2 "Train of thoughts" arising in ELR

[Milepost]

Any of the ELR type rifle or long range hunting bullets is sailing straight thorough body armor as well as plates.

While tungsten can be toxic, you really have to be unlucky to have an issue with it. It is widely used in everything from light bulbs to metalworking.
You would have a more realistic chance of being poisoned by the lead in standard bullets.[/QUOTE]

------------------

1) I agree with you at the extreme ELR distances it is not so much an issue but at a closer range say 600-1000 yards? Those steel plates are expensive! I think your local range official might have an issue with it. Remember that we are not all blessed living out west where you have lots of options for practicing at ELR.

The EPA is tying to pull out as many of the heavy toxic metals as it can including lead. Tungsten residue is some pretty nasty stuff. Special precautions have to be made in machining and somebody has to clean up that mess afterwards. The same problem goes on at a outdoor shooting ranges where local environmental concerns are involved. Lead cleanup at an indoor or outdoor range is bad enough and introducing another toxic substance would only make matters worse.

BTW: Tungsten has been used for many decades in the Military such as in slap munitions and as we all know the depleted uranium stuff proved way too toxic to keep on using.


2) The use of a polymer coating on match bullets is not the issue. IMO - The migration of its wide spread use to other types of bullets is where the real problem lies.

..... So not to derail this thread further I think this topic might be a worthy for opening up in another thread.... My apologies to Theis

 

[Hairy Biker]

Theis, I think you are avoiding one aspect of ELR shooting here by making the conversation an "either/or" statement. To continue the train analogy, without a station the train has nowhere to start and stop.

The shooting position is adequately covered. The target continues to be an issue. There is some very immovable views on ELR targetry on the Interweb; but just as rifle technology changes, so does every other technology.

I am still in favour of paper targets and a Butts crew but not this is not always possible. So electronic targets will plot fall of shot in as good as, if not more accurate (subject to the system) way than observation of fall of shot.

Work on the targetry and that will change some of the ballistic reasoning.

 

[THEIS]

Theis-
where can we get information on this polymer/tungsten projectile? is someone commercializing it or attempting to? Clearly lots of IP (intellectual property, read patents) at play here. This sectional density plus the super high form factors coming out of Warner Tool would be absolute game changers.
thanks

Hi,
Yes we are in the process of commercializing it. That will not happen until all the patents are approved via the manufacturing process.
Right now we have had pretty good success with 2 percentages of tungsten so that we can have sectional density options but even at our lightest percentage I think (without measuring and running the numbers) that the Warner Tool design would have to be modified aka made lighter or with the tungsten/polymer the projectile would be too heavy....unless you are part of the displacement train
I will send you a PM to discuss further because IIRC you, Josh K and Jon O are pretty close.

(I'm still working on the 375ct with high bc solids to find my limit there, b4 I jump way off in the deep end and like neck a 14.5 down to .50...????, no... no....)

Hi,
Well before you jump off the deep end and do that; first go the x108 (Long BMG case) and neck down to the super heavy 416 projectiles.

2) The use of a polymer coating on match bullets is not the issue. IMO - The migration of its wide spread use to other types of bullets is where the real problem lies.

Hi,
The problem we have run into in regards to utilizing a polymer coating on projectiles is that as of today..there is not one that has been found to hold up to the velocities needed. There is a company in Australia that is leading the pack on this front but they have only been able to withstand 2000fps velocity so far.

The target continues to be an issue. There is some very immovable views on ELR targetry on the Interweb; but just as rifle technology changes, so does every other technology.

Hi,
I do not see targets as an issue at all. Quiet frankly I could care less who uses what targets and who wants different targets.
Attempting to debate the legitimacy of 1 competition organization based on their preferred target arrangement is only causing LESS people to shoot ANY of the ELR competitions.
We also have to realize that less than 5% of ELR shooters compete in any competitions but yet they push the boundaries just as much (if not more, because they are not restrained under rules and COF) as those that compete in the ELR events.
Each of the competitions such as KO2M, Alex Wheelers 2k BR, Worlds Longest Shot Challenge, etc etc will start to "develop" rifles and cartridges purely for those events. So much that they will not transfer over to any of the other events. Targetry is going to fall into that category too.


Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Jeffvn]

I tend to agree that targets are likely not a problem going forward, but I disagree that electronic targets will be the answer. The electronic targets I'm familiar with (F-Class and international competitions) require the projectile to be supersonic to track and plot the flight. Depending upon conditions and the elevation of the the firing point, the vast number of .375 projectiles currently being used are subsonic well before they get to 2,900 yards much less 3,525. (not sure about the .416 projectiles so I'll not guess)

Jeffvn

 

[Hairy Biker]

I will try again. The target is the one point of weakness in ELR and is the one that no real development has gone into. I have no great care as to what shape, colour or flavour it is, but I would like to see some kind of medium that records group (at least) and a score (eventually).

Technology exists to record this stuff. In some cases it is the tried and true measure of cardboard. In some cases it might be an electronic solution.

But until you start addressing this part of the system as part of the whole solution, you are just sending small bits of metal downrange and not collecting data from the receiving end.

FWIW noting targets are not at the "sexy" end of the ELR.

 

[j-huskey]

As the class cut up, if we followed Nascar in ELR we could have sexy in the end by the targets....??

 

[sandwarrior]

First off, I'm not interested in shooting beyond a mile, so my opinion matters little in this discussion.

Many years ago an old timer gave me an explanation of BC's that I think was probably correct though my google skills do not provide evidence. I was told that a one inch lead ball had a BC of one. Bigger balls or better shapes had higher BC's Smaller balls and worse shapes had lower.

So for two bullets of the same shape and density/construction but of different sizes the larger will have a higher BC. So in each case one must find a cartridge that will push the bullet to a MV sufficient to achieve a trajectory that can accurately reach the target.

In the case of my desire to be able to engage targets up to one mile, good combinations of bullets and cartridges are available from .260 up. As we get toward the .50 end of the spectrum it gets much easier to read the wind.

The original "B.C." model was a one pound, one inch diameter, 3 radius ogive flat base projectile pushed at 1800 fps.

 

[patriot07]

I think in every case, we see that a high BC and predictability in winds *at long distance for the caliber* is king. This has played out time and time again using 69 or 77 grain projectiles in the .223 instead of 40 gr. Using 140+ grain projectiles instead of 123 gr. in the 6.5s. Using 210 or higher projectiles in the .30 cal Magnums instead of 190 gr and lighter. I emphasize *at long distance for the caliber* because a light for caliber 300WM will still trump a heavy for caliber .223 at 800 yards, for example.

High BC beats speed *when you are pushing the range limits of that caliber* as long as you are not so heavy for caliber that the case can't push the projectile effectively (such as launching a 230 gr Berger with a .308 Win.).

The fast and light guys give up ultimate long distance hit capability in order to gain an advantage over the heavier projectiles at short to intermediate ranges.

What I think is really going on with the 2 trains of thought is acceptance of impracticality and cost. If you want to shoot with some semblance of a reasonable budget or have a rifle that is somewhat man-portable and practical, you will end up in the fast and light camp to a degree.

The guys going full-retard on the heavy and high BC methodology will end up with expensive, custom actions/projectile/barrels/brass/stocks etc. in a "rifle" that takes several guys to carry from the truck to the firing line and back. The calibers will be at least the .416 if not a .50 of some sort or even larger. We had a member on here I was in contact with a few years ago who was making a rifle designed to shoot a proprietary cartridge that was 20mm brass necked down to fit a .50 cal projectile. Take the concept far enough and you will eventually have artillery pieces with butt stocks and triggers attached to them doing EEEELR.

What an awesome post!

 

[Jeffvn]

I'm not sure I agree that targets are the weak point in ELR, but recording target impacts have been somewhat challenging for match organizers when it comes to funding a real time video recording system.

I still prefer video and video recording to the other systems in place, but that is me. We were going to use Steel targets, video cameras, and a human to inspect the target (and potentially take a photograph of the target face) - the human had the final say on whether there was a hit or not. Yeah that means you have a shut down between relays, so the human can do his thing, but there would be no mistakes at that point on whether there were hits or not (with the one exception of super light strikes on the target that might barely leave a mark).

I imagine that holes in paper or cardboard recorded with real time video would provide the same feedback as steel as far as group size (but without the audio return that a smack on steel gives you). Regardless you need something that gives real time visual results from a distance very close to the target so that you can discern hits from not hits quickly and with certainty.

Jeffvn

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

The "problem" with ELR targets is that in their current development we are only using them to determine hit or miss but what if we were able to use them as an extension of our internal and external ballistic knowledge?

What if projectile velocity could be measured by the "target"? We would be able to see what a 2fps MV deviation did to velocity at target. We could see what different twist rates changed in at target velocity. Etc Etc
What if projectile angle could be measured by the "target"?. A new ballistic program could have this data input into it to better "true" the software outputs to the target inputs. Etc Etc
Targets that could provide us with environmental and wind conditions for each projectiles time of impact.
The list goes on in regards to Target Advancement but the speed of which such development would be seen as something needed is measured in decades

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[ScottYo308]

Ive thought about this quite a bit, inside 1000 I would say you want a compromise / balance between wind a drop. But at longer distances the bullet is coming in at such and extreme downward angle that a 90 degree target gets very horizontally narrow. At the southwest ULR matches we started angling the plates back about 20-30 degrees and we are getting a lot more hits out past 2k, but the shooters are getting better too.

So from that stand point I believe one is better off favoring a faster (fps) solutions minimizing drop over wind. However the Applied Ballistics guys seem to prefer the heaviest bullet in the caliber and shoot it slower. So ???? its a good debate.

There is another wrinkle to this that has been bugging me for a while now. I have hard data that shows that a .416 472gr at 3150 fps (10 twist) at 3200 yards is unstable with non uniform keyhole impacts, and a .408 400gr at 3025 fps (14 twist) at 3200 yards (same target) with point first impacts. The .416 in this situation should have an advantage everywhere its spun faster, bigger, heavier, higher BC, and faster. Soo... the .416 could be under spun, or the .408 could transition through the transonic threshold better and stay stable. Shooting past supersonic I dont think speed or weight is important if the projectile is unstable.

It seems, that the very long bullets with very high BC work better while supersonic, but the shorter bullets with a lower BC transition into subsonic better (assuming the shape is generally the same). I have tried to read up on this but once people start throwing math equations at me I'm done. Does this seem "generally" plausible?

 

[Jeffvn]

Theis Everything you mentioned is currently available technology, just not as part of a target system (and it costs more than a bit of $$$ to put it all together at the same time same place). Why do you want the "target" to provide all of that information?

Most if not all of the information you are talking about is available from independent systems today. Or could and possibly should be available from the various bullet manufactures - who can or should do Doppler testing on their projectiles).

As far as wind speed, direction, and other atmospheric info, at the target you can easily run a blue tooth weather station up on a pole 20 feet from the target and transmit to a sending unit that in turn transmits the data via real time network to the firing point. Not hard, not really even expensive, just a pain in the butt on set up and the risk someone shoots your weather station or sending unit. Doppler radar can give you a lot of what you want, including velocities at the target but you have to spend $$$ to get the information, and no one is going to set up a Doppler unit at an ELR match, at least not so far. (LabRadar is close, but they are too inconsistent unit to unit.). Bullet positioning and grop size information is also available today, but the only units that I'm familiar with are limited to tracking supersonic bullet passage. At ELR distances these days most pills are subsonic well before they reach the target so putting it at the target might not be a good idea. But a known size grid on or just in front of a target with a video camera is easy enough to get a rough idea of group size. I'm all about gathering data from bullet flight, conditions, trajectory angles and establishing a pattern of predictability. My log books are evidence of the wind and conditions nerd I've become. I just don't see that as what should necessarily be going on at an ELR match.

Nor do I think that is going to happen anytime soon (if ever) for an ELR match. Part of the "skill" in hitting targets at distance is the ability to read the wind and other conditions down range. Those that can do well. Those that can't don't do so well. Some just get bigger cartridges and projectiles to bulldoze their way through the conditions. A system where the shooter and spotter are relegated to trigger monkey and friend, because all they need to do is dial some turrets on the rifle and pull the trigger, bingo guaranteed hit, doesn't really fit with my view of what ELR shooting is about.

Jeff

 

[sandwarrior]

I actually see three schools of thought. Light and fast but low BC and High BC light and high BC heavy.

Before I go off on my tangent, I want to explain "effective". It means much like the military version where hits can be made "highly probably", not "possible, but not highly probable" Often the difference between scope and precision components vs. battle rifle quality. We're talking sniper/DM rifles here.

The light fast crowd is dedicated to the max range of a standard M16 base precision rifle. While they shoot 77's currently, they are typically only 80% effective to 800m. The thought with these is they are interchangeable with what everyone else is carrying. Even the old M193 can be effective in the precision role out to 500m. 7.62 platforms using standard ammo are included here because of the lower BC and slightly higher MV. While they can get to 1k, they don't do it in all conditions accurately. This class includes all those other calibers that are not set up to handle high BC bullets, i.e .22-250, .243 Win 6mm Rem, .257Rob, .25-06 .280 Rem. Some of this class interchanges with the next category as twists have improved. 6mm BR is one such cartridge. smaller than the 6mm Rem, it can get farther because of efficiency.

The light high BC crowd should then start off with the 7.62 platforms with high BC bullets. Not particularly fast in comparison to others in it's class, it's able to reach farther because of the higher BC bullet used. The ones that really shine in this catergory though, are the 6mm's, 6.5's and 7mm's pushing cartridges that would be a standard loadout for any soldier. These faster, lighter cartridges are capapble of a mile. But, are truly only effective out to 1200m. As many can testify, the 6.5's are a particular favorite of PRS shooters specifically because in the 1200 yd./m stages they are very reliable. And, while a muzzle brake can mitigate recoil with this class, it's not necessary.

The heavy high BC groups starts at the new crop of .300 mags and up. Barrel life with these is better than the same cases necked down to 6.5mm and 7mm, so outside a specific high turnover of barrels, these will suffice. This goes all the way up to .50 BMG. The heavier bullets are whats needed to get past one mile effectively. Although, that's where I'll place the effective range of this class. A number of shots have been recorded farther, but it's finally gotten to a point where we can predictably hit at one mile. This is across the wide spectrum of shooters, not just a few really good shooters who practice ELR all the time. The caveat to this is it's not a beginners game starting with this level of recoil. A muzzle brake is pretty much necessary to get consistent at extreme ranges. Which, depending on style can bring issues of their own into play. Recoil mitigation can be handled by many, but it has way too many tendencies to develop flinch in otherwise good shooters. No muzzle brake on this class takes it's toll.

So, all this said, @Lowlight recently posted a video of the .224 Valkyrie to a mile. As he stated in the video, you can get to a mile on a pretty consistent basis, so don't push this cartridge aside because others may do better there. The lighter recoil makes it a lot more fun to shoot the rest of the day at shorter ranges. The same can be said with rest of the mid-class cartridges. I've hit pretty consistently to a mile on man size steel using both 6.5 Creed and 7mm-08. You don't need a magnum to get there.

It's about bullet efficiency not power. But, with added power and a high BC bullet you can push yourself to well past a mile. I recommend if you ever get the chance make the effort to try it. It's a truly rewarding challenge.

 

[TripleBull]

As the class cut up, if we followed Nascar in ELR we could have sexy in the end by the targets....??
View attachment 6963039

OK, lets work on this. Our girls have to wear the colors of Old Glory, OK? Let's have them forward spot in a safe place and when there's a hit on target at the Ko2M, let's have them drop some layers and shake it around a little bit. For a 2-mile hit, I wanna see some bare tit. Is that too much to ask???

Ko2M would be a better attended spectator sport.

 

[Rust]

While it would be expensive (really expensive) if you really wanted to up sectional density, use the densest material, osmium. Currently about $5833 a pound. One cubic centimeter would weigh 22.5 grams, one cubic foot would weigh about 1620 pounds. Twice as heavy as lead per volume. Heavier than depleted uranium.

 

[badassgunworks]

Hi,

So it appears there are 2 different "train of thoughts" arising in our modern day ELR world, so I figured a thread to discuss them could be nice

On one hand we have the "No replacement for Displacement" train; in which they are going to larger diameter and/or heavier for caliber projectiles.
On the other hand we have the "Speed Kills" train; in which they are going to smaller diameter projectiles in larger cases and/or light for caliber projectiles.

The first train seems to be focused on the larger and/or heavier for caliber projectiles allow them to see impacts down range better.
The second train seems to be focused on getting projectile through the flight path as fast as possible to reduce the effects of environmental conditions in relation to time of flight.

So which train are you following or riding

Sincerely,
Theis

both sides of the train ..... reading wind is big but if you have something that has a very heavy high bc bullet going real fast sure changes things. if your wind calculations are 50 % off but you have 50 % less wind deflection its a wash. but if your good at reading wind you just insured a better outcome with a better performing package. To ignore the fact that velocity with a high bc bullet and heavy large diamiter bullet showing more splash is not an advantage is ignorant . transonic is a bullet design thing so. that's where you choose the correct tool for the job. Some say extend the transonic threw velocity and bc others say use a better and or more accurate design. others say ill choose sighted impact at extreme range over s.d.'s and that's valid considering sighting impact over 3000 yards can be tough with 375 caliber bullets. I choose all the above. remember felt recoil is what you make it. so that's no a issue unless you choose the light weigh package and I only feel that limits the development of the sport.

 

[badassgunworks]

While it would be expensive (really expensive) if you really wanted to up sectional density, use the densest material, osmium. Currently about $5833 a pound. One cubic centimeter would weigh 22.5 grams, one cubic foot would weigh about 1620 pounds. Twice as heavy as lead per volume. Heavier than depleted uranium.

All though that would be nice the industry has not maxed out our current designs using solids there is still much more design and technology to be explored in bullet design with out using some insane alloy to obtain sectional density to change B.C.. Currently load bearing surface has a much greater impact on ignition pressures then weight using super heavy alloys may change that fact causing other issues like bullet f.o.c. balance point plus of we use a dead alloy core we are back to bullet slugging and on board yaw issues.

 

[badassgunworks]

So, THEIS, the third train, trying to get up the hill, is the median bullet weight, bc, and speed, that doesnt erode the bore so bad the barrel takes a dump in the competition.
That leaves out the really overbore barrel burners that give the speed bc edge.
And it challenges the slower heavier units working at the edge of their performance envelope.

It makes the 416 worthy of further development for a man portable rifle for this purpose.
(I'm still working on the 375ct with high bc solids to find my limit there, b4 I jump way off in the deep end and like neck a 14.5 down to .50...????, no... no....)

My vote is more development with the 416 on the median train.

the only problem with the 416 is what cartridge are you going to shoot it in that has enough capacity and is problem free to optimize it in cause its not the bmg/barrett case.

we are introducing the 408 warlord soon perhaps necking it up to 416 is the ticket considering it has more capacity then the barrett case and is a much better design. or the 416 destroyer case based on the ex-nihilo parent cylinder.

 

[MACHTECH]

we are introducing the 408 warlord soon

Who's we if you don't mind me asking? Do you have a website I could check out?

 

[badassgunworks]

Who's we if you don't mind me asking? Do you have a website I could check out?

Swamplord and myself . Precision rifled ordnance facebook
page

 

[Lynn Jr]

THEIS
I run monthlu matches that start at 2000 yards and if a shooter gets 4 hits out of 10 shots the shooter advances in 500 yard increments until we get a winner.
Whitemamba is one of our regular shooters.
At 2000 yards most cartridges get hits and it all comes down to how good your load is and how lucky you are in getting good conditions.
The biggest issue we see at our NorCal 2000 yard matches is spotting your misses.
At our SoCal venue we shoot on flat ground in the desert and spotting misses at 2000 yards isn't a issue.
Accuracy in my opinion will trump speed but only if the bullets will transition.
A slow 338 Lapua load will bang the gong all day long in good conditions at 2000 yards.
At 2500 yards seeing the splashes around the gong makes or breaks your back. If you can see the splashes your still in the hunt. If you can't you go home a loser.
The bigger bore guns make spotting the splashes easier but if your running a factory type gun and barrel you are spraying bullets downrange and preying for a hit.
Your gun still has to have a good barrel and a good load.
In the SoCal desert mirage makes spotting the smaller caliber misses all but impossible at 3000 yards.

Right now having a great spotter with a great spotting scope is a big part of winning.

 

[Hollywood 6mm]

When you tie that together with Brantley’s approaches and techniques, that team was untouchable.

Would you mind going into more detail on this? I'm curious about what Robert was doing differently that you think gave him an edge.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Absolutely in agreement that terrain/environment is a major factor in the success or failure of an ELR venture.
I shoot in several different terrains via images below and each of them demand a different degree of knowledge, support equipment, etc etc.

Flying into a "green" shooting facility. We have access to utilize the runway and safety zones on each end of it to set up for Doppler testing.

Enroute to our desert shooting environment. When the wind blows the sand as waves...seeing impact pretty much becomes impossible without drone assistance or another down range observer system.

Then...arriving at mountain/winter shooting environment. This is absolutely my worse and least favorite shooting environment.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[jasent]

I would agree winter is the worst. ELR season for me (hobby ELR junkie) start end of may and end about November. The rest of the year it’s about impossible shooting solo

 

[badassgunworks]

Hi,

Absolutely in agreement that terrain/environment is a major factor in the success or failure of an ELR venture.
I shoot in several different terrains via images below and each of them demand a different degree of knowledge, support equipment, etc etc.

Flying into a "green" shooting facility. We have access to utilize the runway and safety zones on each end of it to set up for Doppler testing.
View attachment 6993522

Enroute to our desert shooting environment. When the wind blows the sand as waves...seeing impact pretty much becomes impossible without drone assistance or another down range observer system.
View attachment 6993525

Then...arriving at mountain/winter shooting environment. This is absolutely my worse and least favorite shooting environment.
View attachment 6993529

Sincerely,
Theis

I love mountain shooting its most of what I do just not in the snow that sucks

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Yea I do not mind mountains but this is me in the snow lol...

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Lynn Jr]

Some pictures of our conditions. I have better pictures but they won't upload.
338 Lapua Ackley Improved
338 SnipeTac
375/50 BMG
50 BMG
I shoot from the bench but most shoot prone.

 

[Rudy Gonsior]

Would you mind going into more detail on this? I'm curious about what Robert was doing differently that you think gave him an edge.

I can't say with 100% certainty what Robert and his team was up to nor do I speak for them but from my observations I can deduce some basic principles into 2 points that seemed to trend with their success beyond simply showing up with the right equipment.

1 - Intuitive vs. Analytical Wind Reading. This is a wind reading theory spectrum that needs a general descriptor (see below) but from what I observed Robert and Company seemed to favor towards the intuitive end of things.

Analytical wind reading - This is probably the most common approach I see LR (and thus ELR) shooters using, basically shooters observe key wind indicators in the environment and adjust accordingly using the proscribed solution provided by ballistic computer/chart/formula/etc. This is probably the most common method seen because its where everyone starts when we learn to read wind. Observe, Develop Solution, Engage. This concept works well for up until a certain point. The problem begins when the cognitive load of observing wind in complex environments creates task saturation. Simply put there are only so many tasks our brains can preform before the quality of the tasks being preformed start to suffer.

Intuitive wind reading - Enter the sub-conscious. While your active cognitive load tops out at around 20-40 task (depends on who's research you look at) your sub-conscious brain is doing a metic shit ton of work all on its own. From breathing, to walking across the room, to filling a cup of coffee, it's running "programs" if you will, you're still observing and calculating all sorts of complex task, but the sub-conscious brain is taking sensory imputes from sight/sound/touch all on its own with minimal input from the conscious you. If you spend enough time doing certain tasks some parts of the process will become ...intuitive.

Consider this, have you ever found yourself getting ready to take a shot and lets say you observe a 4-5 mph out of the 9 o’clock but right as you're about to break you get this feeling that you need to let up for a 2-3 mph instead? If your getting that gut feeling, it may very well be your sub-conscious mind nudging you to adjust for an input that it has pick up somewhere. Maybe it is the sound of the wind speed dying down in the natural rhythm of the wind cycle, maybe its the way the terrain lays out in relation to the trajectory, maybe its the movement of vegetation indicating a vector shift. Who knows exactly what it is but if you’ve done this enough times that nudge is probably some input of observation that has triggered you sub-conscious and its in conflict with what your consciously observing.

The kicker here is your sub-conscious is only as good as the historical baseline you build for it. A new shooter will never fare well trying to be intuitive, their brain has no baseline to reference observations against. On top of that certain sports are very analytical in their approach, F class, High Power, etc, are all shot on in relatively controlled environments and are great for building the analytical baseline but when it comes to shooting ELR at a place like Raton where you might have multiple wind vectors (both horizontal and vertical), micro and macro terrain effects, trajectory penetration of different air densities, etc then your analytical process is going to be pushed and possibly suffer cognitive overloaded if the conditions are complex. On top of all that most shooters tend to be very analytical thinkers, long range shooting is not a field that caters to intuitive mindset and getting guys to shift gears can be difficult. I mean can you imagine doing load development for Ko2M just by going off your gut? Hell no, its a scientific endeavor we must be exact!

Bottomline is if things get complex enough at a certain you’ll start missing key information, this is where I see some sports like the PRS/NRL as being more conducive to learning Intuitive wind reading. Guys that excel, typically have a good base of analytical wind experience (though the vast majority of PRS shooters don’t and are down right sloppy). These matches are often more complex environments and under time induced stresses that start to force guys to let go of super analytical approaches. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying their just swaging rounds, they're analytical in observing and prepping wind plans for every stage but once the clock is ticking they know what they can do and what they can get away with and most have realized that the best ballistic solver for wind is right between your ears. Once the music starts if your nose is in a chart/kestrel/etc. you’re wrong.

2- Now back to preventing task saturation, we can spread cognitive load to our sub-conscouse but we can also spread it out amongst a team. This is a technique as old as time for military snipers, we simply have a lot going on occupationally besides just shooting targets which is why the traditional shooter/spotter combo is so useful. The same technique is used for ELR, thats nothing new, but the key here is you got to connect information flow from one person to the other, in a effective manner, other whats the point. There is a lot of ways to go about this but at the end of the day its impersonal communications and its probably the number one handicap I saw at Ko2M. Some of the communications between teams was so painful I had to laugh and walk away. Teams that did well communicated effectively and efficiently between each other.

In a nutshell those are the things I believe I observed Robert and his team doing better than most. They arrived at wind solutions with an intuitiveness build off an analytical baseline that allow for a dynamic decision making and where smooth and efficient in their communications between spotters and shooters.

A lot of folks get rapped around the axel about what scope, what cartridge, etc and for sure thats all important but there are other things that seemingly unquantifiable that make top shooters.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

The single most overlooked component in the ELR world....TEAMmate!!

Because you cannot purchase that component...it must be built and those that are able to intuitively build it seem to be way ahead in the transferring of information to and from each other both verbally and nonverbal with emphasis on nonverbal, IMO.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[badassgunworks]

Hi,

The single most overlooked component in the ELR world....TEAMmate!!

Because you cannot purchase that component...it must be built and those that are able to intuitively build it seem to be way ahead in the transferring of information to and from each other both verbally and nonverbal with emphasis on nonverbal, IMO.

Sincerely,
Theis

verbal code works fine lol like Hillary for left or Regan for rt Gabriel for up or Lucfier for down lol

 

[THEIS]

verbal code works fine lol like Hillary for left or Regan for rt Gabriel for up or Lucfier for down lol

Hi,

LOL and Khashoggi is code for ghost bullet that got ripped apart and vanished.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[Lynn Jr]

Rudy
Wow what a post!!!
Dumb guys like myself who are new to bipod guns can increase there odds by observing other shooters first shots. If 80% of first shots go wide right I tend to favour left.
If 80% impact low I tend to favour high for my first shot.
I rarely shoot across long flat stretches as most of my shooting is across deep canyons so I only see what is very close and also what is directly around the target.

Badassgunworks
I will give you a call after the holiday is over.
Happy New Year everyone!

 

[Ledzep]

Rules and course of fire dictate, same as in PRS.

In PRS you see 3100-3200fps MV limit, shooting off of barricades/unstable positions, and ranges out to about 1200-1400yd max. So you maximize the BC that you can throw at 3100fps while also minimizing projectile weight for the sake of recoil management, and your sliders point you somewhere in the ballpark of a 6-6.5mm, potentially a short mag. Obviously other little 'personal' factors will come into play, but that's the gist of it.

I'm not incredibly "into" the ELR game just yet, but I have pushed a 28" 6.5 SAUM about as far as she'll go and I know that I need more bullet. Up next is a 300 PRC hopefully to do better out to 2000, and maybe push 2500. The SAUM was kind of a "do it all" rifle, this 300 is purely lay down and slow fire way tf out there.

I've also shot 50BMG before and don't appreciate the blast and recoil, but do distinctly remember spotting impacts (boulders) almost to 3000yd.

I imagine the sweet spot is somewhere in between. .375-.416 maybe. We'll see how the PRC goes and if I want to start dabbling with solids and something bigger. I think it'll keep me busy for a while, though.


What I really want to try to make work is fin-stabilized darts and smooth bores. No more stabilization issues, magnus moment, spin drift, no limits on prrojectlie length... Hell, it may even pay off to use Aluminum or Magnesium? Curious to see it explored.

 

[Jim Boatright]

I just read this interesting discussion thread and thought I might throw in my 2 cents worth.

I have always been firmly in the light, high-speed bullet camp for long-range riflery provided the BC of that bullet is high enough. In other words, I seek high BC through aerodynamic efficiency instead of simply making heavier bullets for greater "sectional density" (defined in rifle ballistics as bullet weight in pounds divided by the square of caliber in inches). BC is this sectional density divided by a "form factor." Form factor is the "average" ratio of the Coefficients of Drag (at zero yaw angle) for the subject bullet divided by those of the reference projectile over all relevant Mach speeds.

McDRAG estimates the G7 form factor for my 335-gr Mark IIb copper bullet design in 375 caliber as 0.833, that is only 83.3 percent of the drag of the well studied G7 VLD-type reference projectile. By defining 1.0 caliber to be the 0.366-inch bore diameter rather than the 0.375-inch groove diameter, the "sectional density" of this 375-caliber bullet is increased by 5 percent. [The dual-diameter bullet design really is 5 percent lower in aerodynamic drag than than a similar bullet having a full 375-caliber shank.] So, the G7 BC calculates to 0.428 according to McDRAG.

When David Tubb measured the BC of a similar (earlier) design dual-diameter copper 338-caliber bullet over 1000 yards at an average airspeed of Mach 2.46, his Oehler System 88 found the BC was 12.9 percent higher than was predicted by McDRAG. He fired those bullets from a 7.5-inch twist Schneider P5 barrel with an initial gyroscopic stability factor (Sg) of 2.75. The Oehler System 88 calculated BC's corrected to the old ASM standard atmosphere, which is 0.5-percent less dense than the dry, sea-level ICAO standard atmosphere I used in McDRAG. So, the hyper-stabilized copper bullets measured 12.4 -percent higher BC than predicted. If my 375-caliber bullet is fired from a 7.0-inch twist barrel, its initial Sg will be 3.1, which assures hyper-stability quite early in the flight.

If the Mk IIb copper bullets also achieve 12.4-percent higher BC in hyper-stable firing, the G7 BC would be 0.481, which would match that of Berger's new 379-gr copper bullet. How much faster can you fire a 335-gr 375 bullet than one weighing 379-gr? At a 3600 fps MV, these 375-caliber Mk IIb copper bullets should stay supersonic to a little beyond 3500 yards at the 6500 ft altitude at the NRA's Whittington Center, using AB Ballistics Point Mass solver. That is delivering 1100 ft-lbs of kinetic energy to a distance of 2 miles. Perhaps the new Berger bullet would "catch up" at 5 or 6 thousand yards, IDK.

I do not believe that faster barrel throat wear is directly caused by high muzzle velocity, per se. It is caused by burning larger charges of slower burning-rate propellants. I believe that throat wear most strongly correlates with propellant burn-rates. Barrel throat wear due to heat-checking can also be exacerbated by the longer barrel dwell times of slower, heavier bullets fired from longer barrels. The degree of "bottlenecking" of the cartridge case is also a factor, necking down a case making for increased throat wear. Longer case necks also greatly help to alleviate throat erosion with bottlenecked cartridges.

I can tell you with some technical understanding that at any point during the bullet's flight its crosswind deflection rate depends on (1) the angular difference between the direction of approach of the apparent wind experienced by the flying bullet and the forward velocity vector of that bullet, and (2) the deceleration rate due to aerodynamic drag acting on the bullet. Higher bullet speeds reduces wind drift somewhat by reducing the aerodynamic angle-of-attack (yaw angle) caused by any given crosswind speed, but the bullet experiences more drag at those higher speeds. Higher BC bullets produce less drag deceleration at any Mach speed. The total wind drift is the integration (summing) over time-of-flight of the instantaneous crosswind effects. Thus, higher BC always makes for less wind sensitivity with higher airspeed helping a little.

The longest-range EELR confirmed kill by a Confederate Army sniper during the US Civil War was 8800 yards (by map reading) when he fired a 500-gr lead slug from his Whitworth rifle in the general direction of a Union camp 5 miles away and behind a hill. He was unloading the rifle on returning to camp that evening so he could clean it and reload fresh for the next day's action. The following day, captured Union soldiers told of a picket having been killed in their camp the previous evening with no gunshot being heard.

Just my 2 cents worth,

Jim Boatright

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I was a frequent participant on off-day shooting at Cherry Ridge Range in NJ during the early-mid '90's. Being self employed, I had more "mental health day" options.

I would often share the 300yd range midweek with an experimenter who was working with a 20mm case necked to .50 cal.

His project had serious design flaws, for which I did not observe any solutions. I left NJ on late the 90's, and any subsequent experiments excaped my notice.

The case capacity was too large to optimize vs bore volume and projectile mass. Essentially, his barrel was too short and there was no available propellant that could burn slow enough to function efficiently.

The concept was tantalizing. The results were disappointing.

I think the problem has a solution, but that solution probably strains the capabilities of current components.

Greg

 

[badassgunworks]

Don't forget the Lehigh 494 gr .416". The BC is 1.138 G1. I don't think it will transition thru the transonic well. Maybe D. Tubbs nose ring would help

bc #s are off

 

[Tazman]

For me...the 338 Allen Magnum is a good all around long range rifle with parts of both worlds. I had the 338 AX pushing a 300 SMK at 3080FPS but the 338 Allen Magnum I think would be a great compromise on both. My 338AX had a 26 inch barrel and the magnum version wears a 30 inch I think. That is the only draw back to really big displacement and speed. Other wise my little 6mm creedmore at 3K with the 115 DTAC rocks pretty good.

 

[Sandow the Heretic]

In the near term, it would seem that bullet design is the opportunity to improve stabilization. New bullet composition, perhaps combinations of material, including coatings, reducing drag inducing elements like cannelures and rifling marks, and shaping the bullet to improve further on the boat tail design to reduce drag coefficient.

So you can make bullet boat tails that are very streamlined but as the boat tail drag decreases the dynamic stability also decreases and it does so in a non-linear fashion. The worst boat tail will have 25% more drag than the best but have a magnus torque coefficient of -.37 vs 1. This speaks to a fundamental reality that a lot of shooters have seen which is that a bullet with an excellent BC isn't necessarily a bullet that shoots well. You also getting the issue of does this bullet shoot well at supersonic and then shit the bed or does it transition well?

-Alex

 

[Jim Boatright]

So you can make bullet boat tails that are very streamlined but as the boat tail drag decreases the dynamic stability also decreases and it does so in a non-linear fashion. The worst boat tail will have 25% more drag than the best but have a magnus torque coefficient of -.37 vs 1. This speaks to a fundamental reality that a lot of shooters have seen which is that a bullet with an excellent BC isn't necessarily a bullet that shoots well. You also getting the issue of does this bullet shoot well at supersonic and then shit the bed or does it transition well?

-Alex

I decided to optimize my new copper ULD bullet design for maximum supersonic range instead of worrying about their behavior in the transonic and subsonic flight regimes. I wanted to carry maximum useful kinetic energy to the greatest possible distances. I use a 7.5-degree boat-tail which is 0.7 calibers in length and joins a 0.7-calibers wide rear driving band which is 0.2 percent larger than groove diameter for better gas sealing. The rear corners of the boat-tail are machined sharp with no radiusing to reduce vortex shedding into the wake. The bore-riding shank is 1.3 calibers long. The secant ogive is 3.2 calibers in non-truncated length with RT/R ratio of 0.500. A 0.100-caliber meplat with radiused corners truncates the ogive to 3.0 calibers in length. The ogive/shank join has a 4.5-degree break angle which is not radiused so that it reliably trips the boundary layer flow from laminar flow into turbulent flow. Overall length of the bullet is 5.8 calibers, with each caliber being the shank diameter, bore diameter plus 0.0002 inch. The smaller shank diameter gains about 5 percent in aerodynamic drag reduction over groove-diameter (+) bullet designs. The monolithic copper bullets are "light for caliber" at 246-gr in 338 and 335-gr in 375-caliber. They would be 10-gr and 14.5-gr heavier, respectively, except for being minimally base-drilled for effective barrel obturation in interior ballistics (as in the old Minie-balls of the Civil War era). They are easily fired at very high muzzle speeds.

I am attaching a recent study of Interior Ballistics with Copper Bullets.

McDRAG calculates a G7 form factor of 0.83 for this bullet design, but prototype firing tests indicate more like 0.70 in what I call "hyper-stable" flight. These bullets are to be fired from barrels having a rifling twist rate of about 20 calibers per turn, and with initial gyroscopic stability (Sg) of about 3.0. In hyper-stable flight, the coning angle damps to its long-term minimum (<0.1-degree) very early in the highest-drag portion of its flight. I have considered dynamic stability (Sd) by looking at the slow-mode damping factor (lambda-S) in light of my Coning Theory of Bullet Motions. Coning Theory is based on drag, lift, and overturning moment, and does not utilize Magnus effects. The energy needed for coning angle damping comes from the excess yaw-drag (KE loss) caused by flying at an aerodynamic angle-of-attack equal to the coning angle. I have formulated the damping factor parametrically in Coning Theory. It looks good (Sd>0.0) out to maximum supersonic range for these monolithic copper bullets with very high Sg's. I do not know how these new bullets will behave in the transonic region beyond 4000 yards to beyond about 5000 yards.

Jim Boatright

 

[Sandow the Heretic]

So if you are going to just spin it faster, there is no reason not to optimize for drag and let spin overcome the instability. You can go for both longer BT and finer nosecone ratios that way. Nosecones will make the most difference in supersonic and until you exceed around 5:1 you are reducing overall drag.

Seems well reasoned for the most part but why go with the primitive nose cone shape?

-Alex

 

[Sandow the Heretic]

Also...

"The bullet material in front of this obturating disc is being shoved forward by the distributed force F(t), while the afterbody (boat-tail) material of the monolithic bullet behind this plane of obturation is actually being dragged along via its mechanical attachment to the shank of the bullet."

But pressure is normal to all surfaces so no matter what the bullet shape behind the seal, it is still experiencing forces that are pushing it either inward or forward. Unless you are at pressures that can reflow the bullet, the net vector of inward is still forward.

-Alex

 

[Jim Boatright]

Pressure would be normal to all surfaces if they were hydrostatic. Rifle bullets leave the case neck with a mass of unburnt propellant stuck onto the afterbody. Early pressure rise compresses the propellant into something like a solid rocket fuel. The propellant mass fractures conically as the bullet departs, leaving attached a long "boat-tail" of surface burning propellant. It is also a very dynamic situation. A hydraulic ram effect has caused fracturing of some of my prototype bullet's hollowed-out boat-tails in the throat of the rifling when the base-drill diameter was too large. That should never happen if only isotropic hydrostatic pressures were involved.

I was trying to simplify the concepts for riflemen, and not really looking at the details of stresses within the structure of the copper bullet. I was mainly concerned with the interactions of the bullet exterior surfaces with the interior of the rifle barrel. Except for engraving the rifling, all stresses on the copper bullet should be within its elastic range.

Jim

 

[Jim Boatright]

So if you are going to just spin it faster, there is no reason not to optimize for drag and let spin overcome the instability. You can go for both longer BT and finer nosecone ratios that way. Nosecones will make the most difference in supersonic and until you exceed around 5:1 you are reducing overall drag.

Seems well reasoned for the most part but why go with the primitive nose cone shape?

-Alex

I found it easier to specify a circular arc headshape for the machinist than one of the more complicated headshapes (like Sears-Haack LD) for very little drag reduction at any given nose length. I tried to keep the OAL of the projectile as short as possible for practical reasons. If these bullets actually deliver their 0.70 form factor (G7) in all calibers, that would be a great leap forward for shoulder-fired rifles. We can always lengthen the nose shapes later, as with the newer hypersonic projectiles. Much of that drag reduction comes from hyper-stabilizing those tested bullets.

Jim

EDIT: I am already spinning these half-hard copper bullets at 6,000 to 7,000 revs/sec in 338-caliber. They would probably work (later) at 10,000 RPS, after the button-rifling barrel makers can make new tooling.

 

[Sandow the Heretic]

Pressure would be normal to all surfaces if they were hydrostatic. Rifle bullets leave the case neck with a mass of unburnt propellant stuck onto the afterbody. Early pressure rise compresses the propellant into something like a solid rocket fuel. The propellant mass fractures conically as the bullet departs, leaving attached a long "boat-tail" of surface burning propellant. It is also a very dynamic situation. A hydraulic ram effect has caused fracturing of some of my prototype bullet's hollowed-out boat-tails in the throat of the rifling when the base-drill diameter was too large. That should never happen if only isotropic hydrostatic pressures were involved.

I was trying to simplify the concepts for riflemen, and not really looking at the details of stresses within the structure of the copper bullet. I was mainly concerned with the interactions of the bullet exterior surfaces with the interior of the rifle barrel. Except for engraving the rifling, all stresses on the copper bullet should be within its elastic range.

Jim

Sorry, I really can't resist...

You should probably remove hydrostatic from your vocabulary as its application to internal, external and terminal ballistics is simply wrong. Nothing should be viewed as static and at equilibrium when its rate of significant change is on the microsecond timescale. You are far better off simply calling it pressure which by definition is force applied perpendicular to exposed surfaces.

Also don't use hydrodynamic for different reasons. Primarily while I agree that gasses at these pressures can be treated as fluids for flow, they cannot be treated as fluids for compressibility.

Hollow bases can easily expand within the constraints of normal forces if the surface areas and angles favor it. Minie ball works by having an internal surface area exceed the external surface area so the bullet expands outward. Drilling out the base of a solid gets you there since the hole is probably deeper than the boat tail is long and the bearing surface isn't going to expand beyond the constraints of the barrel unless something real bad is about to happen...

-Alex

 

[Jim Boatright]

Sorry, I really can't resist...

View attachment 7020811

You should probably remove hydrostatic from your vocabulary as its application to internal, external and terminal ballistics is simply wrong. Nothing should be viewed as static and at equilibrium when its rate of significant change is on the microsecond timescale. You are far better off simply calling it pressure which by definition is force applied perpendicular to exposed surfaces.

Also don't use hydrodynamic for different reasons. Primarily while I agree that gasses at these pressures can be treated as fluids for flow, they cannot be treated as fluids for compressibility.

Hollow bases can easily expand within the constraints of normal forces if the surface areas and angles favor it. Minie ball works by having an internal surface area exceed the external surface area so the bullet expands outward. Drilling out the base of a solid gets you there since the hole is probably deeper than the boat tail is long and the bearing surface isn't going to expand beyond the constraints of the barrel unless something real bad is about to happen...

-Alex

Yeah, "pressures" are isotropic and create no shear stresses, OK, got it. I said we would be using quick-static loading analyses in the paper because we were primarily looking at radial and tangential effects (per Roark's 7th Ed, p 36). I am just a pedestrian physicist, not really a mechanical engineer, and never even played one on TV.

I hope I got the main points about right, though. The rifle barrel sees internally up to 150 percent of the peak chamber pressure when firing lead or lead-cored bullets. The 338-caliber barrel expands internally by 1.3 thou when firing a 250-gr SMK bullet at 60 ksi peak chamber pressure. The bullet expands plastically to fill this expanded bore at peak base-pressure and then is swaged back down to nominal diameter as the base-pressure driving it drops. Lots of friction between bullet jacket and barrel interior.

Monolithic (half hard) copper bullets do not typically cause this much peak internal pressure inside the barrel, but they also cannot seal (obturate) the expanded bore very well either, unless they were base-drilled. Too much base-drilling could dangerously overpressure some (cut-rifled) barrels. Done correctly, base-drilling can allow copper bullets to seal any rifle barrel effectively and safely. Lots less bullet/barrel friction.

Jim

 

[Jim Boatright]

Sorry, I really can't resist...


Hollow bases can easily expand within the constraints of normal forces if the surface areas and angles favor it. Minie ball works by having an internal surface area exceed the external surface area so the bullet expands outward. Drilling out the base of a solid gets you there since the hole is probably deeper than the boat tail is long and the bearing surface isn't going to expand beyond the constraints of the barrel unless something real bad is about to happen...

-Alex

I am frankly mystified as to how the area inside a hollow base can exceed the area surrounding it on the outer surfaces of the bullet.

Minie ball projectiles do not work quite as Capt. Minie, and most others, envisioned they would. The original design required a separate, flat-based "expander" plug having a larger conical nose to be loaded behind the conical base cavity of the bullet. This plug was to be made of a light metal or even of wood and was supposed to be a friction fit. Shooters quickly discovered that the bullets worked well without this expander plug. Better riflemen found they could "pre-expand" the Minie balls by bouncing the iron ramrod against the nose of the bullet lightly and repeatedly. The base of the bullet was seated solidly against the front face of the breech plug during loading. The head of the ramrod had a cavity which fitted the nose of the soft lead bullet. These manually expanded bullets shot even better, with more power and accuracy, and with less gas leakage. In loading from the muzzle, the black powder dropped into a smaller-diameter cavity within that breech plug which also connected to the nipple where the percussion cap was placed. An undersized, flat-based slug of pure lead would have taken the rifling and obturated the bore just as well in firing after some judicious tapping with the ramrod during loading.

Extending the effective range of the standard issue infantry musket from 40 yards to over 200 yards should have produced a corresponding sea change in infantry tactics, however, it required many costly battles before this change penetrated the military mind. Massed infantry charges with fixed bayonets were still ordered against machine gun emplacements, field artillery, and entrenched infantry throughout WWI.

Jim Boatright