic with no sabot.

The projectile I am speaking of pretty much operated on the same disruption principle but instead of having an engraved ring, the projectile was designed with; for lack of better terms...a rather steep shoulder towards the tip (originally for better AP).

This was a BMG projectile so it had lots of room to make such shoulder/angle to the tip. In these smaller diameter projectiles there is not enough room for the "shoulder" but the engraved ring would serve same disruption purpose.

Here is my take on the ring....

If you are shooting distances that the projectile remains in supersonic region, then why take the reduction of BC.

If a majority of the time you are shooting distances to the transition ans subsonic regions, then you more than likely will trade the BC off for projectile stability at/during those regions.....particularly with projectiles that do not transition well.


EDITED TO ADD:
Also just fwiw DSG Technology has been making projectiles with a "nose ring" for several years.
The "Reason" for their utilization is the disruption principle BUT their main intent was to disrupt water flow around the projectile since its' original design was so that it could be fired from underwater unmanned vehicles at a depth of 5 meters yet still hit targets 1000 meters out of the water aka MEA (Multi Environment Ammunition).
Here is a picture from David Crane at Defense Review in 2012.
1544427631308.png


Sincerely,
Theis
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TiroFijo, LastShot300, Seymour Fish and 3 others
My take on the ring is that it disrupts the shock wave as it travels from the front of the bullet to the rear.....but in reality it is MUCH more complex than that!

( I'm sure there is much more going on here but this is what I think are the main points to think about...)

There are many factors that taking place on an very long high BC. ELR bullet as it is traveling thru the transonic area.

The shockwave does not travel symmetrically down the circumference of the bullet in flight as seen in the video when it just left the end of a barrel.

Due to the ballistic curve for shooting out to 2 miles we have to remember the AOA ( angle of attack ) of a bullet will be most severe at the end of its curve. This causes the shock wave to move unevenly down the sides of the bullet and tends to push and pull the bullet when the wave is approaching the rear. The longer the bullet the worse the steering effect....

To compound the problem you must remember the bullet is a gyro and any force applied to its axis will cause a movement 90 degrees to the right of the force applied and this increases the severity of coning effect. When the coning and AOA is increased it creates drag and lowers the BC. if it gets too severe the bullet will tumble and there goes your accuracy.

So anything that helps disrupt or reduce the severity of the shock wave thru the Mach transition zone will help keep the bullet stabilized and also decrease drag. The nose ring helps with this but its placement is unique to the bullets engineered shape.

This is why the Cutting Edge Lazer bullets are used at the K2miles instead of their better BC. all copper match version since the bullets will go subsonic. The tips on the Lazer version essentially creates a nose ring....

So just as Theis said... If you shoot in the supersonic region then go for a high bc bullet design. If the bullet will go subsonic then choose one that will keep stable thru the transition zone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TiroFijo, LastShot300, Hoffer and 1 other person
Milepost said:
My take on the ring is that it disrupts the shock wave as it travels from the front of the bullet to the rear.....but in reality it is MUCH more complex than that!
Click to expand...

Unless I am mistaken, the shock wave moves from the rear to the front of the bullet as it slows down. The shock wave is actually the bow wave and stern wave combined.

During subsonic flight the bow wave and the stern wave are separate air disturbances. When the bullet is traveling supersonic, the bow wave and stern wave can't get out of each other's way fast enough. So they combine and become the shock wave. When moving at supersonic speeds, IIRC, the shock wave is at the rear of the bullet.

As the bullet slows down, the shock wave moves forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TiroFijo, LastShot300 and Milepost
Longshot231 said:
Unless I am mistaken, the shock wave moves from the rear to the front of the bullet as it slows down. The shock wave is actually the bow wave and stern wave combined.

During subsonic flight the bow wave and the stern wave are separate air disturbances. When the bullet is traveling supersonic, the bow wave and stern wave can't get out of each other's way fast enough. So they combine and become the shock wave. When moving at supersonic speeds, IIRC, the shock wave is at the rear of the bullet.

As the bullet slows down, the shock wave moves forward.
Click to expand...

Time for me to break out the books.....! LOL

In supersonic flight a bullet will still have a bow wave and a tail wave. This can be clearly seen in the video. So....??

Yes, you're right about them combining and moving aft but ...It's the moving of these shockwaves along the sides of the the bullet going THRU "recompression" transonic flight and the air density differentials caused by them that will push and pull on a bullet non symmetrically and this is caused of the AOA of the bullet.

All this is also can compounded with heat waves (Mirage) causing ripples in the air density?
image.png
 
Last edited:
Milepost said:
Time for me to break out the books.....! LOL

Yes, but ...It's the moving of these shockwaves along the sides of the the bullet going THRU transonic flight and the air density differentials caused by them that will push and pull on a bullet non symmetrically and this is caused of the AOA of the bullet.

All this is also can compounded with heat waves (Mirage) causing ripples in air the density?
Click to expand...
I'm like you. It's been over 36 years since I studied anything about supersonic aerodynamics. Until now, I didn't give it too much thought with bullet flight; except that I target practice with standard velocity or subsonic .22LR.

It's too bad we can't get high speed imagery of the bullet when it is transiting from supersonic to subsonic flight. That would save a lot of time and effort.

You are correct about the disturbance caused the asymmetric movement of the shock waves. Yet, it's compounded even more by the spin drift and rifling marks on the surface of the bullet creating other disturbances.

I was fascinated sometime ago when I picked up an 1873 trap door Springfield. When I noticed that the slide on the rear sight was designed with an angle I could not help but wonder how the heck they knew about spin drift in 1873!

Those guys were pretty darn smart given the technology of the day. Imagine what they could come up with if they had our marvels or modern technology.

image010.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: TiroFijo
I hear ya!! My head is hurting right now... Pretty fascinating stuff. What we really need is to start a new thread and have Jim Boatright to chime in...!

BTW - I heard that David Tubb might be coming out with a nose ring kit soon so we can engrave our own.
 
Milepost said:
I hear ya!! My head is hurting right now... Pretty fascinating stuff. What we really need is to start a new thread and have Jim Boatright to chime in...!

BTW - I heard that David Tubb might be coming out with a nose ring kit soon so we can engrave our own.
Click to expand...

I thought somebody had said something about that earlier as well.
I'd most likely buy one of those tools.
 
So anyways congrats to the shooters using all their skills and science to finish where they did. And congrats again to Warner Tools - excellent Flat LIne bullets and the determination to build the best. Cheers

oneshot.
JH
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan Warner, Seymour Fish and THEIS
THEIS said:
Hi,

@Milepost
You can see Jim's comments/take on the situation in more detail of this thread so that we do not continue to spin OT of this thread lol.

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...-designed-by-david-tubb.6899366/#post-7266640

Sincerely,
Theis
Click to expand...
I've just finished reading Jim's post, quite interesting but it's still a point of view based on models not field evidence. I know for sure that the RT/R ratio is important however it's not a reliable indicator of flight characteristics like the transonic transition we are talking about, since there is much more involved than the ogive shape. Carl Sagan once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" meaning my point remains the same, but I'm not lucky to get any real evidence other than claims, so I'm calling myself off :cool:
 
Last edited:
Dan Warner said:
So we are continuing to test these in order to garner the specific gain the ring adds to transition. The theory us that by creating a small shock wave up front, the turbulence created by the rifling in the bullet is lost in the boundary layer and coning is thus reduced.

There are two ways to do this and neither are conducive to winter in the north east. One is to shoot them far enough to see the difference at transition. Hell, we have difficulty shooting them far enough to see the end of super sonic flight around here. This test will be run, however, very soon in the dessert SW. It will be a side by side test where the only variable will be the ring itself. It will be shot to and beyond the transition point in order to garner the specific transitional affects the ring has. The other way is to shoot them through an insanely fast twist with MV just over the sound barrier. We are working on setting up this test, but these things take time. As soon as we have results here, we will report.
However, you can't argue with results. Everything David Tubb has done with this feature shows it as a benefit. The slight decrease in BC is almost negligible and his shooting, as well as the other winning accomplishments of the OP match suggest that they certainly fly well.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Dan you bring up a point for more detailed discussion :).

In regards to the continuing test to garner specific gain..specifically the reduced coning.
1. Are you all conducting those test with normal twist rates? Because David is shooting 7 twist polygonal for his results. Which would contaminate the testing since that twist rate is already proven to reduce the coning effect.
2. Are you all conducting those test with normal MV speeds? Because David is launching the 338s at a faster MV than most others 338 systems. That in itself also lends to already reducing the coning effect.

In regards to the 5-6% lose of BC. Do you know if that is occurring on all projectile designs/types that David has tested with the nose ring or is that number specific to the Flatlines, while other projectiles have worse lose number?

Sidenote: We just have to love our first world problems right lol....We are lucky to be in an era that advancements are being made, testing of the advancements are able to be disseminated with ease and we get direct access to those pushing the boundaries.

Sincerely,
Theis
 
  • Like
Reactions: TiroFijo and Milepost
Define normal. Twist rate requirements for solids, like it or not, are not the same as the requirements for jacketed lead. While we do try to design bullets that work in conventional twist barrels (because the masses already have them), sometimes we have to go outside the box and optimize for the solid at hand. Further, there comes a point at witch the dedicated ELR shooter has to make the decision between the two. I just made the following comment on FB the other day to a fellow that shoots to distances unheard of even by ELR standards. His original statement said that he was building a new rifle and considering a twist to handle both solids and jacketed bullets. My response, knowing how far he pushes it, was that he would be compromising the maximum performance potentials of both. He agreed and decided that it needed to be dedicated to solids to get where he is going and a fast barrel twist is needed. That said, in order to test for these criteria with the solids, we need to run them in fast twist barrels so that we can see the affects of the higher spin rates and stability.
As to muzzle velocity, some thing applies; define normal. It is no secret that we can run solids at higher MV as compared to jacketed bullets, regardless of caliber or cartridge. But in order to test transitional stability (the main focus here), we need to be more concerned with rotational spin speed at the sound barrier crossing point and less concerned with linear velocity. There is little doubt that the bullet with higher rate of rotation will stay stable longer than the slower spinning bullet. So the tests are two fold at that point. One it to test side by side out to the same 'normally twisted' barrel where the only variable is the ring. This test will be shot at and beyond transition distance with proven working loads to garner only the affect of the ring in those conditions. The second test will be with a fast twist shot at velocity just over subsonic. This will give us the same rotational velocity of the normal flight but with much slower linear velocity and will most certainly allow us to measure stability on a finite level throughout the transition.
As far as other bullets David has tested, you'll have to ask him. I would venture that it is across the board, but he'll have a better answer than I. I know he uses them with similar sucess on jacketed bullets. Most who need to rely on some transition to get to the distances they need/want to shoot are looking at this as a potential to solve that barrier. Until we have results from these tests, we don't know for sure if it works. What we do know is that they certainly shoot fine, given the OP of this thread. It is important to remember that Flatlines were never designed with the transition in mind. Markedly improving super sonic flight was, and continues to be the goal, and their results prove that. But if we can gain even a little stability in transition, it only gets better from there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TiroFijo, torrentuser, wildcats and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Recap of the URSA NorCal Mar ‘24 event + change in 2024 3K date
Replies
1
Views
114
ELR researcher
E
E
Recap of the URSA NorCal Feb ‘24 event
Replies
2
Views
154
ELR researcher
E
E
Recap of the URSA April 2021 Match and the 5th Annual “URSA 3000 Yard Challenge” (2021)
Replies
3
Views
457
ELR researcher
E
Bear24
PRS Talk My NF ELR Steel Challenge match review with the 25 SAUM and Blackjack Bullets
Replies
12
Views
2K
ken4570tc in WY
K
E
2019 SHOT Show (ELR-Specific): Day 4 (Friday, Jan 25, 2019)
Replies
2
Views
935
Longshot85
Longshot85
Top Bottom
Back