Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Graham,
Give Josh a couple of days to report BC results. He is probably flying home as we post.
Graham,
Give Josh a couple of days to report BC results. He is probably flying home as we post.
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dan has an album on FB with a lot more images
Facebook Album
</div></div>
The link appears to be broken.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dan has an album on FB with a lot more images
Facebook Album
</div></div>
The link appears to be broken.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Fyi - Given how we gathered and input the atmospheric data into the two computers for each shot, I'll be posting the detailed atmospheric data (as in Pressure, temp., humidity, Density Altitude) separately as a PDF of an excel spreadsheet.
Jeffvn
Fyi - Given how we gathered and input the atmospheric data into the two computers for each shot, I'll be posting the detailed atmospheric data (as in Pressure, temp., humidity, Density Altitude) separately as a PDF of an excel spreadsheet.
Jeffvn
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Jeff and all, glad I could help out.
Accuracy testing poses a whole set of interesting problems. Testing BC is actually fairly straightforward in practice. Instrumentation and setup is certainly critical, but after that, the velocity between points tells the tale.
Accuracy testing is FAR more complex, if we intend to test the BULLET, as opposed to anything else. I would say we could probably come up with a way to say a particular bullet is capable of very good accuracy, but I can't tell you if it's NOT, except perhaps with a particular load in a particular gun, which hardly seems meaningful.
For example, I'm not personally having very much success with the new Berger Gen II in my rifle. It shoot's very well for others, so my mediocre preformance thus far does not mean anything. In contrast, the Hornady 285 has been outstanding for me right from the start, but that does not mean it shoots well for everyone.
I think it would take several days, with much more support to do a realistic valid test program. It's certainly worth looking at to do a few of the most promising high BC bullets, but I fear the current test location would not be capable of the required support.
Jeff and all, glad I could help out.
Accuracy testing poses a whole set of interesting problems. Testing BC is actually fairly straightforward in practice. Instrumentation and setup is certainly critical, but after that, the velocity between points tells the tale.
Accuracy testing is FAR more complex, if we intend to test the BULLET, as opposed to anything else. I would say we could probably come up with a way to say a particular bullet is capable of very good accuracy, but I can't tell you if it's NOT, except perhaps with a particular load in a particular gun, which hardly seems meaningful.
For example, I'm not personally having very much success with the new Berger Gen II in my rifle. It shoot's very well for others, so my mediocre preformance thus far does not mean anything. In contrast, the Hornady 285 has been outstanding for me right from the start, but that does not mean it shoots well for everyone.
I think it would take several days, with much more support to do a realistic valid test program. It's certainly worth looking at to do a few of the most promising high BC bullets, but I fear the current test location would not be capable of the required support.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Good Morning, All.
Myself and Ply1951Guy developed the chronogrpah. Until now, I've requested to stay out of the thread and we've been working diligently on several projects involved with this testing event.
Frank and Cory, as well as Jeff, Dan and the other helpers made this a pretty smooth event when all things are considered. It was a pleasure to see those whom I already know as well as to meet the new faces and interact with the people behind the usernames.
Thank you to Cory and Frank for pulling the trigger on a day which will rival watching paint dry for the most boring range events of the year. It was instrumental to both Jeff and myself to have highly experienced shooters whom we trusted to keep the rifles pointed far enough away from us. This test does have some element of danger in it as the current state of the art for this chronograph requires 2 live bodies downrange in relative proximity to the microphones to run the laptops. (It's in develpment to phase this out soon).
To everyone looking for data and post-processing:
I will ask that you're patient, both Francis and myself have full time jobs that don't involved processing acoustic data and the post processing is very manual. As I've told Jeff, Noel and Frank: We will not compromise the quality checks on the data processing and double checking to make sure that one of us didn't have a dyslexic moment and cause a data abnormality. In this case the schedule is somewhat important, but neither of us are willing to hang our hats on data that has been rushed to publication and may contain human induced errors during the downselect process.
Thanks for understanding.
Again, thank you to all involved. As boring as the day was on the range, this is a pretty cool step forward to bringing high fidelity ballistics data to the everyday user in my opinion.
Good Morning, All.
Myself and Ply1951Guy developed the chronogrpah. Until now, I've requested to stay out of the thread and we've been working diligently on several projects involved with this testing event.
Frank and Cory, as well as Jeff, Dan and the other helpers made this a pretty smooth event when all things are considered. It was a pleasure to see those whom I already know as well as to meet the new faces and interact with the people behind the usernames.
Thank you to Cory and Frank for pulling the trigger on a day which will rival watching paint dry for the most boring range events of the year. It was instrumental to both Jeff and myself to have highly experienced shooters whom we trusted to keep the rifles pointed far enough away from us. This test does have some element of danger in it as the current state of the art for this chronograph requires 2 live bodies downrange in relative proximity to the microphones to run the laptops. (It's in develpment to phase this out soon).
To everyone looking for data and post-processing:
I will ask that you're patient, both Francis and myself have full time jobs that don't involved processing acoustic data and the post processing is very manual. As I've told Jeff, Noel and Frank: We will not compromise the quality checks on the data processing and double checking to make sure that one of us didn't have a dyslexic moment and cause a data abnormality. In this case the schedule is somewhat important, but neither of us are willing to hang our hats on data that has been rushed to publication and may contain human induced errors during the downselect process.
Thanks for understanding.
Again, thank you to all involved. As boring as the day was on the range, this is a pretty cool step forward to bringing high fidelity ballistics data to the everyday user in my opinion.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Cory,
Operating from the premise that only the top three, or four, BC test projectiles moved forward into an accuracy test event; What personnel would you suggest, what range conditions would be required, and what test protocol would you employ?
Cory,
Operating from the premise that only the top three, or four, BC test projectiles moved forward into an accuracy test event; What personnel would you suggest, what range conditions would be required, and what test protocol would you employ?
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Ideally, we'd have three shooters and three rifles to average out shooter error. Loads for each bullet would need to be tailored to each rifle, ideally on the same set of dies, scales, press, etc., once again to minimize the number of variables. That would likely require the ability to load test rounds, test fire at 300 - 500 to get an OCW load, tweak the seating depth and shoot at 100 for precision, then load that for the long range tests.
For the long range test, I'd set targets at 1500 and 2000 meters (or just past subsonic) on 4x8 frames with a camera or observer set to precisely plot strikes. Run all shots over the chronograph to plot velocity against the strike. Run five seperate five shot groups for each bullet at each range with each shooter and concentrate on vertical spread. All three shooters should be shooting at the same time, basically in sequence so as to have as close to the same conditions of light and mirage as possible. Best done near first light for best conditions of visibility.
Bores need to be cleaned or conditioned prior to changing bullets for group. Ideally the test would be blind to the shooter, either preload the magazine or otherwise prevent the shooter from knowing which projectile is loaded.
Something like this would probably take three days, one to work up loads and the other two to shoot all the test groups.
Now, having done all that, what conclusions could be drawn from such a test? We'd have some idea of subsonic stability. We'd know if a particular bullet is capable of good/great long range performance, given the right combination of gun/loading. We might determine that a particular bullet/barrel combination is unworkable despite a reasonable stability factor. Beyond that, I'm not sure what we would get out of all that effort.
Ideally, we'd have three shooters and three rifles to average out shooter error. Loads for each bullet would need to be tailored to each rifle, ideally on the same set of dies, scales, press, etc., once again to minimize the number of variables. That would likely require the ability to load test rounds, test fire at 300 - 500 to get an OCW load, tweak the seating depth and shoot at 100 for precision, then load that for the long range tests.
For the long range test, I'd set targets at 1500 and 2000 meters (or just past subsonic) on 4x8 frames with a camera or observer set to precisely plot strikes. Run all shots over the chronograph to plot velocity against the strike. Run five seperate five shot groups for each bullet at each range with each shooter and concentrate on vertical spread. All three shooters should be shooting at the same time, basically in sequence so as to have as close to the same conditions of light and mirage as possible. Best done near first light for best conditions of visibility.
Bores need to be cleaned or conditioned prior to changing bullets for group. Ideally the test would be blind to the shooter, either preload the magazine or otherwise prevent the shooter from knowing which projectile is loaded.
Something like this would probably take three days, one to work up loads and the other two to shoot all the test groups.
Now, having done all that, what conclusions could be drawn from such a test? We'd have some idea of subsonic stability. We'd know if a particular bullet is capable of good/great long range performance, given the right combination of gun/loading. We might determine that a particular bullet/barrel combination is unworkable despite a reasonable stability factor. Beyond that, I'm not sure what we would get out of all that effort.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Then we need to have the test at Gunsite to make life much easier... At least that is my recommendation this way we have access to the rifles, the land with reasonable impacts and the reloading on site.
Maybe we push that proposed SH Group Combination Class back to Late March, then do the tests in some way in conjunction ? One thought... open to others.
Then we need to have the test at Gunsite to make life much easier... At least that is my recommendation this way we have access to the rifles, the land with reasonable impacts and the reloading on site.
Maybe we push that proposed SH Group Combination Class back to Late March, then do the tests in some way in conjunction ? One thought... open to others.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Tagging it onto the class would certainly make the trip more cost justified for the end result. We'd be able to get more shooters/rifles involved, all tuned up from class, making for a better dataset. Anything weather proof can be left in place for the duration of the testing, in fact it can be pre-positioned and tested well in advance.
I'm certainly open to hosting it, still, the real questions is what can we expect to prove? Is that worth the effort? Does anyone have a better idea?
Tagging it onto the class would certainly make the trip more cost justified for the end result. We'd be able to get more shooters/rifles involved, all tuned up from class, making for a better dataset. Anything weather proof can be left in place for the duration of the testing, in fact it can be pre-positioned and tested well in advance.
I'm certainly open to hosting it, still, the real questions is what can we expect to prove? Is that worth the effort? Does anyone have a better idea?
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
I think because of the expense of these rounds, people are interested in performance. Its a, "effective bang for the buck" situation.
Like you posted, when you have questionable accuracy you want to minimize the expense.
So, when it comes to custom or even factory 338 rounds, which is going to give me the best performance the first time and not a trial and error waste of both money and time. On average people shoot far less of them, so moving through the minefield of high performance versus less than stellar performance is important to guys moving into this space.
If we note that Brand "X" was off the mark versus others, well that is just one less bullet to consider. At the end of the day, the 1500 meter + Performance is what is important. If we find less than desirable results that makes a difference.
I think because of the expense of these rounds, people are interested in performance. Its a, "effective bang for the buck" situation.
Like you posted, when you have questionable accuracy you want to minimize the expense.
So, when it comes to custom or even factory 338 rounds, which is going to give me the best performance the first time and not a trial and error waste of both money and time. On average people shoot far less of them, so moving through the minefield of high performance versus less than stellar performance is important to guys moving into this space.
If we note that Brand "X" was off the mark versus others, well that is just one less bullet to consider. At the end of the day, the 1500 meter + Performance is what is important. If we find less than desirable results that makes a difference.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
I can certainly see that working if we had enough different rifles in the mix. For the BC tests, using the same or nearly identical rifles leaves the bullets flying pretty much the same. For this, I think having a mix of available rifles would be a good thing. It would be nice if we used the same make/model/reticle of scope, so the aiming process was identical for everyone. Using a Horus, P4F, MLR and TMR in four different scopes would just make for too many variables. That would seem a minor logistics problem, not unsolvable.
Factory ammo from factory guns would end up as a highly reliable test, if a tad expensive to conduct. The custom bullets in handloads would certainly show a trend, given enough different guns. If, for example, Brand X shoots great in 4 out of 7 guns and Brand Y shoots great in 6 out of 7, you could reasonably say your odds of getting good results would start with a box of Y. That might be enough, and I think it's about the best we could do. There may be other valid conclusions to be drawn, but much would depend on the mix of barrels. The load development process for example might reveal much about how small changes affect a given bullet.
I can certainly see that working if we had enough different rifles in the mix. For the BC tests, using the same or nearly identical rifles leaves the bullets flying pretty much the same. For this, I think having a mix of available rifles would be a good thing. It would be nice if we used the same make/model/reticle of scope, so the aiming process was identical for everyone. Using a Horus, P4F, MLR and TMR in four different scopes would just make for too many variables. That would seem a minor logistics problem, not unsolvable.
Factory ammo from factory guns would end up as a highly reliable test, if a tad expensive to conduct. The custom bullets in handloads would certainly show a trend, given enough different guns. If, for example, Brand X shoots great in 4 out of 7 guns and Brand Y shoots great in 6 out of 7, you could reasonably say your odds of getting good results would start with a box of Y. That might be enough, and I think it's about the best we could do. There may be other valid conclusions to be drawn, but much would depend on the mix of barrels. The load development process for example might reveal much about how small changes affect a given bullet.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
I am 100% behind the concept of this kind of testing, but agree that is is going to be potentially difficult to say X bullet is better than Y, unless you have multiple rifles showing that tendency. The difficulty is, as Cory said, that not all rifles like all bullets.
I also like the idea of connecting a test onto the end of an ELR class at Gunsite. It certainly gives more folks (specifically including me) an incentive to go, and potentially increases the number of potential firing platforms.
If my standard twist 338LM fits the projected program (Still TAC 338 repeater, 9.5 twist barrel) I'm happy to make it available for the test, as well as any ammo that I can provide.
Jeffvn
I am 100% behind the concept of this kind of testing, but agree that is is going to be potentially difficult to say X bullet is better than Y, unless you have multiple rifles showing that tendency. The difficulty is, as Cory said, that not all rifles like all bullets.
I also like the idea of connecting a test onto the end of an ELR class at Gunsite. It certainly gives more folks (specifically including me) an incentive to go, and potentially increases the number of potential firing platforms.
If my standard twist 338LM fits the projected program (Still TAC 338 repeater, 9.5 twist barrel) I'm happy to make it available for the test, as well as any ammo that I can provide.
Jeffvn
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
I think all we could prove is that one bullet tends to show good accuracy from more rifle / load combinations than another bullet, and that one factory load works well in more rifles than another. It may be possible to show a bullet more tolerant of load variations like seating depth or velocity than another. Beyond that, not much can be proven that would be related directly to the bullet.
I think all we could prove is that one bullet tends to show good accuracy from more rifle / load combinations than another bullet, and that one factory load works well in more rifles than another. It may be possible to show a bullet more tolerant of load variations like seating depth or velocity than another. Beyond that, not much can be proven that would be related directly to the bullet.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Cory,
We can muster more than one rifle for the ZA, but not enough for the round robin scenario. I do see your point in using that approach.
In the short term; I will have to be content with estabilishing accuracy potential without reference to frequency of that result for any given combination of components. It is probably just as well. The BC work that has yet to be be performed on the ZA design, originally slated for use in this test, is still awaiting basic stability validation to ensure chronograph operator safety.
We have plenty on our plate in preparation for SHOT.
Cory,
We can muster more than one rifle for the ZA, but not enough for the round robin scenario. I do see your point in using that approach.
In the short term; I will have to be content with estabilishing accuracy potential without reference to frequency of that result for any given combination of components. It is probably just as well. The BC work that has yet to be be performed on the ZA design, originally slated for use in this test, is still awaiting basic stability validation to ensure chronograph operator safety.
We have plenty on our plate in preparation for SHOT.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Can anyone tell me what bullets where being used?
So far from reading it sounds like a 230 Predator, 245 Leigh Bore Rider, Seirra 300 SMK and weren't two others tested?
Can anyone tell me what bullets where being used?
So far from reading it sounds like a 230 Predator, 245 Leigh Bore Rider, Seirra 300 SMK and weren't two others tested?
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
It is interesting to read these last few posts regarding testing for accuracy. Frequent use by many individuals of the same bullet can reveal definate trends and these can mean great "savings" on cost for a starting point for others.
The sort of information which really helps is whether the bullet seems to suit a jump into the lands or whether it benefits from being seated into the lands.
The next stage is finding the "nodal" accuracy velocity bands for the bullet. There is a definate trend here which becomes noticeable both at short range and at distance. It takes a while for this to filter through but this certainly helps with load development.
Once you have a good understanding of the above the next benefit seems to come from bore diameter on the barrel and tailoring that to specific use. By that I mean the "round count" and time between cleaning can be factored into what works best and particularly with certain bullets.
After that it seems to be a lucky dip as to what makes one barrel a "hummer" and another a normal one.
We did a lot of this work with 7mm bullets, specifically the Berger 180g VLD and the Sierra 175g SMK and more recently the Berger 180g Hybrids within our F Class League over here in the UK. It was very helpful in the build up to the World Championships in 2009.
In comparison the .338 LM suffers from not being used in a collective group who are shooting together at the same time and willing to share information. Military ammunition suffers from being unable to be tailored to a barrel or experimented with. The results from a test as proposed would be a very welcome starting point of data for those wanting to work up loads for their rifles.
One of the main limiting factors though with this calibre when wanting to determine how a respective bullet shoots best is that the majority of rifles in this calibre are "mag fed" and if loaded for the mag the ability to seat the bullet into the lands is often limited. However, if you do test for all permutations it is always possible to tailor a reamer drawing to give a chamber which can enable a bullet to be seated into the lands and feed in a magazine.
So the results from this type of a test will be well worth doing and readily received.
It is interesting to read these last few posts regarding testing for accuracy. Frequent use by many individuals of the same bullet can reveal definate trends and these can mean great "savings" on cost for a starting point for others.
The sort of information which really helps is whether the bullet seems to suit a jump into the lands or whether it benefits from being seated into the lands.
The next stage is finding the "nodal" accuracy velocity bands for the bullet. There is a definate trend here which becomes noticeable both at short range and at distance. It takes a while for this to filter through but this certainly helps with load development.
Once you have a good understanding of the above the next benefit seems to come from bore diameter on the barrel and tailoring that to specific use. By that I mean the "round count" and time between cleaning can be factored into what works best and particularly with certain bullets.
After that it seems to be a lucky dip as to what makes one barrel a "hummer" and another a normal one.
We did a lot of this work with 7mm bullets, specifically the Berger 180g VLD and the Sierra 175g SMK and more recently the Berger 180g Hybrids within our F Class League over here in the UK. It was very helpful in the build up to the World Championships in 2009.
In comparison the .338 LM suffers from not being used in a collective group who are shooting together at the same time and willing to share information. Military ammunition suffers from being unable to be tailored to a barrel or experimented with. The results from a test as proposed would be a very welcome starting point of data for those wanting to work up loads for their rifles.
One of the main limiting factors though with this calibre when wanting to determine how a respective bullet shoots best is that the majority of rifles in this calibre are "mag fed" and if loaded for the mag the ability to seat the bullet into the lands is often limited. However, if you do test for all permutations it is always possible to tailor a reamer drawing to give a chamber which can enable a bullet to be seated into the lands and feed in a magazine.
So the results from this type of a test will be well worth doing and readily received.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
I would think that for an accuracy test you would want to remove as much shooter error as possible, especially when doing distance testing. For this I believe that a static mount of significant weight would almost have to be a requirement as the best option for mounting and firing of the rifles. As was already said, this would be an expensive test so removing as many data attributes that could contribute to accuracy variations would be key in my opinion. Otherwise I think you will just end up with continued arguments discussing how the shooter screwed up the test.
I would think that for an accuracy test you would want to remove as much shooter error as possible, especially when doing distance testing. For this I believe that a static mount of significant weight would almost have to be a requirement as the best option for mounting and firing of the rifles. As was already said, this would be an expensive test so removing as many data attributes that could contribute to accuracy variations would be key in my opinion. Otherwise I think you will just end up with continued arguments discussing how the shooter screwed up the test.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me what bullets where being used?
So far from reading it sounds like a 230 Predator, 245 Leigh Bore Rider, Seirra 300 SMK and weren't two others tested?</div></div>
Tim we shot,
232gr GS Custom
300gr Berger Hybrid
300gr SMK
245gr LeHigh
235gr Predator Solids
285gr Hornady
278gr ZA Customs
Peter,
My thoughts exactly and something I think would be of huge benefit
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can anyone tell me what bullets where being used?
So far from reading it sounds like a 230 Predator, 245 Leigh Bore Rider, Seirra 300 SMK and weren't two others tested?</div></div>
Tim we shot,
232gr GS Custom
300gr Berger Hybrid
300gr SMK
245gr LeHigh
235gr Predator Solids
285gr Hornady
278gr ZA Customs
Peter,
My thoughts exactly and something I think would be of huge benefit
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Flounder, yes, a sled would be the absolute best system, but creating one to handle a number of different rifle would be a problem and expense. By using a number of shooters and a number of groups, pure shooter error would be filtered out pretty well. The shooters will all have a proven track record, so my biggest concerns would be finding a load for each rifle and getting each rifle equipped with an identical sight with a fine reticle, rather than say a P4 or Horus, which simply makes shooting a very long range group harder. (Please note this is not a bash on these reticles, and there are ways around it, but why have the hassle?)
Peter, we may not get all that accomplished, but I think we could go a pretty long way towards that goal.
Flounder, yes, a sled would be the absolute best system, but creating one to handle a number of different rifle would be a problem and expense. By using a number of shooters and a number of groups, pure shooter error would be filtered out pretty well. The shooters will all have a proven track record, so my biggest concerns would be finding a load for each rifle and getting each rifle equipped with an identical sight with a fine reticle, rather than say a P4 or Horus, which simply makes shooting a very long range group harder. (Please note this is not a bash on these reticles, and there are ways around it, but why have the hassle?)
Peter, we may not get all that accomplished, but I think we could go a pretty long way towards that goal.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Data should be posted soon, a whole bunch of number crunching needed to be done after the shooting.
Data should be posted soon, a whole bunch of number crunching needed to be done after the shooting.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
no Lapua Scenars were tested? I would have thought that would be a good way to validate your data, since Lapua derived their BC's from empirical data too, I think some sort of radar measurement of speeds?
no Lapua Scenars were tested? I would have thought that would be a good way to validate your data, since Lapua derived their BC's from empirical data too, I think some sort of radar measurement of speeds?
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Cali tz,
I agree. Lapua should have been represented. The omission was an oversight which can be remedied in the next round of BC testing.
The new ZA338/6.5 will be present in the next set also.
Cali tz,
I agree. Lapua should have been represented. The omission was an oversight which can be remedied in the next round of BC testing.
The new ZA338/6.5 will be present in the next set also.
G
Guest
Guest
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Noel Carlson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cali tz,
I agree. Lapua should have been represented. The omission was an oversight which can be remedied in the next round of BC testing.
The new ZA338/6.5 will be present in the next set also.</div></div> We can provide our Scenar load for the next round of testing.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Noel Carlson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cali tz,
I agree. Lapua should have been represented. The omission was an oversight which can be remedied in the next round of BC testing.
The new ZA338/6.5 will be present in the next set also.</div></div> We can provide our Scenar load for the next round of testing.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
I can't wait to see the numbers!! I am excited. These numbers will decide which bullet I will try first through my rifle. I don't know if I missed it or not, but what are the twist rate of the barrels?
I can't wait to see the numbers!! I am excited. These numbers will decide which bullet I will try first through my rifle. I don't know if I missed it or not, but what are the twist rate of the barrels?
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
For this test all the standard projos were fired through a set of ASW 338 rifles which have Rock 5-R 9.4 twist barrels.
For this test all the standard projos were fired through a set of ASW 338 rifles which have Rock 5-R 9.4 twist barrels.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cali_tz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no Lapua Scenars were tested? I would have thought that would be a good way to validate your data, since Lapua derived their BC's from empirical data too, I think some sort of radar measurement of speeds?</div></div>
I had SW Ammo 250gr Scenars with me, just didn't think to shoot them. They weren't on the test sheets so I just left them in my bag.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cali_tz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no Lapua Scenars were tested? I would have thought that would be a good way to validate your data, since Lapua derived their BC's from empirical data too, I think some sort of radar measurement of speeds?</div></div>
I had SW Ammo 250gr Scenars with me, just didn't think to shoot them. They weren't on the test sheets so I just left them in my bag.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
It will be interesting to see how velocity dependant the B.C. numbers for the solids are compared against the lead core bullets.
It will be interesting to see how velocity dependant the B.C. numbers for the solids are compared against the lead core bullets.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Been holding my breath for a while, think I may be a bit blue around the edges!
Actually very eager to see the Data!
Thank you to the entire crew ahead of time,
Although a labor of love , Still a great deal of Labor.
Been holding my breath for a while, think I may be a bit blue around the edges!
Actually very eager to see the Data!
Thank you to the entire crew ahead of time,
Although a labor of love , Still a great deal of Labor.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Tag
Tag
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Josh,
Where are you ?
Numbers, everybody wants numbers... give me numbers.
Josh,
Where are you ?
Numbers, everybody wants numbers... give me numbers.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Frank, (and everyone else)
I am almost done post-processing all the data. It is a very time intensive process. I have been working on it 5-6 hours a day since Monday. I am about 95% done, then some quality checks and we can publish for everyone to see. Like Josh said a couple days ago, we do not want to rush it. We want to make sure everything is right before we release it to everyone. The data will be available very soon.
Thanks,
Francis
Frank, (and everyone else)
I am almost done post-processing all the data. It is a very time intensive process. I have been working on it 5-6 hours a day since Monday. I am about 95% done, then some quality checks and we can publish for everyone to see. Like Josh said a couple days ago, we do not want to rush it. We want to make sure everything is right before we release it to everyone. The data will be available very soon.
Thanks,
Francis
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Francis,
Thanks for your commitment to doing this conscientiously. Your published results will be valuable to all, both manufacturers and consumers, only if the quality is reliable.
Francis,
Thanks for your commitment to doing this conscientiously. Your published results will be valuable to all, both manufacturers and consumers, only if the quality is reliable.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
When the results are published is the load data going to be published too? So that we can try to best replicate the best performance.
When the results are published is the load data going to be published too? So that we can try to best replicate the best performance.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the results are published is the load data going to be published too? So that we can try to best replicate the best performance. </div></div>
Why would you replicate someone elses load? The whole point of reloading is to produce ammunition specifically tailored to your rifle. Also from what I know these loads where not worked up for accuracy prior the test. But I'd refer to someone directly involved to verify this.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the results are published is the load data going to be published too? So that we can try to best replicate the best performance. </div></div>
Why would you replicate someone elses load? The whole point of reloading is to produce ammunition specifically tailored to your rifle. Also from what I know these loads where not worked up for accuracy prior the test. But I'd refer to someone directly involved to verify this.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Not all the loads were optimal and the loads were not done for accuracy, it was to test BC out at distance.
The load data was not included and not a factor, as some were hand loads and some were factory loads.
Not all the loads were optimal and the loads were not done for accuracy, it was to test BC out at distance.
The load data was not included and not a factor, as some were hand loads and some were factory loads.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Longshot38</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the results are published is the load data going to be published too? So that we can try to best replicate the best performance. </div></div>
Why would you replicate someone elses load? The whole point of reloading is to produce ammunition specifically tailored to your rifle. Also from what I know these loads where not worked up for accuracy prior the test. But I'd refer to someone directly involved to verify this.</div></div>
No I like to use a close match then work it. I don't feel like wasting a couple pounds of powder, brass life and especially expensive bullets to find a load. Including barrel life considering each barrel with gun smith work is about 800 dollars. .308 is no problem I don't mind, but with the .338 Lapua i do. I got lucky and found a good 250gr scenar load but with expensive solids do you really want to waste them trying to find a load? No. So even if their loads aren't perfect they might to close enough for me to tweak and not have to buy 5 different types of powders.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Longshot38</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the results are published is the load data going to be published too? So that we can try to best replicate the best performance. </div></div>
Why would you replicate someone elses load? The whole point of reloading is to produce ammunition specifically tailored to your rifle. Also from what I know these loads where not worked up for accuracy prior the test. But I'd refer to someone directly involved to verify this.</div></div>
No I like to use a close match then work it. I don't feel like wasting a couple pounds of powder, brass life and especially expensive bullets to find a load. Including barrel life considering each barrel with gun smith work is about 800 dollars. .308 is no problem I don't mind, but with the .338 Lapua i do. I got lucky and found a good 250gr scenar load but with expensive solids do you really want to waste them trying to find a load? No. So even if their loads aren't perfect they might to close enough for me to tweak and not have to buy 5 different types of powders.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Longshot38</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the results are published is the load data going to be published too? So that we can try to best replicate the best performance. </div></div>
Why would you replicate someone elses load? The whole point of reloading is to produce ammunition specifically tailored to your rifle. Also from what I know these loads where not worked up for accuracy prior the test. But I'd refer to someone directly involved to verify this.</div></div>
No I like to use a close match then work it. I don't feel like wasting a couple pounds of powder, brass life and especially expensive bullets to find a load. Including barrel life considering each barrel with gun smith work is about 800 dollars. .308 is no problem I don't mind, but with the .338 Lapua i do. I got lucky and found a good 250gr scenar load but with expensive solids do you really want to waste them trying to find a load? No. So even if their loads aren't perfect they might to close enough for me to tweak and not have to buy 5 different types of powders. </div></div>
Well I used to waste lots of time and ammo working up loads until a friend of mine talked some since into me. When I develop a new load for a rifle this I want I do. I load up somewhere between 6-10 with a powder of appropriate burn rate stepping up my powder charge in 1/2 grain increments until I find my upper pressure limit. Then I load up about 4-6 groups of 5 rounds backing off from where I found pressure in .2 grain increments. This saves my a lot of bullets, powder, and time.
Also I don't like wasting bullets but I also don't mind feeding my habit. Generally speaking if money is that big of concern then larger bores are not the best route for the shooter.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Longshot38</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TimResin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the results are published is the load data going to be published too? So that we can try to best replicate the best performance. </div></div>
Why would you replicate someone elses load? The whole point of reloading is to produce ammunition specifically tailored to your rifle. Also from what I know these loads where not worked up for accuracy prior the test. But I'd refer to someone directly involved to verify this.</div></div>
No I like to use a close match then work it. I don't feel like wasting a couple pounds of powder, brass life and especially expensive bullets to find a load. Including barrel life considering each barrel with gun smith work is about 800 dollars. .308 is no problem I don't mind, but with the .338 Lapua i do. I got lucky and found a good 250gr scenar load but with expensive solids do you really want to waste them trying to find a load? No. So even if their loads aren't perfect they might to close enough for me to tweak and not have to buy 5 different types of powders. </div></div>
Well I used to waste lots of time and ammo working up loads until a friend of mine talked some since into me. When I develop a new load for a rifle this I want I do. I load up somewhere between 6-10 with a powder of appropriate burn rate stepping up my powder charge in 1/2 grain increments until I find my upper pressure limit. Then I load up about 4-6 groups of 5 rounds backing off from where I found pressure in .2 grain increments. This saves my a lot of bullets, powder, and time.
Also I don't like wasting bullets but I also don't mind feeding my habit. Generally speaking if money is that big of concern then larger bores are not the best route for the shooter.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
I like my lapua but I want to shoot most of all not spend all my time developing a load. What I mean is for example with .308, grab some LC cases put about 43gr of varget in with a 175 with a 210m and your set. I found a load for that in 10 rounds. I used my hornady book for 110 with 4895 and found a super accurate load that got me a 5 in 1 hole and I just guessed. With the 250 gr scenars 91 gr of RL 25 and got a .5in group at 300yrds. So my main concern is what powder to start with for these bullets and where. Since they are lighter solids(not the SMK or Berger which I know what load to use) can I just use my RL 25 or do I have to try new powders? the cost of it doesn't bother me since its more practice but changing powders is where the cost comes from.
I also just load for accuracy I don't even test for velocity until later on, cause with a 30in barrel the velocity is going to be there no matter what basically.
I like my lapua but I want to shoot most of all not spend all my time developing a load. What I mean is for example with .308, grab some LC cases put about 43gr of varget in with a 175 with a 210m and your set. I found a load for that in 10 rounds. I used my hornady book for 110 with 4895 and found a super accurate load that got me a 5 in 1 hole and I just guessed. With the 250 gr scenars 91 gr of RL 25 and got a .5in group at 300yrds. So my main concern is what powder to start with for these bullets and where. Since they are lighter solids(not the SMK or Berger which I know what load to use) can I just use my RL 25 or do I have to try new powders? the cost of it doesn't bother me since its more practice but changing powders is where the cost comes from.
I also just load for accuracy I don't even test for velocity until later on, cause with a 30in barrel the velocity is going to be there no matter what basically.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
From the numbers side of things, the most impressive load I saw was the predator solids loaded by SW Ammo, they were mag length and going 3130fps + and we're very consistent.
I have also used their 250gr Scenar load to great success.
Cory has a good 300 gr Berger load, and Jeff had a good 300 SMK load, I would say the rest of the field still needed a bit of development.
From the numbers side of things, the most impressive load I saw was the predator solids loaded by SW Ammo, they were mag length and going 3130fps + and we're very consistent.
I have also used their 250gr Scenar load to great success.
Cory has a good 300 gr Berger load, and Jeff had a good 300 SMK load, I would say the rest of the field still needed a bit of development.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Finally what everyone has been waiting for:
<span style="font-size: 26pt"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">The Results</span></span></span>
The full PDF can be found here:
http://freepdfhosting.com/4626d2127d.pdf
<span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">KnS Ballistics Services reporting the results for the 338 Bullet Demonstration as moderated by Snipers Hide</span></span>
Listed below are the supersonic averaged G1 and G7 Ballistic Coefficients for the seven bullets used during the 338 bullet demonstration held on December 10th, 2011 in Nevada. The bullets are listed below in the random order in which they were tested.
Bullet 1: 300gr Sierra MatchKing – Manufacturer reported BC – 0.759 averaged G1
Acoustically determined BC – 0.747 G1 and 0.380 G7
Bullet 2: 285 gr Hornady BTHP Match – Manufacturer reported BC – 0.720 averaged G1
Acoustically determined BC – 0.685 G1 and 0.348 G7
Bullet 3: 245 gr Lehigh turned solid
Acoustically determined BC – 0.651 G1 and 0.333 G7
Bullet 4 – 232 gr GS Customs SP turned solid – Manufacturer reported BC – 0.686 averaged G1
Acoustically determined BC – 0.578 G1 and 0.298 G7
Bullet 5 – 235 gr Predator turned solid
Acoustically determined BC – 0.556 G1 and 0.282 G7
Bullet 6 – 300 gr Berger Hybrid (Gen II) – Manufacturer reported BC – 0.816 G1 / 0.418 G7
Acoustically determined BC – 0.766 G1 and 0.389 G7
Bullet 7 – 276 gr ZA turned solid – Manufacturer reported BC – High
Acoustically determined BC – 0.719 G1 and 0.362 G7
For more details about the acoustic chronograph and BC discussions see the following pages.
<span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Acoustic Chronograph Details</span></span>
The basic idea of the entire test procedure is to use acoustic sensors to measure the bullet’s time of flight to various distances. Each bullet fired has the muzzle velocity measured with a chronograph and then passes over microphones placed at four downrange distances. Due to the types of bullets tested and terrain of the test facility, microphones for this test were placed at 313 yards, 487 yards, 1093 yards, and 1264 yards. The raw data for each shot is in the form of a sound file which shows spikes when the bullet passes over the microphone. Also during each shot, the atmospherics are carefully monitored using a Kestrel 4500. After all the test rounds were fired, the post processing of the sound traces begins by using custom written computer programs in conjunction with a custom written ballistic calculator. After the time of flight for each round fired has been calculated from the data traces; this flight time, atmospheric conditions, and muzzle velocity are entered into the pre-processor for the ballistic calculator where the drag of the projectile is varied until the calculated flight time conforms to a best fit match of the experimentally observed time of flight. This process is repeated for each individual projectile that was fired during the test. This process allows you to determine the unique shape of the drag curve for each bullet.
For this test, the results are presented as ballistic coefficients averaged over the supersonic realm of the bullet. Since we are using acoustic sensors, it is impossible to determine the ballistic coefficient of any bullet when it is subsonic. We also did not test for subsonic transition stability due to safety reasons. Further post processing of the acoustic data can result in velocity banded ballistic coefficients is possible, but as of yet has not performed on the data from this demonstration.
<span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Discussion of Acoustically Determined Ballistic Coefficients</span></span>
Many shooters are aware that Bryan Litz has previously developed his own proprietary acoustic chronograph and has published two books containing acoustically tested ballistic coefficients of many different bullets. Mr. Litz has tested some of the same bullets that were used during this test, and published the data in one or both editions of his book, Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting. We are pleased to acknowledge that a substantial portion of our data correlates with the Litz data to within acceptable experimental errors. Mr. Litz published that the averaged G1/G7 of the 300 gr SMK is 0.745/0.381, while our test calculated a averaged BC of 0.747/0.380. Another bullet tested during this demonstration and by Mr. Litz is the 285 gr Hornady BHTP match bullet. Mr. Litz reports an averaged G1/G7 BC of 0.699/0.358. Our test determined an averaged G1/G7 BC of 0.685/0.348, a difference of only 2%. Another common bullet to both tests is the GS Customs 232 gr SP solid lathe turned monolithic solid. Mr. Litz reported an averaged G1/G7 BC of 0.604/0.309, while our test data produced an averaged BC of 0.578/0.298, a difference of 3.5%. These results show that both the method used by Mr. Litz and the method used during this test are equivalent.
There is a notable disparity between the reported ballistic coefficient(s) for the Berger 300gr Hybrid Generation II projectiles. This caused some consternation as the other data that can be compared to Mr. Litz's tests shows very good correlation. As a result of that disparity the data has been checked 3 distinct times to look for any human error during post processing (with none found). Perhaps at some later date Mr. Litz and KnS Ballistic Services will have the opportunity to discuss the issue at length and endeavor to explain the anomalies noted.
The raw data files and details necessary to process the flight times are available to each of the respective manufacturers upon reciep of written request. We will not distribute the raw data traces other than to respective manufacturers and/or their authorized representatives.
<span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Thank You</span></span>
KnS Ballistic Services would like to extend a big thank you to Mr. Galli of Sniper's Hide, Mr. Trapp of Gunsite Academy, Mr. VanNiel who independently supported this test and was instrumental to the coordination effort with KnS Ballistic Services and Sniper's Hide to get this demonstration moving. Thank you to the Sniper's Hide members and sponsors (specifically SouthWest Ammunition and Zethilius Assoc) for the generous donations of projectiles and loaded ammunition. A number of other supporters took time from their weekend to come out and assist with setup, logistics, and break down of the test. Without all of the endeavors of everyone, this would have been an impossible undertaking. We look forward to future testing and offer our assistance and services whenever necessary.
Thank you,
KnS Ballistic Services, LLC.
Finally what everyone has been waiting for:
<span style="font-size: 26pt"><span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">The Results</span></span></span>
The full PDF can be found here:
http://freepdfhosting.com/4626d2127d.pdf
<span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">KnS Ballistics Services reporting the results for the 338 Bullet Demonstration as moderated by Snipers Hide</span></span>
Listed below are the supersonic averaged G1 and G7 Ballistic Coefficients for the seven bullets used during the 338 bullet demonstration held on December 10th, 2011 in Nevada. The bullets are listed below in the random order in which they were tested.
Bullet 1: 300gr Sierra MatchKing – Manufacturer reported BC – 0.759 averaged G1
Acoustically determined BC – 0.747 G1 and 0.380 G7
Bullet 2: 285 gr Hornady BTHP Match – Manufacturer reported BC – 0.720 averaged G1
Acoustically determined BC – 0.685 G1 and 0.348 G7
Bullet 3: 245 gr Lehigh turned solid
Acoustically determined BC – 0.651 G1 and 0.333 G7
Bullet 4 – 232 gr GS Customs SP turned solid – Manufacturer reported BC – 0.686 averaged G1
Acoustically determined BC – 0.578 G1 and 0.298 G7
Bullet 5 – 235 gr Predator turned solid
Acoustically determined BC – 0.556 G1 and 0.282 G7
Bullet 6 – 300 gr Berger Hybrid (Gen II) – Manufacturer reported BC – 0.816 G1 / 0.418 G7
Acoustically determined BC – 0.766 G1 and 0.389 G7
Bullet 7 – 276 gr ZA turned solid – Manufacturer reported BC – High
Acoustically determined BC – 0.719 G1 and 0.362 G7
For more details about the acoustic chronograph and BC discussions see the following pages.
<span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Acoustic Chronograph Details</span></span>
The basic idea of the entire test procedure is to use acoustic sensors to measure the bullet’s time of flight to various distances. Each bullet fired has the muzzle velocity measured with a chronograph and then passes over microphones placed at four downrange distances. Due to the types of bullets tested and terrain of the test facility, microphones for this test were placed at 313 yards, 487 yards, 1093 yards, and 1264 yards. The raw data for each shot is in the form of a sound file which shows spikes when the bullet passes over the microphone. Also during each shot, the atmospherics are carefully monitored using a Kestrel 4500. After all the test rounds were fired, the post processing of the sound traces begins by using custom written computer programs in conjunction with a custom written ballistic calculator. After the time of flight for each round fired has been calculated from the data traces; this flight time, atmospheric conditions, and muzzle velocity are entered into the pre-processor for the ballistic calculator where the drag of the projectile is varied until the calculated flight time conforms to a best fit match of the experimentally observed time of flight. This process is repeated for each individual projectile that was fired during the test. This process allows you to determine the unique shape of the drag curve for each bullet.
For this test, the results are presented as ballistic coefficients averaged over the supersonic realm of the bullet. Since we are using acoustic sensors, it is impossible to determine the ballistic coefficient of any bullet when it is subsonic. We also did not test for subsonic transition stability due to safety reasons. Further post processing of the acoustic data can result in velocity banded ballistic coefficients is possible, but as of yet has not performed on the data from this demonstration.
<span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Discussion of Acoustically Determined Ballistic Coefficients</span></span>
Many shooters are aware that Bryan Litz has previously developed his own proprietary acoustic chronograph and has published two books containing acoustically tested ballistic coefficients of many different bullets. Mr. Litz has tested some of the same bullets that were used during this test, and published the data in one or both editions of his book, Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting. We are pleased to acknowledge that a substantial portion of our data correlates with the Litz data to within acceptable experimental errors. Mr. Litz published that the averaged G1/G7 of the 300 gr SMK is 0.745/0.381, while our test calculated a averaged BC of 0.747/0.380. Another bullet tested during this demonstration and by Mr. Litz is the 285 gr Hornady BHTP match bullet. Mr. Litz reports an averaged G1/G7 BC of 0.699/0.358. Our test determined an averaged G1/G7 BC of 0.685/0.348, a difference of only 2%. Another common bullet to both tests is the GS Customs 232 gr SP solid lathe turned monolithic solid. Mr. Litz reported an averaged G1/G7 BC of 0.604/0.309, while our test data produced an averaged BC of 0.578/0.298, a difference of 3.5%. These results show that both the method used by Mr. Litz and the method used during this test are equivalent.
There is a notable disparity between the reported ballistic coefficient(s) for the Berger 300gr Hybrid Generation II projectiles. This caused some consternation as the other data that can be compared to Mr. Litz's tests shows very good correlation. As a result of that disparity the data has been checked 3 distinct times to look for any human error during post processing (with none found). Perhaps at some later date Mr. Litz and KnS Ballistic Services will have the opportunity to discuss the issue at length and endeavor to explain the anomalies noted.
The raw data files and details necessary to process the flight times are available to each of the respective manufacturers upon reciep of written request. We will not distribute the raw data traces other than to respective manufacturers and/or their authorized representatives.
<span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Thank You</span></span>
KnS Ballistic Services would like to extend a big thank you to Mr. Galli of Sniper's Hide, Mr. Trapp of Gunsite Academy, Mr. VanNiel who independently supported this test and was instrumental to the coordination effort with KnS Ballistic Services and Sniper's Hide to get this demonstration moving. Thank you to the Sniper's Hide members and sponsors (specifically SouthWest Ammunition and Zethilius Assoc) for the generous donations of projectiles and loaded ammunition. A number of other supporters took time from their weekend to come out and assist with setup, logistics, and break down of the test. Without all of the endeavors of everyone, this would have been an impossible undertaking. We look forward to future testing and offer our assistance and services whenever necessary.
Thank you,
KnS Ballistic Services, LLC.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Some very interesting results, it will be very interesting to here what Mr Litz says about the low berger hybrid results. Noels bullet didn't even match the SMK, it will be very interesting to here what Noel and others have to say why it came out so low??
Some very interesting results, it will be very interesting to here what Mr Litz says about the low berger hybrid results. Noels bullet didn't even match the SMK, it will be very interesting to here what Noel and others have to say why it came out so low??
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Thanks Francis,
Those results should be sobering to all manufacturers, and provide a valuable foundation for improvement. I have a few ideas already, some of which are presently incorporated in the latest ZA338/6.5.
Clearly, you have provided a service to the entire shooting community. It takes a measure of courage to do what you have done.
Congratulations.
Thanks Francis,
Those results should be sobering to all manufacturers, and provide a valuable foundation for improvement. I have a few ideas already, some of which are presently incorporated in the latest ZA338/6.5.
Clearly, you have provided a service to the entire shooting community. It takes a measure of courage to do what you have done.
Congratulations.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
This is awesome,
Thanks for doing the hard part Josh and Francis.
I think we are all used to adjusting numbers to fit our actual data, having these adjusted figures at distance will only help people in the process of determining actual numbers necessary to make things like their ballistic calculators more effective.
Next step, accuracy and impact data...
This is awesome,
Thanks for doing the hard part Josh and Francis.
I think we are all used to adjusting numbers to fit our actual data, having these adjusted figures at distance will only help people in the process of determining actual numbers necessary to make things like their ballistic calculators more effective.
Next step, accuracy and impact data...
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Sounds like a stand-up guy to me.
Sounds like a stand-up guy to me.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Fantastic work guys !
Fantastic work guys !
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Rocky Mountain,
I will go into greater detail this evening, but the unexpectedly low BC of the ZA338/6.5 (April 2009 version) can be very definitely attributed to engraving-band drag, which has been the subject of redesign for over a year now... and the focus of the most recent ZA patent application.
What Francis has done is transform what had, until today, been seen as frosting... into the upper layer of the cake.
All in all, I am very pleased with the timely heads-up as to where improvement needs to be targeted.
Rocky Mountain,
I will go into greater detail this evening, but the unexpectedly low BC of the ZA338/6.5 (April 2009 version) can be very definitely attributed to engraving-band drag, which has been the subject of redesign for over a year now... and the focus of the most recent ZA patent application.
What Francis has done is transform what had, until today, been seen as frosting... into the upper layer of the cake.
All in all, I am very pleased with the timely heads-up as to where improvement needs to be targeted.
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is awesome,
Thanks for doing the hard part Josh and Francis.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fantastic work guys ! </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Noel Carlson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly, you have provided a service to the entire shooting community. It takes a measure of courage to do what you have done.
Congratulations. </div></div>
Thanks guys. This was a pretty cool project and we're glad to have been part of it.
Prior to flying home on the 11th, I had a lengthy discussion with Jeff regarding upcoming improvements to the chronograph and some key pickups to make it more user friendly.
The KnS Team will be improving upon our hardware and software so that the logistics of running such a test in the future doesn't require so many bodies as well as working to streamline the data processing.
Josh
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is awesome,
Thanks for doing the hard part Josh and Francis.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ch'e</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fantastic work guys ! </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Noel Carlson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly, you have provided a service to the entire shooting community. It takes a measure of courage to do what you have done.
Congratulations. </div></div>
Thanks guys. This was a pretty cool project and we're glad to have been part of it.
Prior to flying home on the 11th, I had a lengthy discussion with Jeff regarding upcoming improvements to the chronograph and some key pickups to make it more user friendly.
The KnS Team will be improving upon our hardware and software so that the logistics of running such a test in the future doesn't require so many bodies as well as working to streamline the data processing.
Josh
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Thanks for the nice words everyone.
I also put together a PDF with all the information about the fired rounds. It includes the atmospheric conditions for every shot, as well as the recorded muzzle velocity. I do not have any load data, but this shows more of the conditions of the testing.
Muzzle Velocity and Atmospheric Data from Test
Thanks for the nice words everyone.
I also put together a PDF with all the information about the fired rounds. It includes the atmospheric conditions for every shot, as well as the recorded muzzle velocity. I do not have any load data, but this shows more of the conditions of the testing.
Muzzle Velocity and Atmospheric Data from Test
Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
Guys,
<span style="text-decoration: underline">Great</span> work, thank you!
Regarding BC discrepancy between Bryan's results and yours - could it be because Bryan stayed in supersonic region, and you measured all the way down to subsonic?
Guys,
<span style="text-decoration: underline">Great</span> work, thank you!
Regarding BC discrepancy between Bryan's results and yours - could it be because Bryan stayed in supersonic region, and you measured all the way down to subsonic?
