- Thread starter calshipbuilder
- Start date
you are going to be wasting some nice bullets.
Other than some potential "fun" two words come to mind: use less.
Other than some potential "fun" two words come to mind: use less.
calshipbuilder, what size target will you be shooting? I use a 40"X37" which is roughly 2 moa made out of a wood frame with cardboard and bright green paper for the covering. It makes the bullet holes show up real well when on camera, when the target is hit. This saves on wasting rounds trying to figure out where you hit and my bullets are so small, doubt if I would hear them hit steel that far away. Also helps when you are right on the edge and a 1/4" adjustment could put you off. Good luck
I pulled back on this attempt until I get a load worked up for my 30-378. I'll still chuck some .308 win at the target while I have it set up. I plan to use 2 4x8 sheets of plywood to sight in, then an ipsc steel target as my goal. I have the california bar exam coming up so I won't have any ELR updates till spring.
They shot a mile with 45//70s over 100 years ago. Picture that angle!
Who made a shot at a mile over a hundred years ago?
This is the longest shot from that era that I know of and it was less than a mile and made with a .50-90 Sharps.wikipedia said:
If you know of longer shots made with a .45-70 I would like to learn about them.
I learned something new.
Did some load dev with heavy .308 bullets. In my 11.25 twist 24" barrel, 208 amax and 210 berger vld stabilize, the 230 hybrid does not.
That was interesting, I'd second that, of learning something new.
As usual you have the naysayers that can't and or don't want to push the limits of a cartridge who say it be would stupid or impractical then you have those who actually go out and push the limits and try new things that find that not only is a learning experience is usually not as difficult as the people who say it can't be done think it is. We need more shooters to push the normal and evolve the sport. Just do your research and get as much info and past experience as you can find to eliminate un-needed testing.
You seem to know what you need in a bullet as far as transonic stability. You can't forget that because the twist of your barrel provides enough stability while it's supersonic you need to make sure it will also provide enough stability while subsonic. Example, while a 1-10" twist barrel will stabilize a 220-230gr bullet a mid-high range supersonic speeds you need a 1-8" twist to stabilize the same bullet a subsonic speeds. So there is a high likelihood that if you're shooting 208-230gr bullet from a 1-10/11.25" twist barrel it will become unstable after becoming subsonic.
As far as practical, once a high B.C. bullet becomes subsonic is retains it's velocity very well which in turn means it retains it's energy. Example, lets pretend 1070fps is the speed of sound at your area and you're using the 230gr berger hybrid(all depending on your atmospheric conditions); 500yds after the bullet becomes subsonic the bullet is still traveling around 929fps(probably slightly lower because of the B.C. change at slower speeds) and has around 440 ft-lbs of energy which is more energy than a 45acp at the muzzle with 230gr ball ammo. So yes it's practical as long as you have your rifle-load-dope combo down, can make the wind call, and have the skill set to make that shot. Unfortunately you would need to re-barrel your rifle with a faster twist barrel to shoot that bullet.
You seem to know what you need in a bullet as far as transonic stability. You can't forget that because the twist of your barrel provides enough stability while it's supersonic you need to make sure it will also provide enough stability while subsonic. Example, while a 1-10" twist barrel will stabilize a 220-230gr bullet a mid-high range supersonic speeds you need a 1-8" twist to stabilize the same bullet a subsonic speeds. So there is a high likelihood that if you're shooting 208-230gr bullet from a 1-10/11.25" twist barrel it will become unstable after becoming subsonic.
As far as practical, once a high B.C. bullet becomes subsonic is retains it's velocity very well which in turn means it retains it's energy. Example, lets pretend 1070fps is the speed of sound at your area and you're using the 230gr berger hybrid(all depending on your atmospheric conditions); 500yds after the bullet becomes subsonic the bullet is still traveling around 929fps(probably slightly lower because of the B.C. change at slower speeds) and has around 440 ft-lbs of energy which is more energy than a 45acp at the muzzle with 230gr ball ammo. So yes it's practical as long as you have your rifle-load-dope combo down, can make the wind call, and have the skill set to make that shot. Unfortunately you would need to re-barrel your rifle with a faster twist barrel to shoot that bullet.
Last edited:
Thanks Ian, stability is a pretty complex science. I have been watching the Rex reviews videos on youtube to get a handle on it as he goes into some pretty good detail. His analysis is that you want the least amount of twist necessary to stabilize the bullet, as over-stabilization will create tractability problems - bullet angle of attack not following the line of trajectory - which leads to destabilization through the transonic zone.
If Rex is incorrect, I'd be very interested to hear whats going on. Here is his video on over-stabilization:
SNIPER 101 Part 69 - Bullet RPM & Overstabilization - YouTube
I believe what you are referring to is the need for a higher twist rate when initially leaving the barrel - the slower you shoot the bullet, the more twist you will need to achieve initial stability of the bullet.
Last edited:
Here's a wrinkle I'll throw in for thought.
It is fairly accepted that forward velocity slows much faster than rotational velocity. And that rotational velocity does not slow down much, during the TOF.
A 1/8 twist at 1000 fps MV leaves the muzzle at that speed and rotation.
A 1/12 twist at 2000 fps MV will be rotating nearly 1/6 by the time forward velocity slows to 1000 fps.
I shoot the fairly long 208 AMax at 2600 fps, 1/12 twist. When forward velocity hits 1000 fps, rotational velocity will be close to 1/4.6"
I cannot quantify the deceleration of rotational speed, so take this as food for thought.
It is fairly accepted that forward velocity slows much faster than rotational velocity. And that rotational velocity does not slow down much, during the TOF.
A 1/8 twist at 1000 fps MV leaves the muzzle at that speed and rotation.
A 1/12 twist at 2000 fps MV will be rotating nearly 1/6 by the time forward velocity slows to 1000 fps.
I shoot the fairly long 208 AMax at 2600 fps, 1/12 twist. When forward velocity hits 1000 fps, rotational velocity will be close to 1/4.6"
I cannot quantify the deceleration of rotational speed, so take this as food for thought.
I guess everyone will have a varying opinion and honestly you have no reason to trust mine over anothers. I just going off my experience and information i've read and got from other shooters over the years. I currently use a 1-10" twist to shoot 175-178gr bullets which the popularly recommended twist rate for is around 1 in 11.2-12". In my experience (or in the experience of anyone i've met with known experience shooting past 1000yd) i've never seen ill effects of going a twist faster than the recommended twist rate. I've only heard of theoretical negative effects of over stabilization(in extreme cases as in 2+ twists faster with high velocities), but have only seen negative effects from under stabilization.
Here's a little reading for you from a champion shooter
http://www.zediker.com/books/rifleshooter/rs_web_promos/rs_barrels_spread.pdf
http://www.rifleshootermag.com/2010/09/23/featured_rifles_rs_rollout_200905/
As far as the science behind a bullets rotational speed decrease at distance, is the math you provided theoretical or proven? I know the rpm equation at the muzzle (mv x 720 / twist rate) but that does not give the rotation in a given distance at a given distance within certain velocity and there would be many factors into play on the drag on the rotation of the bullet such as the bullets diameter (bigger diameter, more area for drag on rotation), deformation of the bullet caused by the rifling(2c, 3c, 3, 4, 5, 5r, 6, etc), gravity(not sure if it has an affect but if it does the bullets weight and longer time in flight will affect it) and once the bullets goes subsonic the effects would be more than likely be magnified although probably still insignificant. I honestly am not sure but it's not proven until it's seen and measured. I’m sure it can be proven through photography if it hasn't been done already, but until it's proven we can only speculate based off down range results.
Last edited:
Twist Rate Stability Calculator
Use this form to determine your gyroscopic stability factor (SG)
based on the Miller Twist Rule
<FORM method=post action=/litz/TwistRuleAlt.php><!--<table border="1" bgcolor="#2368A4" >-->
<TBODY>
</TBODY>SG = 1.87
According to berger bullets a stability factor of 1.5 or great insures adequate stability.
also according to the same program a 1-10" would also work in most circumstances</FORM>
Use this form to determine your gyroscopic stability factor (SG)
based on the Miller Twist Rule
<FORM method=post action=/litz/TwistRuleAlt.php><!--<table border="1" bgcolor="#2368A4" >-->
| Bullet Weight | <INPUT name=BulletWeight value=230 size=5> | Grains |
| Bullet Length | <INPUT name=BulletLength value=1.6 size=5> | <SELECT name=BL><OPTION selected value=in>Inches</OPTION><OPTION value=mm>Millimeter</OPTION></SELECT> |
| Barrel Twist | <INPUT name=BarrelTwist value=9 size=5> | Inches/Turn |
| Muzzle Velocity | <INPUT name=MuzzleVelocity value=2500 size=5> | <SELECT name=MV><OPTION selected value=fps>FPS</OPTION><OPTION value=mps>MPS</OPTION></SELECT> |
| Temperature | <INPUT name=Temperature value=59 size=5> | <SELECT name=TEMP><OPTION selected value=fah>Fahrenheit</OPTION><OPTION value=cel>Celsius</OPTION></SELECT> |
| Altitude | <INPUT name=Altitude value=628 size=5> | Feet |
<TBODY>
</TBODY>
According to berger bullets a stability factor of 1.5 or great insures adequate stability.
also according to the same program a 1-10" would also work in most circumstances</FORM>
Last edited:
Over-Stabilization of Bullets — Why Is Too Much Spin a Problem?
On the Applied Ballistics Facebook page, Ballistician Bryan Litz regularly offers a “Tuesday Trivia” question about ballistics. Today’s brain-teaser is a true/false question about bullet stabilization. On shooting forums you often find heated arguments about “over-stabilization”. Bryan wants readers to consider the issue of over-stabilization and answer a challenge question…
Is This Statement TRUE or FALSE?
“The problem with ‘over-stabilizing’ a bullet (by shooting it from an excessively fast twist rate) is that the bullet will fly ‘nose high’ on a long range shot. The nose-high orientation induces extra drag and reduces the effective BC of the bullet.”
True or False, and WHY?
Click the “Post Comment” link below to post your reply (and explain your reasoning).
Bryan Litz says:
July 25, 2013 at 7:24 am
For practical purposes, the answer is FALSE
As a bullet arcs on a long range trajectory, it’s axis is torqued (by aerodynamic forces) to constantly align with the oncoming airflow. When a spinning object has its axis torqued, the object reacts by pointing its axis primarily ‘out of plane’; 90 degrees from the applied force. This results in a nose-right orientation (for right twist barrels) known as the yaw of repose. The yaw of repose steers the bullet ever so slightly to the side resulting in gyroscopic (spin) drift.
The bullet nose will point slightly above its velocity vector (pitch), but that pitch is only about 1/10 of the yaw of repose which is not enough to cause a practical vertical drift (less than 1/2″ at 1000 yards). Typical yaw of repose remains below 1/60th of one degree, while pitch is on the order of 1/600th of one degree. This small amount of pitch and yaw is not enough to induce a measurable amount of additional drag, even for highly stabilized bullets.
All of the above applies to stable projectiles in supersonic flight on ‘flat fire’ trajectories. For projectiles fired at high angles (above ~10-20 degrees above the line of sight), it is possible for the bullet to not track, or trace with the trajectory. This is a common design challenge for artillery shells that are often fired on high angle trajectories. The axis of the spinning shell may be too rigid to bend with the exaggerated trajectory. In that case the shell can ‘belly flop’, or fall base first. However for small arms projectiles on flat-fire trajectories, this isn’t a problem.
Another consideration with spinning a bullet too fast is related to bullet failure. This discussion assumes the bullet remains structurally in tact.
Dynamic instability during transonic flight is also a different problem, not related to the above discussion.
Steve Hurt says:July 25, 2013 at 5:10 pm
You have me a little confused Mr Litz.
Given your contribution to, and use of the Miller formula for Sg stability calculations, where the suggestion is made that better accuracy might be achieved with an Sg below 2.0, I am struggling with the apparent dichotomy. If a bullet can’t be overstabilised, what is the basis of this recommendation?
Bryan Litz says:
July 26, 2013 at 8:45 am
Steve,
You’re right that there are potential precision advantages of keeping SG under 2.0.
The conversation above wasn’t addressing dispersion, only the flight mechanics of overly stable bullets.
In other words, additional drag is not a concern for SG over 2.0, elevated dispersion might be. Two different things.
Take care,
-Bryan
Is This Statement TRUE or FALSE?
“The problem with ‘over-stabilizing’ a bullet (by shooting it from an excessively fast twist rate) is that the bullet will fly ‘nose high’ on a long range shot. The nose-high orientation induces extra drag and reduces the effective BC of the bullet.”
True or False, and WHY?
Click the “Post Comment” link below to post your reply (and explain your reasoning).
Bryan Litz says:
July 25, 2013 at 7:24 am
For practical purposes, the answer is FALSE
As a bullet arcs on a long range trajectory, it’s axis is torqued (by aerodynamic forces) to constantly align with the oncoming airflow. When a spinning object has its axis torqued, the object reacts by pointing its axis primarily ‘out of plane’; 90 degrees from the applied force. This results in a nose-right orientation (for right twist barrels) known as the yaw of repose. The yaw of repose steers the bullet ever so slightly to the side resulting in gyroscopic (spin) drift.
The bullet nose will point slightly above its velocity vector (pitch), but that pitch is only about 1/10 of the yaw of repose which is not enough to cause a practical vertical drift (less than 1/2″ at 1000 yards). Typical yaw of repose remains below 1/60th of one degree, while pitch is on the order of 1/600th of one degree. This small amount of pitch and yaw is not enough to induce a measurable amount of additional drag, even for highly stabilized bullets.
All of the above applies to stable projectiles in supersonic flight on ‘flat fire’ trajectories. For projectiles fired at high angles (above ~10-20 degrees above the line of sight), it is possible for the bullet to not track, or trace with the trajectory. This is a common design challenge for artillery shells that are often fired on high angle trajectories. The axis of the spinning shell may be too rigid to bend with the exaggerated trajectory. In that case the shell can ‘belly flop’, or fall base first. However for small arms projectiles on flat-fire trajectories, this isn’t a problem.
Another consideration with spinning a bullet too fast is related to bullet failure. This discussion assumes the bullet remains structurally in tact.
Dynamic instability during transonic flight is also a different problem, not related to the above discussion.
Steve Hurt says:July 25, 2013 at 5:10 pm
You have me a little confused Mr Litz.
Given your contribution to, and use of the Miller formula for Sg stability calculations, where the suggestion is made that better accuracy might be achieved with an Sg below 2.0, I am struggling with the apparent dichotomy. If a bullet can’t be overstabilised, what is the basis of this recommendation?
Bryan Litz says:
July 26, 2013 at 8:45 am
Steve,
You’re right that there are potential precision advantages of keeping SG under 2.0.
The conversation above wasn’t addressing dispersion, only the flight mechanics of overly stable bullets.
In other words, additional drag is not a concern for SG over 2.0, elevated dispersion might be. Two different things.
Take care,
-Bryan
Last edited:
You just asked me if my math was theoretical, or proven, after I clearly stated I cannot quantify the deceleration of rotational speed.....
The math I used for my examples was based on zero rotational deceleration. I do believe there is in fact some rotational deceleration, but not a whole lot. I also believe the rate of deceleration would generally be slower for larger diameter bullets due to increased centifugal forces.
I'm just generalizing, not anything scientifically proven or quantified.
I'm just generalizing, not anything scientifically proven or quantified.
ok, how did you come up with the information you provided? You stated some pretty specific numbers, how did you get those?
ok, was just curious
OK' I'll break it down.
1/8 twist 1000 fps MV will be rotating once in every 8" at the muzzle (1000 fps). That's pretty straightforward.
1/12 at 2000 fps MV is rotating once every 12" at the muzzle. When forward velocity is down to 1000 fps, that's half of 2000 fps. If rotational speed is not reduced the bullet will be rotating once in 6". Again, I believe there will be some reduction of rotational speed, but not much compared to the reduction of forward speed.
1/12 at 2600 fps MV. bullet is rotating once in 12". I divided 2600 by 2.6 to get 1000 fps, and then divided 12 by 2.6 to get the rotational speed of 4.6" (rounded).
1/8 twist 1000 fps MV will be rotating once in every 8" at the muzzle (1000 fps). That's pretty straightforward.
1/12 at 2000 fps MV is rotating once every 12" at the muzzle. When forward velocity is down to 1000 fps, that's half of 2000 fps. If rotational speed is not reduced the bullet will be rotating once in 6". Again, I believe there will be some reduction of rotational speed, but not much compared to the reduction of forward speed.
1/12 at 2600 fps MV. bullet is rotating once in 12". I divided 2600 by 2.6 to get 1000 fps, and then divided 12 by 2.6 to get the rotational speed of 4.6" (rounded).
Last edited:
Basically I just divided the muzzle rotational distance by the same factor I divided the muzzle velocity.
Well with all the guys on youtube with super slow mo hd cameras this seems like a question that could be easily answered with a large board with inch square grids in the back ground as the bullet flies by.
Last edited:
No shit. That round would have a nearly vertical drop on the target. Imagine hitting your enemy in the top of his head, lol!
Last edited:
I took a class with Todd Hodnett of Accuracy 1st, who is the instructor in the Magpul video.
I hit a 14-inch wide plate at 1700 yards with a LaRue Tactical OBR with an 18-inch barrel with Hornady Superformance Match, 178 gr. BTHP.
We trued the Kenstrel ATRAG at supersonic speed then again at subsonic speed. I was within 3 ft on my first shot, hit on my 3rd with successive hits. Very exciting and proved that it CAN be done!
I hit a 14-inch wide plate at 1700 yards with a LaRue Tactical OBR with an 18-inch barrel with Hornady Superformance Match, 178 gr. BTHP.
We trued the Kenstrel ATRAG at supersonic speed then again at subsonic speed. I was within 3 ft on my first shot, hit on my 3rd with successive hits. Very exciting and proved that it CAN be done!
Last edited:
You're asking a lot for a 308. Best I've ever got was 1500 meters for a clean kill. At a mile velocity would be so low you could almost swat it away with your hand (if you could see it coming). Heard once of a man being hit from about a mile (game ranger found the shooter's spot), knocked him down(hit him in the head) gave him a nasty headache, but nothing else.
I'm calling BS on that. Not saying you are BS'ing but the story is. At 1,800 yards by JBM my .308 rounds have roughly 300 ft/lbs of energy. That's 3X more than a .22LR at point blank range.
He would be dead if hit in the head.
Tempest 455. Hate to disappoint but the man is alive and well at last counting. Call it good luck, a hard head or what ever. He lived to go hunting again. Too, I am not saying that the 308 is an inadequate round, just the opposite. It is in fact an excellent round. I have used it quiet effectively for a number of purposes. But out passed 1500 meters, it becomes iffy, affected more and more by variances in wind and such things. Beyond 1500 meters (PLEASE) give me a heavier faster round. Anything in 338 will do. Yes, at distances out to and passed 1800/2000 meters anything is affected by gravity (of course) wind (of course), humidity, even the rotation of the earth. Even one of the most famous snipers that ever sighted down a scope, Carlos Hathcock, used the 50 cal. BMG round for 1 to 2 miles and beyond.
I'm starting a 208 AMax at 2600 fps.
Using tested BC of about .630, this bullet will be going about 1000-1100 fps at 1760 yards in local atmo (25.50 Hg), depending on temperature.
To me that looks a lot like 300BO ballistics at the muzzle.
I'd hate to have one of those bounce off my head.
Using tested BC of about .630, this bullet will be going about 1000-1100 fps at 1760 yards in local atmo (25.50 Hg), depending on temperature.
To me that looks a lot like 300BO ballistics at the muzzle.
I'd hate to have one of those bounce off my head.
The only thing I can think is that the bullet barely grazed his head, if it were to impact your head even from 3-4 miles away you would be dead no doubt. A few people die every year from stray bullets miles away, especially on 4th of july. That guy is lucky for sure
The problem is, you turn a rifle, in this case a 308 into a bad 9mm, with one glaring and significant problem.
Shot placement...
You have no way of determining your shot placement at 1 mile and instead of maximizing the shock and value of a rifle round you are basically making it happen with a weak 9mm.
if the receiver of the shot has any mass or even body armor you aren't gonna do much but let them know you are there. Sure it will hurt but, the odds of a clean kill or significant injury are not worth giving your position away.
if your goal is wasting ammo, or just hoping to get a impact on a piece of steel, once every 20 or so rounds, then you have picked the right tool.
Shot placement...
You have no way of determining your shot placement at 1 mile and instead of maximizing the shock and value of a rifle round you are basically making it happen with a weak 9mm.
if the receiver of the shot has any mass or even body armor you aren't gonna do much but let them know you are there. Sure it will hurt but, the odds of a clean kill or significant injury are not worth giving your position away.
if your goal is wasting ammo, or just hoping to get a impact on a piece of steel, once every 20 or so rounds, then you have picked the right tool.
it wouldn't hurt anything and the results would more than likely be the same.
Bad 9mm?
While this was already mentioned a 208gr Amax with MV of 2600fps will be traveling at 987fps(my current weather conditions) and have 450ft-lbs of energy at 1760yds. That's 100ft-lbs more energy than your average 230gr 45acp load and 84ft-lbs(+/-) more energy than the current(I think) sniper record with 338 Lapua 250gr FMJLB at 2707yds. Hardly a bad 9mm and something most wouldn't survive if hit in the upper abdomen/torso unless they received care right away.
You're being optimistic and simply spitting out numbers without anything to back it up. Repeating what you read without any validation and playing what if with numbers.
The reality doesn't bear fruit here, and you all missed a big fact, wind happens and bleeds off those numbers much more than you realize. Ask the guys who shot the Surefire match in CA what the success rate was. They shot a mile.
Most who claim any success are dropping rounds in from high above using gravity to assist. That skews the results especially when you realize most do not have access to ranges to test this so they spew numbers as if.
I am gonna put a 1 mile target at the Cup and record the results, then let you argue how doable it is on a consistent basis. You can tell everyone how practical this can be faced with real world numbers. Not a mathematical vacuum like everyone uses.
and I guarantee the BC of the 208 is not the same at 2600, the slower you go the lower the BC that fact cannot be pen fucked. Test it and report back what your actual BC is, you don't need a mile for that.
The reality doesn't bear fruit here, and you all missed a big fact, wind happens and bleeds off those numbers much more than you realize. Ask the guys who shot the Surefire match in CA what the success rate was. They shot a mile.
Most who claim any success are dropping rounds in from high above using gravity to assist. That skews the results especially when you realize most do not have access to ranges to test this so they spew numbers as if.
I am gonna put a 1 mile target at the Cup and record the results, then let you argue how doable it is on a consistent basis. You can tell everyone how practical this can be faced with real world numbers. Not a mathematical vacuum like everyone uses.
and I guarantee the BC of the 208 is not the same at 2600, the slower you go the lower the BC that fact cannot be pen fucked. Test it and report back what your actual BC is, you don't need a mile for that.
These aren't fake numbers pulled from my arse. As long as the weight and velocity are correct the energy number will be too. I can speak from experience that the 208gr Amax at subsonic velocities can and will drop deer in their tracks at subsonic velocities and that high BC bullets at subsonic velocities when stable maintain their velocity extremely well..A ballistic calculator can be an amazingly accurate tool as long as the data is entered in correctly.
Also I wasn't speaking to the difficultly of hitting the target just the energy of the bullet upon impact.
Every rifles bleeds off speed different, yes ballistic computers are accurate if the information being fed to them is too.
But repeating manufacturer data is not.
I bet you dropped the deer with shot placement too, can you repeat that at a mile is key.
But repeating manufacturer data is not.
I bet you dropped the deer with shot placement too, can you repeat that at a mile is key.
Huh? What do you mean by this? The rifle has no effect on the bullets velocity after it has left the barrel and in most cases the bullet is increasing in velocity while in the barrel, not "bleeding it off". Yes, there was good shot placement, but a gut shot would have killed them in a longer more painful way, but dead all the same.
Last edited:
News flash, twist rates are not consistent ... There is a reason every rifle is different, barrels matter.
So how it spins the bullet effects it's flight after the fact.
So how it spins the bullet effects it's flight after the fact.
Also Why the hell do you think stepping or banding a BC is more accurate ?
That step or band is never up, you lower the numbers genius. Why do people bother to true software if your numbers are so perfect.
Try shooting at distance and not repeating marketing numbers, you'll soon see the adjustments needed to true.
That step or band is never up, you lower the numbers genius. Why do people bother to true software if your numbers are so perfect.
Try shooting at distance and not repeating marketing numbers, you'll soon see the adjustments needed to true.
I understand what you're saying and that it can have a fairly large effect on trajectory and wind deflection at distance, but the differences in energy on target would be small which is what i was talking about. Run the numbers and see yourself.
It's about 50fps per 10lbs of energy give or take, but the location does matter too. Most common conditions put it around 410ft and not over 450. Now try that with a 175 because most are not using a 208, and even more don't have the set up to push them very well. If you want a dedicated ELR 308 you might have a debate, however most do it on a whim with what is on hand.
Also here is a question,
How the hell do you reconcile the elevation and windage needed...
208AMAX in AZ (using the same data I used with a 338 this week) needs 25+ Mils to 1800 and 13 MILS of windage. We shot to 1760, and 2200 stone cold from doing nothing more than zeroing at 100 yards with a AX338. It was not so simple as pointing and shooting. No truing, no work up, and we needed about 5 rounds to confirm before hitting steel. The windage alone at 13 mils is more than most could dial. So exactly how practical is this ? I was topped out at 24 Mils because they only had 20MOA in the AX, with a BEAST and had to hold 7 mils over for 2200, it was not ideal by any means. Holding at the bottom of the reticle at ELR is pure shit, especially when you consider the sweet spot of any scope is the center.
25 MILS with 13 MILs of windage, on a man sized target = waste of ammo.
We spent the week with Walt Wilkerson from Gunsite, he was our coach / liaison etc for the event. He is a .50 cal Champion (30 year Army SF vet) and routinely shoots at ELR distances. We were discussing this very topic and he goes north and Shoots the Ash Fork AZ ELR shoot they have and stops at 1900 yards even though the Ash Fork event goes to 2600+ At the end of the event says, with him stopping at 1900 he learns more and saves a ton by not wasting time and ammo shooting to 2600. Sure he will admit every now and then some guys get hits but the rounds they shoot at $5+ each, completely wastes their time and effort let alone money, and more time than not people will comment to him after the prize money is given out that in reality, HE WON.
So now you want to load 208s, and lob them at distance which require 13 mils of wind and 25+ mils of elevation. Please... why not just flush the ammo.
Also here is a question,
How the hell do you reconcile the elevation and windage needed...
208AMAX in AZ (using the same data I used with a 338 this week) needs 25+ Mils to 1800 and 13 MILS of windage. We shot to 1760, and 2200 stone cold from doing nothing more than zeroing at 100 yards with a AX338. It was not so simple as pointing and shooting. No truing, no work up, and we needed about 5 rounds to confirm before hitting steel. The windage alone at 13 mils is more than most could dial. So exactly how practical is this ? I was topped out at 24 Mils because they only had 20MOA in the AX, with a BEAST and had to hold 7 mils over for 2200, it was not ideal by any means. Holding at the bottom of the reticle at ELR is pure shit, especially when you consider the sweet spot of any scope is the center.
25 MILS with 13 MILs of windage, on a man sized target = waste of ammo.
We spent the week with Walt Wilkerson from Gunsite, he was our coach / liaison etc for the event. He is a .50 cal Champion (30 year Army SF vet) and routinely shoots at ELR distances. We were discussing this very topic and he goes north and Shoots the Ash Fork AZ ELR shoot they have and stops at 1900 yards even though the Ash Fork event goes to 2600+ At the end of the event says, with him stopping at 1900 he learns more and saves a ton by not wasting time and ammo shooting to 2600. Sure he will admit every now and then some guys get hits but the rounds they shoot at $5+ each, completely wastes their time and effort let alone money, and more time than not people will comment to him after the prize money is given out that in reality, HE WON.
So now you want to load 208s, and lob them at distance which require 13 mils of wind and 25+ mils of elevation. Please... why not just flush the ammo.
And PS,
The 175 & 178 are both 325 and under in the energy department
The 175 & 178 are both 325 and under in the energy department
308 has been a lasting staple in my shooting arsenal. The caliber is capable of ranges past 1000 yds, and I have made some shot out that far. However, if I want to shoot 1000 yds or more, I grab my 300WM or 338. Shooting a mile is not an easy task for any caliber, and pretty damn unreasonable for a 308. Using a 308 for that distance is simply novelty. It has no practical use, other than to say, "hey, I shot a mile with my 308". The shot placement is unpredictable, and not repeatable. If you can make a shot with a 308 at a mile on the first round, I would lay 100 to 1 that you will not have a 2nd round hit, and probably not a 3rd. By all means, go have some fun, but I don't think trying to sell the idea that a 308 is practical at a mile is intelligent.
I gave those 208s AMAX a try, I couldn't get them to group consistently @2450 FPS, and I don't want to push the velocity like many others are. 185 Juggs are up next
Last edited:
To digress, just an interesting observation today. We shot a 1,000 yard F/TR match. Yes 760 yards less but what we saw was interesting.
We heard a bullet hit the berm above us. So it lost a TON of energy. It tumbled past the target, hit a tree, made the tree "move" and knocked a branch off.
Back to original comment about taking one in the head at 1 mile. The only way I'm buying that is, slightly grazed (like haircut graze) or it tumbled a good distance.
We heard a bullet hit the berm above us. So it lost a TON of energy. It tumbled past the target, hit a tree, made the tree "move" and knocked a branch off.
Back to original comment about taking one in the head at 1 mile. The only way I'm buying that is, slightly grazed (like haircut graze) or it tumbled a good distance.
If it will make it more entertaining, I will stand at 1 mile and be your target. If you hit me with a .308, Warren Buffet will give you a billion dollars.
Sounds like a fun experiment but the downside is even if you did get a hit or two, it would be sheer luck. Sounds like you need a 338 Lapua!
Sounds like a fun experiment but the downside is even if you did get a hit or two, it would be sheer luck. Sounds like you need a 338 Lapua!
Run JBM, it's only a 10MPH at that distance.
it's 12.6 Mils of windage for your ELR 308 with a 10MPH wind... that is a big issue when you consider what that also does to your elevation and speed. with a 208AMAX at 2650.
it's 12.6 Mils of windage for your ELR 308 with a 10MPH wind... that is a big issue when you consider what that also does to your elevation and speed. with a 208AMAX at 2650.
Another factor, the huge arc of that bullet's trajectory... What is the wind doing 130' above the target... I think guess and check method would work best but as many others have already said conditions would need to be perfect to have any prayer at a first shot hit or being in the neighborhood enough to see an impact/miss.
