Advancement in Projectiles

THEIS

THEIS

Hi, Sincerely
Banned !
Full Member
Minuteman
    • Nov 27, 2017
    8,133
    30,001
    Louisiana/Florida/Ukraine/MENA
    hoplitearms.com
    #1
    Hi,

    Lots and Lots of talk has been going on with ballistic programs, competition programs, etc etc; So I figured I would start a slightly different conversation :)

    Lets discuss projectile compositions and how changing them could be the next advancement in ELR shooting.....

    Lets figure that we are using the most efficient propellant in the most proficient cartridge with the most optimum projectile weight.
    As we see most of the time that "optimum" weight is a rather long projectile.
    With that combination we are running the cartridge case at capacity in both volume and pressure.

    So why haven't we changed the projectile composition to:
    A. Increase cartridge case capacity
    B. Reduce the "footprint" of projectile but keep and/or gain projectile weight
    C. Increase sectional density so the "BC" figures are increased

    Sincerely,
    THEIS
     
    #3
    HoustonB77 said:
    Look into Warner tool bullets.
    Click to expand...

    Hi,

    They are great :) Warner makes them PERFECT..each and every projectile.... but I am talking beyond that.

    But lets start the conversation with their projectile....
    Take their 361gr .375 projectile. By changing the composition what if we can keep that exact shape and dimensions but increase weight, thus increasing the sectional density, thus increasing BC.

    Sincerely,
    THEIS
     
    #4
    Theis:
    As soon as you bring enough money I'll make them out of any damn thing you want.
    Without a Mil R&D contract, or a very well off individual, there is little hope of much progress in this area.
    Alan
     
    #5
    Hi,

    There is always hope :)..here is a 230gr .308cal projectile with footprint/dimensions of a 180gr .308 projectile

    fetch


    Sincerely,
    THEIS
     
    #6
    Simple economics. Tungsten would probably meet all the criteria but who could afford it? The cost of tooling to turn tungsten rod into bullets would also be much more expensive. Probably would make a hell of an ELR bullet though.....
     
    #7
    At least one problem with increasing density of mono-metal / solid projectiles, is you run face first into the "armor piercing" category and Uncle Sugar shuts you down. Some folks have looked at adding mass via solid inserts (again armor piercing issues). You can potentially side-step the armor piercing category with a compressed powdered insert - the only problem there is dealing with the cost of producing such an insert and then the secondary cost of inserting the "plug" into the pill in a way that doesn't adversely affect stability...

    I "might" have been part of a test involving such materials. Automating the "plug" production and insertion process would potentially reduce the cost - but the early prototypes are more than a tiny a bit spendy.

    Jeffvn
     
    #8
    Could you push a tungsten bullet thru a stainless steel rifle bore and get anywhere near the barrel life you do with copper bullets?

    How about a fin stabilized projectile thru a smooth bore? Expensive for sure, but proven.
     
    #10
    Hi,

    JeffVN, do you know someone that was shutdown from producing RIFLE projectiles of various alloys up to and including the tungsten "plugs" you referred to?
    The automation you mention has improved greatly since such projects :)

    Here is the ATF/GCA requirements for armor piercing ammunition:

    The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended, provides the Attorney General the authority to exempt projectiles from the restrictions applicable to “armor piercing” ammunition if he determines the projectile is “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.” Between 1986 and 2011 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) received few requests for such exemptions. Since 2011 ATF has received approximately 30 such exemption requests.

    The GCA defines “armor piercing ammunition” as:

    “(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

    (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.”

    Pursuant to the GCA, ammunition that meets this definition may be eligible for an exemption from the statutory restrictions placed on armor piercing ammunition if ATF finds the ammunition is “primarily intended” for sporting purposes. As part of its review process of the pending exemption requests, ATF sought input from industry and law enforcement organizations on the application of the “sporting purpose” exemption set forth in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C).

    ATF released for public comment a framework, including legal and technical analysis, to guide its determinations on what ammunition is “primarily intended for sporting purposes.” The framework is intended to uphold the requirements of the statute and its goal of law enforcement protection while respecting the interests of sportsmen and the industry. The framework is not a final determination; ATF will accept comments for 30 days, and will finalize the framework after considering those comments and making any appropriate adjustments.

    It is important to note that the limitation on “armor piercing ammunition” in the GCA does not apply to projectiles manufactured exclusively from non-restricted materials such as copper and lead; it only applies to projectiles that include the specifically restricted materials, and can be used in a handgun. The framework will not apply to projectiles manufactured exclusively from non-restricted materials; licensed manufacturers will continue to be free to manufacture such projectiles without seeking an exemption.

    Field Division: Headquarters

    Sincerely,
    THEIS
     
    #11
    Powell River Laboratories made a number of bullets that used powdered tungsten vice lead for the core. They make for a very heavy projo for the same length and profile as a Sierra or Hornady A-Max. They fly extremely well and are very wind-resistant (external ballistics-wise).

    They were very expensive at over a dollar each for .224-caliber bullets and while useful as a target or game bullet it was doubtful they could be used as a standard military bullet. I know they were used as a specialty frangible projectile around high pressure vessels and piping.
     
    Last edited:
    #13
    Hi,

    Sinister...you guys had GREAT results from the 87gr PRL projectiles back in the day right? They outperformed the 100gr from ATK on the 1000yd line?

    The projectiles I posted are of a powdered tungsten but instead of being copper jacketed, they are a tungsten/polymer "compression". Still is T&E phase :)

    Sincerely,
    THEIS
     
    #15
    Í do a lot of bass fishing. A few years back I made the switch from using lead weights to tungsten weights. Not only are they more sensitive (which allows me to feel the bottom better) they are way more compact. They are practically already made in bullet shapes. This is interesting.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: demolitionman
    #16
    IMHO the most important factor for a bullet's design is how well it manages dynamic stability when going through the transonic zone. that is what separate the good bullets from the lemons. A better BC is always desirable but without a really stable behavior, BC alone becomes a moot point. There are many bullets out there that fail their purpose despite their high BC because of this.
     
    Last edited:
    #17
    Hello,

    LS you are very correct.

    One of the biggest problems we have in regards to BC numbers is that most of the modern monolithic designs really do not fall under true G1 or G7 "profiles". This problem is one of the lessor talked about "problems" when inputting "BC" numbers into ballistic solvers. Because the solvers algorithms are based on "prediction" of flight for either G1 or G7 "profiles" but the projectiles do NOT fall into G1 or G7 :)

    Another issue with "BC" as you mentioned....projectiles can have GREAT "BC" number but bleed that number off so fast due to design (essentially designed for pure BC number instead of true down field results) that going to a lesser "BC" projectile that does not bleed off as fast becomes a better option down field.

    Sincerely,
    THEIS
     
    Last edited:
    #18
    LastShot300 said:
    IMHO the most important factor for a bullet's design is how well it manages dynamic stability when going through the transonic zone. that is what separate the good bullets from the lemons. A better BC is always desirable what without a really stable behavior, BC alone becomes a moot point. There are many bullets out there that fail their purpose despite their high BC because of this.
    Click to expand...


    "There are many bullets out there that fail their purpose despite their high BC because of this"

    What bullets might those be?
     
    #21
    THEIS said:
    Hello,

    LS you are very correct.

    One of the biggest problems we have in regards to BC numbers is that most of the modern monolithic designs really do not fall under true G1 or G7 "profiles". This problem is one of the lessor talked about "problems" when inputting "BC" numbers into ballistic solvers. Because the solvers algorithms are based on "prediction" of flight for either G1 or G7 "profiles" but the projectiles do NOT fall into G1 or G7 :)

    Another issue with "BC" as you mentioned....projectiles can have GREAT "BC" number but bleed that number off so fast due to design (essentially designed for pure BC number instead of true down field results) that going to a lesser "BC" projectile that does not bleed off as fast becomes a better option down field.

    Sincerely,
    THEIS
    Click to expand...

    +100. To the point!
     
    #22
    LastShot300 said:
    IMHO the most important factor for a bullet's design is how well it manages dynamic stability when going through the transonic zone. that is what separate the good bullets from the lemons. A better BC is always desirable but without a really stable behavior, BC alone becomes a moot point. There are many bullets out there that fail their purpose despite their high BC because of this.
    Click to expand...

    Since the finger is being pointed even though no one is naming names, let me just go on record here with the following statements. First, the most important factor in a bullets design may or may not be how well its handles stability through the transonic zone. It all depends on what it is designed to do. Flatlines are not and never have been designed to perform past supersonic flight. Solids in general do not transition well and this is a known fact. However, they are designed to outperform anything in their weight class or higher in the super sonic flight zone.
     
    #23
    LastShot300 said:
    If you don't mind, I'd rather pass on mentioning any specific brand or bullet.
    Click to expand...

    Fair enough. I have begun to suspect that some of the solids I have been trying are beginning to oscillate unfavorably in the transonic region due to their extreme length and was just curious what your experience has been.
     
    #24
    Reality check is what it is, with that said of all the solids we worked with there is only one that we really depend on in the ELR game - Warner Flat Line. We really have had some great results pushing these to their limits.

    Cheers
    oneshot.onehit


    Jeff Heeg
     
    #25
    I'm going to disagree with LastShot300 on at least 1 statement. If I never intend to shoot a bullet into subsonic transition whether it actually transitions is completely irrelevant. If my pill stays comfortably supersonic all the way to the target - does the target care if the bullet is capable of subsonic transition accurately - NOPE. If, however, I intend to shoot close to, at, or into the transition zone how it handles transition is critical.

    The best example I have personally, is the .338 300 gr. SMK. From personal experience using them in the desert, it is a good to great pill- IF you keep it safely supersonic (at my spot that means 2,000 yards or shorter) you are good to go. She hits hard and consistent. But if you try to take it to 2,100, she will begin the process of tumbling and hit randomly anywhere on the side of the mountain. As compared with either the .338 300 gr. Lapua Scenar or the 300 Berger. Both transition very well. Both are fully capable of hitting relatively small targets at distance much further than 2,000 yards. Does that make the 300 gr. SMK a bad bullet - only if you intend to use it in the transonic zone. In which case yeah it sucks. If you use it when its comfortably supersonic it is every bit as good as th3e 300 berger or Scenar.

    My point? It depends how you are going to use your bullet. It is about picking the right tool for the job. Saying that subsonic transition is critical for a bullet is simply incorrect. It is only critical if you intend to shoot to the point that your bullet enters transition. At my spot in the desert the Flat Line 256 starts transition at 2,400 yards.... So if I intend to shoot anywhere 2,300 or shorter...yeah the Flat Line .338 256 rocks.

    Jeffvn
     
    #26
    Jeffvn said:
    My point? It depends how you are going to use your bullet. It is about picking the right tool for the job. Saying that subsonic transition is critical for a bullet is simply incorrect. It is only critical if you intend to shoot to the point that your bullet enters transition. At my spot in the desert the Flat Line 256 starts transition at 2,400 yards.... So if I intend to shoot anywhere 2,300 or shorter...yeah the Flat Line .338 256 rocks.

    Jeffvn
    Click to expand...

    Maybe it's my fault because I did not give a context to my opinion, which I stand by for true LR work, KO2M style and distances. It's pretty much obvious that for general, all purpose work, where 99% of the shots are fired into the supersonic realm, this is not an issue. So, yes, I was talking about where the bullet's dynamic stability will usually start to show its suffering which is, in general terms, the transonic passage. After all, wasn't this thread about shooting 2500 plus or not?
     
    #27
    Driver160651 - DA in the desert around the Vegas area swings from over 6000 to below 1000. The elevations where I shoot vary from 2,385 - my home ranger- to over 4,000 ft.. Virtually all my shooting is at distances that vary from 1,630 to 2,100 yards. I am aware that transonic starts at Mach 1.2. To date, my experience with the Flat Lines has been consistent, as far as accuracy, so I presume that I've stayed at or above transition area where they would show difficulties that I could isolate from other atmospheric or ammo velocity- based conditions.

    LastShot300 - I'm with you. If we are going distances where we know the bullet we are shooting is going to be not just in transition, but definitely subsonic, then using a bullet that transitions cleanly is essential. Exactly why I stopped using the 300SMK, and started using the 300 Sc. and 300 Berger. But when we look at the cartridges being used in the ELR competitions - like the Tonopah 2 Mile that Dan and I Organized - a large number of those cartridges are capable of driving bullets beyond 2,500 yards comfortably supersonic, and some are able to reach 2 miles and still be comfortably supersonic.

    In my case, if transition is the threshold requirement, I look to the distance and the cartridge that will shoot that distance and stay comfortably super sonic. At distances inside 2,000 yards, I can and do shoot 7WSM, 30-06 Ackley, 7 Dakota, 300 Dominator (300 norma), .338 LM Improved. My new rig 375/416 Barrett, drives a Flat line @ 3,400-3,500 fps. which translates to comfortably supersonic to 3,000 yards in my local area, significantly further at elevations above 5,000 ft or when the DA is above 4,500. Needless to say if I plan to shoot my new rig to distances beyond the comfortable reach of a Flat Line, I'll try to fill that gap with a pill that can make it happen. Whether a bullet particular is the right tool for the job depends upon the rig driving the bullet, and the distance where it is being used.
     
    #28
    The original Sierra International (MatchKing) 168 in .30 caliber was known for having dynamic stability problems - it's sort of the poster child for the effect. I'm not sure if they've tweaked the design since then, but it doesn't really matter, as 168 grain anything isn't really optimal for a .308, let alone anything bigger.

    There is a balance between drag reduction and stability. The trouble is that ELR guys want both. Ironically, the best midrange bullet can be designed to have lower drag than the best ELR bullet if you accept that you must keep it supersonic. The sound barrier is kind of a bitch.

    Buried in the Lapua 6DOF app is a stability chart that plots dynamic vs gyroscopic stability - you can see how the bullet's dynamic stability takes a dive at a certain range (the line just takes a sharp turn to the side). Unfortunately, it's tiny and on your phone, but you can see how their bullets handle stability. Not super useful by itself, but it's educational to take a look at. However, the Lapua calculator predicts that a 300 grain Scenar will lose stability somewhere around 1000 yards. This doesn't give me warm fuzzies about the accuracy of Lapua's 6DOF data for actual prediction (not that that's terribly unexpected - 6DOF is hard).
     
    Last edited:
    #30
    Jeffvn said:
    I'm going to disagree with LastShot300 on at least 1 statement. If I never intend to shoot a bullet into subsonic transition whether it actually transitions is completely irrelevant. If my pill stays comfortably supersonic all the way to the target - does the target care if the bullet is capable of subsonic transition accurately - NOPE. If, however, I intend to shoot close to, at, or into the transition zone how it handles transition is critical.

    The best example I have personally, is the .338 300 gr. SMK. From personal experience using them in the desert, it is a good to great pill- IF you keep it safely supersonic (at my spot that means 2,000 yards or shorter) you are good to go. She hits hard and consistent. But if you try to take it to 2,100, she will begin the process of tumbling and hit randomly anywhere on the side of the mountain. As compared with either the .338 300 gr. Lapua Scenar or the 300 Berger. Both transition very well. Both are fully capable of hitting relatively small targets at distance much further than 2,000 yards. Does that make the 300 gr. SMK a bad bullet - only if you intend to use it in the transonic zone. In which case yeah it sucks. If you use it when its comfortably supersonic it is every bit as good as th3e 300 berger or Scenar.

    My point? It depends how you are going to use your bullet. It is about picking the right tool for the job. Saying that subsonic transition is critical for a bullet is simply incorrect. It is only critical if you intend to shoot to the point that your bullet enters transition. At my spot in the desert the Flat Line 256 starts transition at 2,400 yards.... So if I intend to shoot anywhere 2,300 or shorter...yeah the Flat Line .338 256 rocks.

    Jeffvn
    Click to expand...

    " At my spot in the desert the Flat Line 256 starts transition at 2,400 yards.... So if I intend to shoot anywhere 2,300 or shorter...yeah the Flat Line .338 256 rocks"

    Jeffvn, at what velocity & DA are you shooting your 256 flatlines (I'm assuming this is an improved 338)?
     
    #32
    Fursniper said:
    Fair enough. I have begun to suspect that some of the solids I have been trying are beginning to oscillate unfavorably in the transonic region due to their extreme length and was just curious what your experience has been.
    Click to expand...
    I know the speeds are different but is there any value to dimpling anywhere on the projectile? Maybe the boat tail? It works really well at stabilizing flight on spherical objects at much slower speeds. Just spitballing.
     
    #35
    Some of those old films were really good. That was from back in the day when area rule was literally cutting edge. Hydraulic control actuators for surfaces and cables and pulleys for trim wheels. Now, flight control computers cross talk and trim out forces automatically. All this has basically occurred within my lifetime. Amazing. Those guys had nuts the size of bowlng balls....
     
    #36
    stello1001 said:
    Í do a lot of bass fishing. A few years back I made the switch from using lead weights to tungsten weights. Not only are they more sensitive (which allows me to feel the bottom better) they are way more compact. They are practically already made in bullet shapes. This is interesting.
    Click to expand...
    No doubt buddy. I couldn't believe the felt difference between them and led. It was a different world when I started dragging tungsten football jigs or punching hyacinth Matts with 2oz to tungsten. I could never go back to bottom style fishing with led. Ok now using it for a projectile though would be awful tough on the lands eh? Barrels would get trashed quick and I'd think a metal that hard not compressing into the rifling would create a myriad of other issues beyond my pay grade.
     
    #37
    Question?? Can anyone tell me the legaleeze if you can have copper
    uld-comp.jpg
    jacketed bullets made up that would be filled with ultra fine tungsten powder instead of lead. The purpose of this is that tungsten is 70% heavier than lead which allows the bullet to be made shorter say like a 190-200 grain length bullet that is lead filled, will be the same length as a 200 grainer but weigh 250-253 grains filled with tungsten powder. Thanks??
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Similar threads

    Zigjib
    What is "long range"?
    Replies
    37
    Views
    1K
    Dead Eye Dick
    Dead Eye Dick
    secondofangle2
    Hunting Rifle: 7mm Rem Mag or 7mm SAUM?
    Replies
    101
    Views
    3K
    FuhQ
    FuhQ
    M8541Reaper
    R700 Multi-Cal Footprint Action for Growing Kid Question...
    Replies
    9
    Views
    196
    M8541Reaper
    M8541Reaper
    M
    Barrel for ELR with an AIAXMC
    Replies
    11
    Views
    830
    M67
    M
    Michael Trainowski
    Prince called, he wants his rifle back…
    Replies
    23
    Views
    817
    Michael Trainowski
    Michael Trainowski
    Top Bottom
    Back
    Home
    Forums
    Merch
    Alerts