Help me identify this .30 cal 155 grain "mystery bullet"

[bm11]

I bought thousands of 155 Scenars in various 1000-2000 bullet lots on here. Getting toward the end of my supply, I stumbled upon a number of bullets that are NOT 155 Scenars, when I was setting up my seating die and I had a .020" (from memory) delta between some of the loads. I imagine that I have loaded some of these before and not realized that they were 155 Scenars.

In any case, after I realised it, I went back and sorted through the remainder of bullets, and found a fair number of these. The big tip off was that the Scenars have a "pointed" tip like what you would see with a bullet pointing die, where the others have a much steeper slope. I would like to identify them.

Specs are as follows:
155 Scenar:
Base to ogive: .673"
Base to tip: 1.282"

155 "mystery bullet:"
Base to ogive: 0.655"
Base to tip: 1.290"

I imagine it is a 155 Berger VLD?



Scenar on the left, mystery on right:




Here are some pics:

 

[JGorski]

The bullet on the left is no Scenar, too short.

 

[BobinNC]

I don't know for sure, but I suspect they are both 155 gr Lapua's, as Lapua may have changed the shape sometime in the past. I've come to this conclusion based on two documents from Brian Litz.

The first document http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/155_Berger_Lapua_Sierra.pdf a study on Lapua's 155 grain bullet the data he posts most closely resembles the bullet on the left. The second document also by Brian Litz is a study on the 155's BC testing, and the bullet drawing closely resembles the bullet on the right. http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/Lapua_Scenar.pdf

I don't know which document was published later, so you might just send Brain a PM and ask if Lapua changed the bullet profile.

 

[BryanLitz]

I think they're both Scenars.

I've seen a great deal of dimensional variation between lots of Lapua bullets. Within a given lot they're very consistent, but have greater than average lot variations compared to other brands.

btw, the first article referenced above isn't mine. The second one is.