• 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!

Range Report 2nd Edition Suggestions

BryanLitz

BryanLitz

Sergeant
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Aug 24, 2008
625
10
Michigan
www.appliedballisticsllc.com
I'm looking ahead to the second edition of my book: Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting. It's always been the plan to test and publish BC data on more bullets. <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">I would like to take requests about what additional bullets you guys would like to see tested and included in the next editi</span>on.</span>

Also, if there is any other material you would like to see covered, or existing material covered differently, please let me know. I won't be able to incorporate all suggestions, but I'll certainly try to work in the more popular subject matter.

Thanks for your assistance in improving this resource.

-Bryan
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Bryan-

More bullets would be to include some of the high BC big bore solids if possible. I know that this is not always possible but getting some real data on how good those 375 and 408 mono's really are would be very cool.

Also, something that I've noticed when working with some of the CFD simulations I mentioned a few months back, the G7 doesn't always work well as an average BC standard for the LR bullets. Sometimes these bigger, longer bullets fit certain standards much better with less variation in the average value. In essence the curves are "flatter" so using 1 value across the entire speed range is more reasonable. The G2 and G8 both come to mind when considering those long 6.5-7 caliber solids that certain manufacturers are working with now for ELR shooting.

If you can get the new BTHP line from Hornady in the 30c and 338c tested I know that would be a boon, the data that's published is manufacturer data and I've been less than impressed with the accuracy of what the major manufacturers publish in general.

There has been a lot of discussion here lately about how certain things like cant, uphill/downhill shooting affect trajectory, maybe you can more formally address the % variance topic that I touched on a few months back.

ETA: Point Blank Range is something that I have discussed with a few people and discussing how and why we would set the PBR at a certain distance for a certain chambering/bullet combination would be good too.

That's all for now, I'll have more in the future I think, the more advanced topics would be fantastic to see approached with a clear, concise approach that doesn't require advanced mathematics skills to sort through.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Bryan,

I would like to see some G7 data (or whatever G data is appropriate) for some of the better "controlled expansion" hunting bullets for example: The Nosler Accubonds in 6.5 caliber (130 & 140 gr), 7mm 160 gr, 30 cal 200 gr., 338 cal 225 & 250 gr.

The better (BC wise) TTSX bullets from Barnes, et al......

And on another subject, when your wearing your Berger Hat, how about prodding Berger to make a 162 Gr 7mm Cal LRBT (non-VLD) in both target and hunting varieties. I hate having just one source for good match and hunting bullets in that weight range.

Thanks,

Bob
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Bryan, I'd like to have an electronic version of the book. If I didn't already own the first edition in hard back, I'd in fact, pay for it in both formats. But for a second edition, it would be great for some of us to just be able to purchase it in a digital format. Not to mention that it is very handy to be able to just search through the text.

If I was doing it, I'd probably go for the Kindle format, since it supports readers for a variety of devices, including iPhones/iPads and Android machines. Amazon has their digital rights management and author support pretty dialed in. https://dtp.amazon.com/mn/signin has some info on self-publishing.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

+1 on the electronic idea.

Also, and I know I should not admit this here, but I shoot a lot of Remington 308 Interlocks out to 700 yds. Why, because they are cheap and perform adequately. For practice, they serve a purpose.

My frustration stems from not having any drag info available for these bullets. They are pretty much ignored by all of the ballistics software mfgs.

And, I get it, I'm probably the only one that shoots these beyond 100 yds, but, heh, you asked!
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Bryan -

If you could do the JLK series of bullets, especially in .22 cal and .30 cal, that would be great. I have some 80gr JLK's that I am more than happy to donate to the project.

Thanks,
Josh
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

I would like to understand from a statistical perspective how the differential between quality factory ammo and reloaded ammo has evolved over the years if at all. If it isn't possible to go backwards in time to do the historic analysis I'd be curious as to how you would approach such a topic and what the outcome might be for current products.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

I would recommend against a electronic version, it will just end up on a Bit Torrent site and all your hard work will be distributed for free.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

I'm sure you're already planning on it, but how about Hornady's new offerings - particularly their .308 178gr BTHP?
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

As mentioned in the 6mmbr thread, it would be interesting to see the effects pointing has on the bullets (the more popular ones, at least)
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would recommend against a electronic version, it will just end up on a Bit Torrent site and all your hard work will be distributed for free. </div></div>Sure, anything can be cracked, apparently even Kindle books (http://www.toosmartguys.com/kindle-unswindle) although if it was a big problem the publishing industry would be more afraid of selling ebooks than of not selling ebooks.

You'd have to ask how many people, especially for a niche publication, would go to the trouble of stealing it? Exciting as some of Bryan's concepts and data are for us, it's not like bootlegging Harry Potter. Although if he does retitle it "Bryan Litz and the Goblet of Precise Fire" it will get pirated.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Lapua 6.5 123 scennars, JLK 6mm 115, Some 50BMG machine solids would be great. The effects of pointing bullets and their new BC after they've been pointed.
The first edition was great. Can't wait for this new one.
Thanks
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would recommend against a electronic version, it will just end up on a Bit Torrent site and all your hard work will be distributed for free. </div></div>

Good point.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Bryan,

Love your book. I regard it as one of my most valuable tomes
smile.gif


I would look to see some info regarding Bergers new hybrid projectiles, and especially some info regarding calibers larger than .30cal for long range shooting.

Also, as a hand loader it would be lovely to have a source of information that explains some advanced reloading techniques, theories, test methods (ladder, ocw), barrel harmonics etc... so if you feel you are up to the task it would be lovely to hear your spin on the various subjects.

Also, +1 on thinking an electronic version of the book would just be dangerous for your efforts being lost to the void.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: azimutha</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 427Cobra</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would recommend against a electronic version, it will just end up on a Bit Torrent site and all your hard work will be distributed for free. </div></div>Sure, anything can be cracked, apparently even Kindle books (http://www.toosmartguys.com/kindle-unswindle) although if it was a big problem the publishing industry would be more afraid of selling ebooks than of not selling ebooks.

You'd have to ask how many people, especially for a niche publication, would go to the trouble of stealing it? Exciting as some of Bryan's concepts and data are for us, it's not like bootlegging Harry Potter. Although if he does retitle it "Bryan Litz and the Goblet of Precise Fire" it will get pirated. </div></div>

Well from a publishers stand point a electronic version has almost no overhead, so they make more profit per unit, while the authors pay is the same per unit, I would rather have a book anyways.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

vman-

There's a book written by Zeidiker (sp?) which addresses ONLY the high precision reloading aspects. It's about 400 pages and written to a high degree of detail, though I can't in good mind tell you that it's anywhere as easy to read/wade about compared to Bryan's writing style.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

I would like to see a comparison between drag models and bullets.

That is: instead of taking the balistics data and fitting the data to a drag model and deriving correlation to the drag model, take the balistics data and create a drag model for that particular bullet.

Then go on to compare and contrast the derived drag model to one-or-more existing drag models.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

As a means of comparing which drag curves are better for long range bullets maybe generate LR drop tables with G1 and G7 curves with measured BCs for Lapua's bullets. Then generate the same drop tables using Lapua's radar data and compare them and see which is closer.

The same could probably be done with the 175 g SMK if APG would hand over the radar data from that bullet.

I used my ballistics engine to make the comparison and was surprised how close the results using your G7 BC and Lapua's radar data. I am convinced that G7 is the way to go based on shooting and the G7 vs. Lapua comparison.

Just some thoughts,

wade
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

I would like to see some data on the GS Custom line of bullets. I shoot the HV line of bullets hunting, and I have the 125g SP bullets in 7mm that I would like to see the true BC of those bullets. I would also be willing to donate some bullets to this project if needed.

Thank you for continuing your great work and advancing the shooting community.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

I think you covered just about every significant topic in your first volume.

But, since you are open to suggestions, I'd like to read more about the concept of density altitude and its effect on bullet flight. In your book there are appendices which include Miller's stability formulas for velocity and atmospheric corrections, however I'm not sure I recall reading much about these concepts in the book.

In a thread from last year discussing wind drift, LL pointed out that the wind speed can increase as you get higher off the ground, due to the fact that there are less obstructions to block the wind as you increase elevation. In the context of the discussion this behavior was related to the deflection imparted on the bullet. If correcting elevation for a long range shot, the wind readings a shooter might take at ground level could be very different from the wind the bullet experiences at the apex of its flight path.
If there is a systematic way of analyzing or correcting for this behavior, I'm sure you could explain it in layman's terms for us.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JPipes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bryan -

If you could do the JLK series of bullets, especially in .22 cal and .30 cal, that would be great.
Thanks,
Josh </div></div>

Yes, I second the JLK line of .30 and .22

The .224 75vld, 80vld and .308 175vld, 180vld and 180 long boat tail vld specifically.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

1. I'd like to see (mostly for comparison) data on Lapua Scenar .338, particularly 250 & 300gr.

2. I'd like a deeper & more detailed treatment of bullet stability, in particular:

<ul style="list-style-type: disc">[*]What is the impact/result of a bullet being unstable or marginally stable?[*]How stability changes with both velocity and RPM decaying, and if this question can't be answered exactly/precisely - what are the affecting factors (probably bullet aerodynamic shape, air density, RPM, linear velocity - what else?), and how to guesstimate/approximate? If it turns into 2nd-order differential equations - I understand your reluctance to bring them up in the book, but a reference/pointer would surely be nice.[*]What causes the difference in the actual stability between the bullet fired at (muzzle) velocity X and the bullet decelerated to velocity X? Only the fact that the decelerated bullet wouls have slower RPM? If so there must be a way to estimate by how much the rotation slows down given the time of flight, no? And come up with a way to adjust Miller (or a similar predictive) formula to accommodate for that?[*]Detailed description of differences between hunting and target bullets, especially for manufacturers that advertise the same bullet design for both - e.g. Berger Hunting VLD and Berger Target VLD seem to have exactly the same external characteristics (length, shape, weight), so how would one perform in the role of another? Would Hunting VLD be less accurate that Target VLD? Would Target VLD be less suitable for hunting, and if so - how & why (because of what design properties)?[/list]
Thank you for the 1st edition - and I wonder if there's be any 2nd edition buying discount for those who already own the 1st edition?
wink.gif


P.S. If you want to touch any of the above questions here - I for one would love to see the answers even before the book hits the stores!
wink.gif

 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Bryan, slightly off topic but related to mouse07410's post above...

Is Berger intending on releasing their reloading manual sometime in 2011?
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

I've been taking notes and have added most all the bullets to my to do list.

Mouse, your questions about stability are partially addressed in chapter 10. I do plan to develop this chapter more, especially stability in the trans/subsonic speeds for ELR shooting. Check out page 153 for an illustration of the effects of marginal stability. Drag is measured for the 6mm 95 grain VLD fired from a 1:10" barrel (marginal stability) and a 1:8" twist (good stability).

The Berger Hunting and Target VLD's are made on the same tooling with the same procedures, meaning that neither is more or less accurate than the other. For now most of the designs are the same externally. This is to be expected considering how the hunting bullets came about. You can expect to see a slow evolution for each line towards designs that are more optimal for their application. For example, a 6mm 87 grain Hunting VLD was just introduced to satisfy the many hunters with 1:10" twist barrels. Most serious target shooters aren't constrained by barrel twist (using custom barrels) and can shoot the heavier 95, 105, 108, 115 grain bullets.

We are closing in on the manual and plan to have it out in early 2011.

Take care,
-Bryan
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Bryan, yes - stability is discussed in chapter 10, but to get a grasp of what's happening in transonic and subsonic regions we need more.

Here's one more question along the same line:

What causes the difference in the actual stability between the bullet fired at (muzzle) velocity X and the bullet decelerated to velocity X from a (much) higher velocity Y? Only the fact that the decelerated bullet would have slower RPM? If so there must be a way to estimate by how much the rotation slows down given the time of flight, no? And the way to adjust Miller (or a similar predictive) formula to accommodate for that?

Tnx!
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...there must be a way to estimate by how much the rotation slows down given the time of flight, no?</div></div>

There is a way, but it relies on aerodynamic data that is difficult to get (the roll damping coefficient). Furthermore, this coefficient will depend on the # and style of riflings so it becomes barrel specific.

Calculating the spin deceleration is only one of the challenges with predicting transonic stability. Even if you could know the exact RPM as the bullet slows to transonic, the Miller equation still wouldn't apply because it's [Miller] based on typical overturning moment coefficient at ~2800 fps, or comfortably supersonic. The overturning moment at transonic is much different, and again, very difficult to predict.

Bottom line is that predicting transonic stability is very hairy because of the uncertainty in transonic aerodynamics. This is true of any flight vehicle at that speed.

-Bryan
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

A few Swedes pooled and bought a bunch of your books,

I have just finished my first read through,

as for more bullets tested, the 123 grain versions of A-max and Scenar would be great, since those are the two that I shoot the most.

Second and this is if I may, an edit at least for the fomulas and so forth so that us less used to the commonwealth way of measuring things have a chance to follow them,

that would be great.

/Chris
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Byran I would like to see g7 BC's for .510 750 amax (im not sure if its in the book but) How do you deal with wind blowing in different directions downrange ? say your shooting .30 155smk 3000fps at 1000y, you notice between 0-500y the wind is 10mph from 3 to 9oclock and between 600-1000 its blowing 10mph 9 - 3 oclock , different directions basically , how is this calculated for ? how much drift am i going to get ? Is there ballistics program that calculates this ? Maybe you could talk about wind gradient and how the wind acts and moves around hills and mountains ?
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bryan Litz</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...there must be a way to estimate by how much the rotation slows down given the time of flight, no?</div></div>
There is a way, but it relies on aerodynamic data that is difficult to get (the roll damping coefficient). Furthermore, this coefficient will depend on the # and style of riflings so it becomes barrel specific.</div></div>
Yes certainly. But we are talking about <span style="text-decoration: underline">rough</span> predicting, not precise computations! So - since there probably exists empirical data of some more or less typical G7 bullets (such as Berger Hybrid
wink.gif
), and since # and style of rifling is fairly limited - shouldn't we be able to make some useful conjectures?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Calculating the spin deceleration is only one of the challenges with predicting transonic stability. Even if you could know the exact RPM as the bullet slows to transonic, the Miller equation still wouldn't apply because it's [Miller] based on typical overturning moment coefficient at ~2800 fps, or comfortably supersonic. The overturning moment at transonic is much different, and again, very difficult to predict.</div></div>
But can we refer to empirical data from existing projectiles to conjecture about the new ones based on their mass, aerodynamic shape, etc?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bottom line is that predicting transonic stability is very hairy because of the uncertainty in transonic aerodynamics. This is true of any flight vehicle at that speed.</div></div>
No arguments from me. But I'm not talking about certainty - rather useful guesstimates. Cannot we do at least that?

Tnx!
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... I'm not talking about certainty - rather useful guesstimates. Cannot we do at least that?</div></div>

Actually no. I know what you're saying. I don't hesitate to promote useful approximations like the Miller stability formula and my spin drift formula. However, I don't think that a useful approximation can be made of transonic stability.

The reason you can get away with useful estimates for somethings is because the important variables are tangible, measurable things like bullet weight, length, caliber, etc. The variables that govern transonic stability are more subtle like magnus effects (which, being boundary layer dependent, are also Reynolds number dependent), and the character of the riflings. Even if most riflings are similar, some will slow the spin rate of the bullet more than others and that will have a big effect on stability. Then there's bullet imbalance to consider. A tiny dynamic mass imbalance can go undetected for many 100's of yards, but when the bullet approaches transonic and becomes 'tipsy', those tiny imbalances can affect stability in a significant way. The quality of a bullets dynamic balance can vary lot-to-lot and is usually hardest to maintain for the longer bullets that we like for LR shooting.

Believe me if I ever become aware of a useful way to predict transonic stability, I promise I'll share it! However I'm not interested in making something up that will only be right by accident.

You would tell me if you found a way, right...
smile.gif


-Bryan
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You would tell me if you found a way, right...
smile.gif
</div></div>
Sure...
smile.gif


Thanks for taking time to explain these sad details.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Powder Burns</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In a thread from last year discussing wind drift, LL pointed out that the wind speed can increase as you get higher off the ground, due to the fact that there are less obstructions to block the wind as you increase elevation. </div></div>

This explanation as to "why" the wind changes speeds is not correct really. Frank's absolutely right that as you get higher off the ground the wind speed varies, but it has little to do with the obstructions around you. A totally flat expanse for 10 miles in any direction, smooth concrete, etc. would still show the behavior very clearly.

It's due to the viscous behavior of the fluid/solid interaction. In this case the fluid is the air and the solid is the ground, the interaction behavior is because the air cannot have any speed AT the ground. Continuum doesn't allow it by definition.

Here's what the 2D slice of the velocity would look like, and not getting into boundary layer theory, flow interactions, circulation, vortex shedding around the flow obstructions, etc. You're looking at a simplified version of the velocity profile for a laminar boundary layer, viscous fluid near a planar surface.

CE092500FG0010.gif
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Bohem I believe you are technically correct, but in reference to long range shooting the boundary layer is probably irrelevant since it would be so short - probably not even inches.

With long range trajectories measured in the tens of feet I think it would be the mechanical turbulence effects of trees, uneven ground, buildings, wtc that would rule for trajectory effects.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Another vote for more JLKs.

If you have time and resources, I would also like to see individual results of pointing the projectiles (BC advantage).

Although slightly outside of your expertise, a chapter on brass comparisons, ie volumes, wall thicknesses, etc would be welcomed to.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

This is why I didn't particularly want to get into the low reynolds number BL theory and applications, but BL's on the order of inches depends on if the flow is tripped, the wind velocity and a host of other things. Trees, buildings, bushes all have their effects as well but at the very low Reynolds numbers we're talking about it's not uncommon to get thick BL's.

The BL on the tail of an airship that I worked on was on the order of 6 feet thick across the flight surfaces at 45 KTAS. There are pictures of men standing on the flight surfaces of zeppelins during full forward flight and not being blown away, the layers can get very thick.

Getting the bullet up and out of it is easily accomplished, but for a 308's flight path to 1k having a max ordinate in the realm of 12-15 feet, it spends a substantial time in the BL effect. For flatter rounds like the speedier 6.5's and the bigger magnums they spend even more time in there over flat terrain.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

I've done some development with .260 rem, and I think I've finally gotten a feel for the Sierra, Nosler, and Hornady projectiles and how to employ them.

What I'd like to tackle next are the .284/7mm projectiles from the same makers. The chambering/capabilities I'll be exploring will be based on the .280 Rem. I strongly suspect that it will emerge as a remarkably capable LR chambering that has some bore longevity advantage. For too many years, there has been a drought of LR-capable projectiles in this caliber. Now that this is not longer the case, it follows that we could use more info about how to make it get up on its hind legs and sing us a nifty tune.

Matters like velocity preferences and twists, etc. How would barrel lengths affect performance. For instance, is there a bore length that delimits diminishing returns, etc.

My own personal handloading philosophy is to run a longer barrel at a less-than-peak velocity accuracy node, to get respectable velocity without incinerating the throat. How does this philosophy coexist with actual bore lengths, LR projectiles, and the .280 Rem chambering?

Inqiring minds, etc...

Greg
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Would like twist rate information for bullets..ranges and ideal twists..
Which stabilize at what distances
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

I have a copy of the first edition and it is a tremendous reference.

It's far enough from the actual goal of the book that I don't really expect it to make it into the second edition, but I'd love to see some information on rimfire projectiles and ballistics.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

As the proud new owner of an A'zon Kindle, I also eagerly await a digital version.
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Hi Mr. Litz! Thank you very much for writing the 1st edition! I really love it, and it has helped my shooting tremendously.
smile.gif


I am a shooter from Sweden who usually shoots the 6.5x55 cartridge. Here in Sweden Norma produces a very good 6.5mm preloaded competition round called Norma DiamondLine which is molycoated. They actually have two versions, one load that takes the bullet up to 840 m/s and a hotter version which takes the 130 grain bullet up to 900 m/s.
According to Norma the G1 BC of the bullet is 0.548. But how accurate that figure is I dont know. I handload this round myself, and If you could incorporate that bullet into the 2:nd edition with G7 estimates I would be very happy.

Please keep up the good work, and keep on writing and shooting!

Best regards!
/sven
smile.gif
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Oh and an improved copy of PM that's tested and runs OK on Mac and Linux, please!

Tnx!
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wildcountry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">g7 data for the new 7mm, 180gr smk would be nice. </div></div>

I second that
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Definitely more hunting type bullets such as the Barnes 168 Tipped TSX, Nosler Accubonds, etc...

If you need guns in .338, .416, or .50 holler at me.

Kyle
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

.50
AMax has had B.C.'s all over the place. Mostly higher than what is observed.
Wouldn't mind some ball and AP in .50
 
Re: 2nd Edition Suggestions

Bryan, in section 4 (Uphill/Downhill Shooting) you mention and rightly discount the lame Rifleman's Rule, but don't mention the IRR, which while still not entirely accurate is reasonably close, especially at angles under 45 degrees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Michael Glenn
7mm short magnums.
Replies
91
Views
3K
JR1200W3
JR1200W3
P
6.5 Grendel - Early Pressure Signs
Replies
0
Views
215
penguinofsleep
P
P
a geek’s delight: reverse engineer a distance-velocity table to Cd/Mach curve
Replies
21
Views
1K
DocUSMCRetired
DocUSMCRetired
secondofangle2
Powder humidity changes inside loaded cartridges
Replies
40
Views
1K
secondofangle2
secondofangle2
MinistryOfTruth
Vortex Impact 4000 and Razor 4000 mini-review.
Replies
17
Views
2K
tangokilo
T
Top Bottom
Back