• 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!

Have we hit the wall?

wadcutter

wadcutter

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Dec 23, 2008
329
0
NSW Australia
www.austargets.com
The search for high B.C. .338 calibre bullets for ELR shooting continues in the wake of the recent snipers hide sponsored test results by KnS Ballistic Services.

In the past we had high hopes with the Berger Gen I having a predicted B.C. of .455/.889, G7/G1. This proved to be a disapointment. Then the Gen II Berger was downgraded to .418/.819, G7/G7. Now we are told they may only be in the order of 0.766 G1 and 0.389 G7. and these are the best of the lead core match bullets.

On the solid front, there were predictions of incredibly high B.C.'s bullets with some numbers of up at 0.9 G1 and beyond. Now it looks like the solids have a very distinct disadvantage over the lead core projectiles. The best KnS results for solid was the 276 gr ZA with a BC of 0.719 G1 and 0.362 G7. Now these solids are getting up near the lead core bullets, but they offer no clear advantage over them at this stage.

So what does the future hold? Have we hit the limit of what can be expected for high B.C. .338 calibre bullets? Will anyone ever produce a vaiable .338 calibre bullet capable of having a G1 B.C. much beyond what the Berger Gen II now offers? Have we hit the wall?
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

To answer your question. We have not hit the wall and expect to see some new exciting offerings in the not so distant future.
This type of testing only fuels continued bullet design enhancements and prototyping for the next level.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Hey wadcutter I'm almost in agreeince with you. I have shot the gen 2's out to 2520 yards with to the click accuracy using the 419 g7 bc. I too am waiting for a legit .5 g7 bc projo to come out but I won't hold my breath. I'm goin to keep pushing my limits with the gen 2 Berger until something better comes out.

I'll be interested to see how this thread develops.

Merry Christmas everyone
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

MV,
You ever tried the Rocky Mtn 275gr, or 300gr. I tried the 275 in my snipetac, way better performance than the gen 2 Berger.
But get your checkbook open and keep it that way.

I was surprised these bullets weren't used in the Big Test out west.
Miles
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Eventually someone will find the balance of twist rate and the highest weight/length/shape projectile per caliber that will work reliably. I don't think the wall has been hit yet but at the same time I don't think they are going to get the longest solids working correctly all the time either.

Want more BC ? I think the answer lies with larger calibers, heavier projectiles and more powder. No replacement for displacement.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

I agree. The wall has not been hit, just yet. But, I think it is safe to say that the low hanging fruit has been picked pretty clean. I have been close to several of these projects from the inside and have seen how difficult it is to cut a new path through virign territory. Am I dissapointed? You bet. But I'm still here testing and giving input.

I too beleive there are some solids that will outshine the jacketed bullets coming down the road, but when they are generally available is the question. Even more, when they come out, the price is going to be the driving force to see who steps up to buy them.

JeffVN
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

I don't believe I've tapped the potential of the Lapua Scenar bullet that I am shooting at 338. Either the 250 or 300. In other words at the distances I am at curently it's not clear that slightly higher BC is the low hanging fruit... I think it's more my loads, rifle driving, and wind reading that will yield the most significant next improvements for me.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Xtreme machining in Penn makes a .338 bullet(solid) that I think the BC is in the .8`s.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

My sales rep over at berger told me they are supposed to be coming out with "a bunch of new bullets next year." I tried to pry it out of him, but he wouldn't budge. I'm guessing more hybrids, but who knows. I think he said they're scheduled for something like 30 new bullets this coming year...

Jeff Given
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Until they have given sintered tungsten a try we haven't even come close to a wall.
It will just be expensive climbing it.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Milo-2:

From the 338 testing thread (12/25)

:"We have the Lapua, and most current ZA, to run over the chronographs still,

There is no reason that we cannot include Rocky Mountain, and Cutting Edge." That from Noel Carlson in response to:

"would any of you have interest in shooting some 325gr Rocky mountain 338s as well as some 300gr cutting edge 338s? I would sponsor the bullets obviously." from jmason.

From the Rocky Mountain site, 338 page:

Weight 325gr.
G1 BC =1.035 G7 BC = .492

I would also hope that GSC gets into the accuracy round (even the second round of BC) with CURRENT product - the one tested in round one was a pre-2009 design and, per GSC, loaded about 300 fps slow.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

ELR........

If what you quote is true.
i.e. the Rocky Mountain 325gn .338calibre bullet has a verified G1 BC =1.035 G7 BC = .492

I will run naked down the main street of my home town and post the video for you all to laugh at!
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Until they have given sintered tungsten a try we haven't even come close to a wall.
It will just be expensive climbing it. </div></div>
well said
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ELR Researcher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Milo-2:

From the 338 testing thread:

I would also hope that GSC gets into the accuracy round (even the second round of BC) with CURRENT product - the one tested in round one was a pre-2009 design and, per GSC, loaded about 300 fps slow.</div></div>

GSC shows a stepped G1 BC on their website and as per their own post they said it was fine to shoot out of the rifles we used. If they wanted a specific load used they should have specified a load, however they too have a banded stepped BC listed on their website that does not specify a mandatory velocity to achieve their listed BC. Calculating drop from a ballistic computer without specific load data, to include rifle used and where it was shot is pretty much a "can't confirm anything you say" proposition. As far as the numbers not matching the manufacturers data, that is common and one of the reasons we use .496 for a 175gr SMK instead of .505. With as few a rounds as we had available to shoot we erred on the side of safety rather than push them to the max. Next time make them available with data, we'd be happy to use them to any spec the manufacturer recommended.

And while GSC is crying "foul" because the number don't match up, it's interesting to note a poster over at LRH is saying that his experience shooting these bullets beyond 1000 yards yields similar number to the ones posted in the SH 338 Bullet test thread, even for the GEN 2 Bergers, he actually uses a Banded G7 profile that goes as low as .380 out to distance which falls in line with our test numbers.

We asked, we offered, we were turned down, so take anything written by someone with a vested interested with a grain of salt, especially when they love to debate but refuse to participate. Of course they will have issue when the numbers don't match their $12.00 "per" bullet offering.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Very well said; and the numbers just don't lie. The results on target and thru the acoustic chrono's are the ones to trust, not a sales pitch for the best wonder bullet.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We asked, we offered, we were turned down, so take anything written by someone with a vested interested with a grain of salt, especially when they love to debate but refuse to participate. Of course they will have issue when the numbers don't match their $12.00 "per" bullet offering.</div></div>

This is one of the reasons why I declined taking part in the comparison. It is not the main reason.

The main reason why I declined participation, is that it does not suit GSC to do so at the moment. I am mystified why this is not accepted. Frank, which part of "It does not suit GSC to participate in a test at this moment" do you not understand? In our correspondence about this matter your first mail stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------
<span style="font-style: italic">I read the exchange on the site and wanted to let you know, if you want us to shoot your rounds we would be happy to do so</span>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My response to your invitation was:
---------------------------------------------------------------
<span style="font-style: italic">Thanks for the thought but GSC will not be participating. We are involved in a number of projects that is eating all the available time and there is no way we can make the deadline I see for this exercise. Also, the fact that only one supplier will be allowed to have matched equipment and that one shooter has been testing extensively for this supplier, with dedicated equipment, makes that we would rather not be involved here.

Kind regards,
Gerard</span>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now my perception is that the additional reason of your animosity towards GSC, since some time back, comes to light. You asked, I declined, politely, I think. I even gave reasons. Now you take it personally and start talk about "vested interest in selling a $12.00 bullet" amongst other gross inaccuracies. A visit to http://www.gsgroup.co.za/orderspusa.html will show that, even the most expensive way of buying SP Bullets (one box shipped by air halfway across the globe) comes to $2.20 per bullet. Do you wonder why I now have a bad feeling about the whole affair, that possibly was not present initially? You need to change your attitude and stop making mistakes of this magnitude.

SP Bullets sold to private individuals make up a desperately small part of GSC sales. The time and work invested for this smal return makes it a labour of love. Actions such as yours make it otherwise. Would you like to see that GSC suspend SP Bullet sales to individuals and carry on dealing only with institutions? It will be very cost effective to do so and may be the path to follow.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Loves to debate, with clearly flawed information as anyone can see the 338 bullets listed on the site are not $2 per bullet, simply follow the link Jeff has posted.

I would point how cryptically telling the line, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"It does not suit GSC to participate in a test at this moment"</div></div>

Is,
Because for more than a year everyone on this site has watched the ELR Bullet Battle and in fact 3 times this was tried and failed, if it didn't suit your current position why bother to try and derail this test as you have ? This has been the driving question everyone was looking forward toanswering, how do we end the debate, settle the fight. The answer was to actually shoot the bullets and vet the claims. So it appears your issue is with pulling the curtain back to expose the truth.

As far as my personal issue, I had none until you decided to insult my "enthusiasm" as you put it. That my "enthusiasm" had no busiest conducting this test, I'd be happy to quote that line for everyone to read. In fact in light of your decline I even offered to move the bar giving you any concession you needed to alleviate your concerns. To the point of bringing in Cory and using 3 brand new Ashbury rifles that were used, and making sure nobody that shot was intimately familiar with the object of your insecurities. Clearly by the results Noel was not given an unfair advantage.

Before you go pointing your finger at my gross inaccuracies I suggest you proof read your own statements. Reference the work up to the test, as well as the results and the reaction from the end users. Nobody has drawn any final conclusions, however your protests are duly noted.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SP Bullets sold to private individuals make up a desperately small part of GSC sales. The time and work invested for this smal return makes it a labour of love. Actions such as yours make it otherwise. Would you like to see that GSC suspend SP Bullet sales to individuals and carry on dealing only with institutions? It will be very cost effective to do so and may be the path to follow.</div></div>

Cut off your nose to spite your face?

I fail to see how this effects me? With so many choices in this space, and more on the way, I am not sure your thinking here in saying this?

Could one say this points to the question, "are they worth it, and is the data given by the maker accurate? " because one could ask, that when questioned, taking your ball and running home is a serious red flag.

You cried foul before the first round flew, you continue to cry foul, yet offered me nothing but insults and to say you have data from the Horus Ballistic computer that contradicts what is being done before everything was done.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Jeff,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm confused Gerard, when I do a search I find this link and these prices.</div></div> Why do a search? Just go to www.gscustom.co.za

On the GS Custom South Africa site, in the navigation bar, you will find "Distributors". There you may choose your region and that will take you to any one of six sites, depending on which region you choose. You will then find prices in Euro to suit your region. Prices in NZ$ and AUS$. Prices in US$. If you choose South Africa, you will go to the South African distributors. If you choose 'ORDERS' from the nav bar, the top of the page says: Order direct from GSC. GSC is in South Africa. The South African currency is ZAR. The price for 50 x 338232SP bullets is 601.00 and that is given in Rands because it is the South African Price list.

Frank,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">simply follow the link Jeff has posted.</div></div> How about following the link I posted? Does it say anywhere on Jeff's link that it is the US$ price? In fact, at the top of the price column on Jeff's linked page it states:
"VAT and POSTAGE INCLUDED Speed services extra" Do you have Value Added Tax in the US that covers all purchases across the 50 states?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So it appears your issue is with pulling the curtain back to expose the truth.</div></div> Such drama. GSC is not that important. At least we do not think we are. We are not complicated people. When I say something, take it at face value. There is no hidden meaning, no subterfuge, it means what it says.

However, the bottom line is as I said in my reply to your first email: <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-style: italic">"Thanks for the thought but GSC will not be participating. We are involved in a number of projects that is eating all the available time and there is no way we can make the deadline I see for this exercise."</span></span> Now, as I said before, which part of 'we are busy' do you not understand? You can throw your toys as much as you like, we have no time available to participate. It is unfortunate but it is reality and the way it is.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cut off your nose to spite your face?</div></div> No, just be more cost effective. That is in fact the opposite of 'Cut off your nose'.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Could one say this points to the question, "are they worth it, and is the data given by the maker accurate? "</div></div> More drama. See: "We are not complicated people." The data will remain on our site and it will be changed as better data becomes available and as product improves. It will probably never be absolute. Your testing proves that there is no maker that has accurate data. I will make this prediction: When you think you have an accurate data set, you will be proven wrong. Ballistics is not as simple as what you think it is. Ask anyone who knows.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Drama, pot calling the kettle black, you havent shied away from one minute of the drama since the beginning. In fact you propelled it before the first round was even fired and tried to discredit this before you saw a single number.

This is a pattern with you, and it was your choice to personally attack me so that you could include me in your little drama with Noel.

As far ballistics i am apparently much more aware of the inconsistencies than you are since you told me because we were different on all counts our data was flawed. The reason why I suggested and helped moderate the actual "shoot" as opposed to citing drop tables from a piece of software as you noted to me. You felt the software data was more accurate then actually shooting it.

To your charge that you are simply too busy, well that is a bit odd. Too busy to email data, or make something available even at cost but not too busy to endless debate the issue. People see that for what it is, you were not asked anything more than anyone else, yet you've been here since the beginning fighting the test as wrong. Too busy to set the record straight but not too busy to argue your point.

I do thank you for clarifying the price and the site. Now we'll see about getting someone to buy a lot of bullets while they are still available. At that price I see no reason why SH wouldn't invest in some to try at distance.

Remember you chose the fight, I was offering any concession I could think of because you were one of the loudest voices in all this. Instead you choose to insult me personally simply because you didn't want to be put alongside Noel.

You need to get back to work I suspect your wasting a lot of time.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Mr. Schultz I have no interest in this other than to find a superior 375 bullet. I e-mailed your daughter and got a price on the 414 375. They were going to cost a shade over 6 dollars each delivered and 10 to 12 wk wait. Cutting Edge, ZA, and Rocky Mtn all sent bullets to me for testing w/o charge. Cutting Edge sent far more than I needed for testing and when I tried to return them he told me to keep them.

Your company has been advertising the 414 375 for a long time now as having a BC of 1.250 and stable out of an 8 twist. I would just like to say that after firing a lot of different shapes, wts, and lengths I have come to the conclusion that you are full of shit. I also think that you are well aware that your claims are bogus, this would explain your unwillingness to provide samples to unbiased folks for testing.

Extremist 458 and a fellow that goes by Shoot1760 on this site gave me a ration of poop a while back and was singing the praises of this 414. Well as it turned out 1760 finally recieved some of the 414s and fired them from an 8.25 twist. He only fired a few of them and basically reported they wasnt worth testing further.

I havent looked the thread up but you should be able to find it. You should be able do a search on SHOOT1760 on this site and KellyZier on Longrangehunting and view the thread. This report is from a guy that spent a considerable amount of time singing the praises of the 414 prior to shooting any of them, he dropped them like a dirty shirt after firing only a few of them then slinked away and I havent heard from him since. I truly hope he is OK, he seemed like a nice guy who had swallowed Extremist 458s bull shit, hook, line, and sinker.

Now I am going to go out on a limb, If the current 414 mono-metal GS 414 has a BC of 1.250 and is stable out of an 8 twist at the top velocity the 375 Chey can push them, I will kiss your ass on a court house step and give you all day to draw a crowd. The court house will be one of my choosing since I dont like to travel. Now I sincerely believe that you and your companies reputation is at stake here, you really should show us what you got.
e
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Frank,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Drama, pot calling the kettle black, you havent shied away from one minute of the drama since the beginning.</div></div> On both page 1 and 2 of the 'TEST' thread, Noel insulted me directly. You chose to let it slide. I did not. After the second I replied.

When you decided to delete a post, you deleted mine. When I pointed that out, you deleted a comment Noel made to Anthony. You address me on open forum but with Noel you do so in private.

Do you wonder why I do not trust you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far ballistics i am apparently much more aware of the inconsistencies than you are since you told me because we were different on all counts our data was flawed.</div></div> Where do you get that from? Please quote where I said your data is flawed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reason why I suggested and helped moderate the actual "shoot" as opposed to citing drop tables from a piece of software as you noted to me. You felt the software daa was more accurate then actually shooting it.</div></div> This is what I said in email to you:" GSC has independent test data to 1600m (drop tables determined with Horus A Trag MP v3.76 to give dial up) done with the 2008 232gr SP, on which we base our numbers." Translation - The 338232SP was fired from 600m to 1600m and Horus was used to give the dial up at each distance. You assume wrongly.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">yet you've been here since the beginning fighting the test as wrong.</div></div> Quote please, I did not say anything of the sort. Of course if you cannot point to the quote, will we understand?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now we'll see about getting someone to buy a lot of bullets while they are still available.</div></div> While they are still available? I don't understand, please clarify.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At that price I see no reason why SH wouldn't invest in some to try at distance.</div></div> Easy to deal with someone that is as pigheaded as you now seem to be. No more SP Bullets to individuals until after the test then. Problem solved.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember you chose the fight, I was offering any concession I could think of because you were one of the loudest voices in all this.</div></div> Quotes please. I suspect that I will wait a while for this one. I did not choose the fight, I only asked (politely) to be excluded and I never opposed your test.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Instead you choose to insult me personally simply because you didn't want to put alongside Noel.</div></div> May I publish our correspondence on this matter? I have nothing to hide and something to prove about insults.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Happy to reply, heading to airport and will post the quotes along with your series of back handed insulted to me after.

In the mean time you keep addressing "drop" when we haven't even tested that, you keep addressing me as if I was the one crunching the numbers, even in your emails. You talk about attention to detail yet you fail to understand the differences in the test.

As far as the deleted posted, I explained that, when you chose to sit out the test I told you that you gave up the option to debate Noel. Also you will note and you even acknowledged that I spoke to Noel directly to stop debating you. The insults clearly flew in both direction you just kept baiting Noel about SHOT Show and I put a stop to it.

Clearly the distrust was before you had any reason, the real reason you gave to me via email was because I misspelled your name, calling you Gerald instead of Gerard, which heck for all I know was the Apple Software doing an Auto Correct on me, as Lion does.


But I will quote you in detail upon my return,
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

This is getting way out of hand. This started out as a simple test for BC consistancy, and now its a new reality show. As any sniper knows, the only proper way to confirm that a certin lot # of bullets will hit where you want them to is to shoot them and record the dope. This test has created alot of controversy with bullet manufactors. Why, I have know idea. This was going to be a simple test, check the BC and check the accuracy. The latter will also show if the data from the bc test was accurate, or do we need to look at other things about the bullet. I for one am very happy about the testing. For too many years we have looked at the BC's only. If we reload, its BC and how much work is it going to take to get an accurate load. Everyone has a different opinion, and some things work better with some than others. So lets just concentrate on the date. We all want it, we all need it. This is just a way to see if we can make a better bullet. And I know we all want that. So lets all act like the professionals that we are, and keep our personal issues to our selves...Steve
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Frank,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But I will quote you in detail upon my return,</div></div> No need to buy time in this way. May I publish our correspondence? Then anyone can decide for themselves what was said by whom.

Augustus,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cutting Edge, ZA, and Rocky Mtn all sent bullets to me for testing w/o charge.</div></div> Without doubt that proves that they have more money than what we have or that they need to have their bullets tested or they know you or whatever. Does it prove anything about what matters?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would just like to say that after firing a lot of different shapes, wts, and lengths I have come to the conclusion that you are full of shit.</div></div> You base your opinion on shooting all sorts of bullets, except GSC. OK.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well as it turned out 1760 finally recieved some of the 414s and fired them from an 8.25 twist. He only fired a few of them and basically reported they wasnt worth testing further.... he dropped them like a dirty shirt after firing only a few of them then slinked away and I havent heard from him since. I truly hope he is OK, he seemed like a nice guy who had swallowed Extremist 458s bull shit, hook, line, and sinker. </div></div> I found the thread and this is what he said about the 375414SPs: "GS only sent me a handful of the new GS414's.......the longer lead times of the GS bullets discouraged me from completing my test." You imply differently. Why? I also found that he had tried a bunch of other free test bullets from another maker and had all sorts of trouble with them. You should clarify the manufacturers in your mind before running off at the mouth like that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the current 414 mono-metal GS 414 has a BC of 1.250 and is stable out of an 8 twist at the top velocity the 375 Chey can push them,</div></div> Dave fired the 414 from an 8 twist as well as from a gain twist with an 8* exit twist. They did very well all the way up to 3100fps which is as fast as he pushed them; good accuracy, good es and dial up about right for a calculated one. http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2348914&page=1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will kiss your ass on a court house step and give you all day to draw a crowd. The court house will be one of my choosing since I dont like to travel.</div></div> Talk about hollow promisies. Now there is one that you know is completely safe. The idea is quite entertaining though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now I sincerely believe that you and your companies reputation is at stake here, you really should show us what you got.</div></div> Some advice: You go about it the wrong way. I do not rise to insulting challenges. I have nothing to prove to you, you do not matter to me. I do not know you and may be wrong about this, should we ever meet, but right now I see a blustering, insulting individual who has his facts wrong and needs to feel important.

Stephen,
Amen. Note that I only react when attacked. This is expected rather than running and hiding, no?
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

imho, BC is an indicator of potential performance, but performance on ELR targets is the final arbiter, for my purchasing/shooting dollars. I tend towards the higher BC as we all do for load development. Amongst the higher BC I am still studying whether, in the 338 Lapua Mag case, the 250 Scenar or the 300 Scenar is the better mile bullet. It may be, and Bryan Litz suggested in this in his book if I recall, that the 250 with it's lower BC may be a better transsonic performer than it's higher BC 300 grain cousin. I've also heard this from another knowledgeable 338LM shooter who seems to have inside info on the subject.

That being said, it's hard to imagine a significantly lower BC bullet outperforming higher BC bullets at ELR distances.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

cali_tz,

Good points, and actually relevant to the OP.

In light of transonic stability challenges, when chasing performance at ELR, a shooter has a choice to make between two conflicting approaches:

'full supersonic option'; choose a long heavy bullet with a high BC which will maximize supersonic range. This option provides best performance up to the point where it goes transonic, then all bets are off as these long bullets are far more 'tipsy' in transonic.

or

'transonic option'; choose a shorter, medium weight-for-caliber bullet which suffers a little more wind deflection and goes transonic at a shorter range, but can remain stable/accurate/predictable thru transonic.

In other words, you can optimize performance out to transonic then have no capability beyond that, or choose a bullet with indefinite range into/thru transonic but has poorer performance at all ranges.

In my opinion the 'right' answer is different for every shooter and it depends on what your application is. If you're talking about a hunting rifle, then I definitely think #1 above is the best choice for the following reasons:
1) You can easily get 1500+ yards of supersonic range from a rather ordinary .338. At 1500 yards, most rifles/shooters aren't able to group within the vital zone of an animal anyway, let alone dope drop and wind well enough to expect solid hits. In other words, there's no practical need for extending beyond this range for hunting applications.
2) If you choose the lighter, lower BC bullet in order to reach past transonic ranges, you have an energy consideration. You're talking about a light bullet going slow that may not expand on impact. Not a very lethal way to go.
3) The performance and predictability of the 'supersonic' option is far better than 'transonic' option at all ranges which increases hit probability for the entire <span style="font-style: italic">practical</span> performance envelope.

Now, if you're a long range 'plinker', recreational shooter, or even a military sniper with a mission that doesn't require hitting man sized targets at 1500+, then I think the transonic stable option has merit. It allows you to get lead out to the target when the other option doesn't. If you just want to see your bullets 'get to the target', this is the most solid approach.

Regarding the question in the OP; 'have we hit the wall?' I think for spin stabilized projectiles, we're unlikely to see any further substantial advancements. Sure there will be better powders, more optimal bullets, etc, but at this point, any improvement beyond what is commercially available gets real costly real fast, and even the most expensive stuff is only marginally better than an economical .338 Edge with a 30" barrel shooting 300 grain lead core bullets. You have to get awful spendy before you're going to beat that performance 'hands down'.

I think there is tremendous potential to improve shooting systems beyond the spin stabilized paradigm we're currently in. If fin stabilized sabot rounds could be made to work accurately in small arms, performance will take a quantum leap. Imagine a 4" long, 1000 grain .338 'bullet' fired at 3000+ fps from a .75" diameter bore. I'm just making up numbers, but the idea of increasing bore area and propelling a sub-caliber sabot round has these kinds of dramatic effects in tank rounds. If/when it gets scaled down to small arms we're in for a real treat.

-Bryan
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

How to win friends and influence people <span style="font-style: italic">(customers)</span>...

I went back 3 pages of post by Gerard and every one of them is defending his position with nothing to show for it... but more arguments, on top of more arguments.

This was our (SH) reason to get involved, to put an end to all this back & forth. It was clearly disruptive and provided no useful information. The idea, to quote Jered was to "shut up and shoot !" but when push came to shove, some stepped up, others folded.

You can go back as far as October 2008 and it's the same old story,page after page, the question is raised and everyone else is wrong, GSC is right and nobody understand ballistics like they do, even the guys actually shooting this stuff to distance. Fight until the threads are worthless and locked seems to the modus operandi.

The continued fighting between Gerard and Noel is well known and the only quote worth repeating is this one:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Do you wonder why I do not trust you?</div></div>

Why because I was tired of the fighting and didn't want the "Test Thread" full of their crap, again. Forget the fact that I did go back and remove Noel's post too, as well I sat face to face with Noel as personally asked him to stop,' but still it was all about Gerard and his position, as usual.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Note that I only react when attacked. This is expected rather than running and hiding, no?</div></div>

Being in constant defense mode, as referenced above, apparently since 2008, he has come to the conclusion that everyone is out to get him. Once I agreed to Moderate the shoot I was deemed <span style="font-style: italic">not trust worthy</span> and after reading 3 pages of posts by him, of which 90% is fighting back & forth with Noel, Augustus, Groper, and anyone else who questioned their anecdotal data which lead to more than one thread being locked, he has taken it upon himself that everyone who asked to see the results first hand is the enemy.

Too bad, I am done with it, I think people know where to look and as they say, <span style="font-style: italic">"where there is smoke there is fire"</span> Simply click on his name and hit "view posts" from the drop down menu. As we used to say, "enough said, " I am gonna let the shooting speak for itself.

I now return you to the drama, <span style="font-style: italic"> "as the monolithic solid turns"</span>
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Bryan,

I was following, and largely agreeing, with your reasoning up to the part where you juxtaposed these two statements:

"... the supersonic option is far better than 'transonic' option at ranges which increases hit probability for the entire practical performance envelope."

"... if you're a long range 'plinker', recreational shooter, or even a military sniper with a mission that doesn't require hitting man sized targets at 1500+, then I think the transonic stable option has merit."

I can not imagine that a sniper would find comfort performing any mission for which he was not equipped to increase his hit probability at *all* practical ranges. On the recreational side, I concur completely. Sporting activities are forgiving, and even reliant upon, higher miss probabilities... most of them anyway. I have an associate that is adamant about "kicking ass" in F class.

Your point about cost is valid to a degree also. The use of machined bullets is not a pastime for the financially faint of heart... but then feeding a 338, or 375, is the wrong path, regardless of the chosen projectile, if cost is a looming consideration.

I would add two factors on the plus side of the ledger for machined projectiles:

- Due to the large amount of copper used in the 6.0+ caliber length projectiles, the mass of tungsten required to match jacketed lead bullet weights is not cost prohibiitive.

- Saboted darts will never match the accuracy of their small caliber, spin-stabilized, equivalents without a ten-fold price differential, nor will they ever carry a payload or expand explosively upon contact. Darts are primarily anti-armour devices.

There will always be a place for jacketed bullets (provided the EPA spares them), but they will never again occupy the edge of the perfornance envelope in small arms.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Frank,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frank: But I will quote you in detail upon my return,</div></div>
No need to buy time in this way. May I publish our correspondence? Then anyone can decide for themselves what was said by whom.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Wow, after going through this thread Bryan's post was very refreshing.

LL, I have an audio book version I can copy and lend out... lol

 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gerard Schultz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frank,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frank: But I will quote you in detail upon my return,</div></div>
No need to buy time in this way. May I publish our correspondence? Then anyone can decide for themselves what was said by whom.</div></div>

I am done debating with you so don't waste your time, if someone is interested they can merely search out both our posting histories on the issue.

nobody is interested in this sideshow .
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="font-style: italic">"I went back 3 pages of post by Gerard and every one of them is defending his position with nothing to show for it... but more arguments, on top of more arguments."</span></span> I did what you suggest but just went back one page. I suggest that anyone interested does that. They will find that the quote above is far from the truth.

Why can you not substantiate your statements, Frank? How about answering these:
<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="font-style: italic">"As far ballistics i am apparently much more aware of the inconsistencies than you are since you told me because we were different on all counts our data was flawed."</span></span> Where do you get that from? Please quote where I said your data is flawed.

<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="font-style: italic">"yet you've been here since the beginning fighting the test as wrong."</span></span> Quote please, I did not say anything of the sort.

<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="font-style: italic">"Remember you chose the fight, I was offering any concession I could think of because you were one of the loudest voices in all this."</span></span> Quotes please. I suspect that I will wait a while for this one.

<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="font-style: italic">"Instead you choose to insult me personally simply because you didn't want to put alongside Noel."</span></span> May I publish our correspondence on this matter? I have nothing to hide and something to prove about insults.

Why are you ducking and diving these issues? I did none of what you accuse me of. You are a piece of work. I wonder why?

<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="font-style: italic">"I am done debating with you so don't waste your time, if someone is interested they can merely search out both our posting histories on the issue. nobody is interested in this sideshow ."</span></span> I think you will find different. Why are you opposing GSC so vigorously? Do you think 'done debating with you' will change the fact that you cannot substantiate any of the above?
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

I am not debating you, I have answers to every point but it does nothing but to perpetuate this distraction. If you think "others" are interested simply have them ask me to clarify my position and answer you. At which point I will be happy to do so.

As far as searching this site, and my Lies, no, just one continuos argument as far back as 2008 -- View Posts yields this:
Screen-Shot-2011-12-27-at-3.23.29-PM.png
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

No, I am not going tit for tat with you... get over it.

you win, I am making it all up, our testing is flawed and we failed to understand the nature of the science behind the ballistics, you're of a superior intellect and have thoroughly routed me --- by calling me out and my failure to address your points, I have clearly shown I am at fault here.

Lowlight - Loser !

GSC= Winning !

I am out of this.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.

Clicking on my name and then on View Posts yields interesting facts for the first page. It is a mix of general information answers and answers to Noel, Groper, Augustus and yourself. Apart from the general information, the same names crop up with monotonous regularity. Funny thing is, my posts to the few of you are always replies. Not initiating anything, just replies. Significant. Just like the refusal to let me post our correspondence.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fight until the threads are worthless and locked seems to the modus operandi.</div></div> How many threads have you locked due to argument as you state? One? Two? More than two?
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gerard Schultz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fishing is also a possibility. At least one can do that with a 12ga.</div></div>

Yes, but then someone would probably argue about whether lighter more streamlined shot would be better than the heavier slower shot for shooting trout under water. And then there's the shape of the boat hull and how it cuts through the water.....

I better stick with archery....there's no talking allowed while bow hunting.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

This was an interesting thread until Gerard Schultz took a big shit in it.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

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

I better stick with archery....there's no talking allowed while bow hunting. </div></div>

Marcel Marceau would have made a great bow hunter
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Mr.Schultz, I will go back and read the posts from 1760 and if I misrepresented something I will backtrack here on this forum. As I recall 1760 reported something happened to one or more of the rds that he could not explain. Mr Viers tests were very limited and he himself admitted getting mixed up about how much elevation he had on the scope. He reported an insanely tight group (2 shots I believe ) at extended range. Why have we not heard any more about this breakthrough.

The reason I have become so frustrated with this process is that I have tested several bullets. The first was the Viking from Germany. You are probably familiar with this one. The maker of this bullet advertised it to have a 1.5 BC. I bought 300 of these and had them shipped over here. I also had a rifle built per the instructions of Lutz. The viking is totally unstable out of the 8 twist that Lutz said would work. I also fired it from a Bartlien 6.5-13 gain twist with the same dismal results.

Then I tried the LM 119 which was also extremely unstable. After that came the ZA series and I fired several prototypes, some of which were stable and some that were not. Then came the Gen 1 Rocky Mtn. that turned to dust when fired from the 8 twist. I did not try them from the 6.5 for obvious reasons. There is a Gen 2 Rocky Mtn that is supposed to have a thicker jacket and may fare better out of the 8 twist. After that came four prototypes from Cutting Edge that developed into a very accurate bullet with respectable BC according to drop tests out to a mile.

Anyway I may be just trying to be important. If thats the case it has cost me a small fortune and I still dont have a 375 bullet with a BC above 1. I thought the Cutting Edge 400 was above that threshold on preliminary test but I do not believe it is at this time. I would like to see others put these downrange and let us know the results. Folks are waiting with great anticipation for a 375 bullet that will perform as your 414 is advertised. How about just putting a few of these in the right places show us all what they can do. In the meantime Ill be locating a courthose with a suitable view for all the spectators that will surely show up.

Oh by the way, would you share who tested the 420 gr 375 that Extremist 458 reported was stable from an 8 twist at 3400 fps. What case was able to get that kind of velocity?
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JFComfort</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This was an interesting thread until Gerard Schultz took a big shit in it. </div></div>

I've watched these threads from time to time in the hope of gleaning something useful about projectile design and with morbid fascination as individuals like Mr. Schultz take the opportunity to flush their future business prospects down the shitter by carrying on feuds in public. I still can't believe that a so-called supplier like Mr Schultz would comport himself like this on a public forum, in front of thousands of viewers...and therefore potential customers, or now likely non-customers. I mean, who would buy stuff from the guy even if his products did stack up to his obviously shaky claims? If there was some problem with the purchase, I'd be betting on a less than positive customer service experience, given his conduct here. And if you were an 'institution' choosing to buy projectiles from him under contract, they'd better be the best thing since sliced bread, otherwise you'd drop him like a hot rock.

It must be incredible to (a) never be wrong and (b) be able to opt out of a pretty sophisticated and independently moderated test designed to draw a line under three years of bullshit which he has been an instrumental part of, and call foul. Got to give it to the guy, he's got a hide like a rhino. I mean, Mr. Carlson got the message to cease and desist, and did (amazingly), and I don't see him, or any of the other projectile manufacturers cutting their own throats publically just because the recent LL/Cory T/Chrono-Dudes test results didn't quite match their modelled expectations, or calling the test team's integrity into doubt.

Still, on the plus side, refusing to participate in the test has had the net effect of flushing this BS out. Look forward to the accuracy test in due course.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

This all reminds me of the Larue dust up. I don't get the "saw the limb off that I'm standing on" style of marketing.

Must work for some.
crazy.gif
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Yes, we have hit the wall.
Per JFC we have hit a wall of shit!
crazy.gif


Sorry, my "Inner Troll" overwhelmed me, whew.

Are we going to bump bellies at "SHOT"
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

JFComfort, Dr Scholl, Dave,

Take a look at Frank's post #2993157 then tell me:
1. Who started this?
2. Did I post on this thread before Frank?
3. Was my reply civil and free of insults?
4. Was Frank's reply civil and free of insults?
5. Why did Frank bring this to open forum?
6. Would any one of you be a wuss and allow such obviously wrong statements to go unchallenged?
7. Why the double standard from men who should be running on logic?

Augustus,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh by the way, would you share who tested the 420 gr 375 that Extremist 458 reported was stable from an 8 twist at 3400 fps. What case was able to get that kind of velocity?</div></div> Could you please point me to the context, I cannot find it. I am not aware of a cartridge that can push a 420gr 375 to 3400fps.

We are waiting for a rifle to be completed to wrap up testing on a 375450 but the project has been shelved for the moment, we have equipment arriving shortly and preparation is already falling behind.

I'm gone from here, have fun.
 
Re: Have we hit the wall?

Mr Schultz, I will have to look up the thread but there is a picture of Extremist 458 holding a 420 gr solid copper projo. He asked the question ( Are you ready, can you handle it ) this started a discussion where he stated the BC was 1.250 as best I remember and he said they had been tested to 3400 fps. There was more discussion, at some point you joined in and I asked you point blank if you had a 375 bullet that turned these numbers. If I remember correctly you did not directly answer the question and another member asked that the question be answered, the discussion ended without a direct answer from you. Extremist 458 has reiterated this claim on other occassions.

So if I understand you correctly you are are telling all of us now that you do not have, nor have you ever had a solid copper projo in excess of 400 gr that has been tested out of an 8 twist to 3400 fps and has a BC of 1.25.

If this is the case I would like to ask if you have a solid copper projo weighing in excess of 400 gr that has been proven stable throughout its trajectory from an 8 twist at any velocity with a BC of 1.25.

Also I looked up the thread where zman shot some of the GS425HV and the 414 from an 8.25 twist. He stated the 425s made football shaped holes. He stated he only shot the 414s at 100 yds and they SEEMED to like a certian load. He did not say how well they liked the load and he did not do any more testing due to the long lead times. He left me with the impression he still had some of the 414s left but abandoned testing them . I cant imagine having a rifle built specifically for the GS 414,then waiting several months to recieve the projectiles only to fire a few of them still not knowing for sure how they will act at distance from his rifle.

Anyway based on what zman openly stated and the impression I got from reading his post I reakon I will stand by my statements in my prior post. I know you have a long line of successful hunting bullets but you really need to get a handle on the 338 and 375 projos in question. Please share with us once and for all, what you really have, what twist rates are required to stabilize them, what you believe the BCs are, how you arrived at those numbers and if they are derived from drops who did the testing. If you will do this I think it will help matters a bunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Milirad
Rifle Scopes Burris Eliminator 6 Accuracy Range Test Review
Replies
14
Views
402
rustyinbend
rustyinbend
gr8fuldoug
New Products Intel from Camera Land
Replies
2
Views
985
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Steiner T6Xi 3-18x56 Review and comparison with NF ATACR 4-16x42, S&B US 3-20x50 and March 4.5-28x52
Replies
115
Views
6K
TheBigCountry
TheBigCountry
M
Safety Warning for Berger 77 grain OTM: Pressure Testing Update
Replies
307
Views
25K
MontanaMan
M
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Nightforce NX8 2.5-20x50 vs March 3-24x52 vs Schmidt 3-27x56 - battle of midrange magnification juggernauts
Replies
32
Views
5K
Glassaholic
Glassaholic
Top Bottom
Back