A buddy of mine has been arguing with me a ballistics issue. He's a hunter and has never done any long range precision shooting, or precision reloading.
He says a bullet is a bullet. If you push a bullet that weighs a certain amount to a certain speed, the rest is just math when it comes to figuring out where it will hit. He also says that reloading is reloading and that most of the work done in precision reloading is voodoo, not science. He claims that a progressive press will do ammo every bit as well as a coaxial single stage press does. That as long as powder charge is the same, bullet depth is the same, the round doesnt know what press or set of dies seated it.
I disagree and try to explain to him that bullet shape and aerodynamics plays a huge roll. How far the bullet travels without reducing speed, staying trans sonic longer, dealing with turbulence better....those are key factors. In regards to reloading i know the key is to remove as many variables as possible. There are enough already to deal with considering the shooter and environment.
I dont reload but I have done some reading and deductive logic tells me that checking bullet weights, uniformity, concentricity are are critical. Also that a precision press will give you more consistent bullet seating depth I would imagine.
So basically he believes that as long as the bullet has enough steam to get there, no one round is better than any other round.
The argument started over 7mm Remington Mag. He says that round can do anything and everything ever required by any long distance shooter and everything else is either overkill or voodoo nonsense. He says Im just splitting hairs and being trivial.
I say that as with anything thats precision, splitting hairs is whats it is all about. Minutia is the key.
I say that there's much more to it, but instead of arguing I just cite the fact that if he was right and that one bullet didn't really matter from another, the precision arms race would have ended with the 7mm Rem Mag.
Since I dont reload and I am not an expert on ballistics, maybe some here can help me with my argument. Or maybe tell me he's right.....if he is.
He says a bullet is a bullet. If you push a bullet that weighs a certain amount to a certain speed, the rest is just math when it comes to figuring out where it will hit. He also says that reloading is reloading and that most of the work done in precision reloading is voodoo, not science. He claims that a progressive press will do ammo every bit as well as a coaxial single stage press does. That as long as powder charge is the same, bullet depth is the same, the round doesnt know what press or set of dies seated it.
I disagree and try to explain to him that bullet shape and aerodynamics plays a huge roll. How far the bullet travels without reducing speed, staying trans sonic longer, dealing with turbulence better....those are key factors. In regards to reloading i know the key is to remove as many variables as possible. There are enough already to deal with considering the shooter and environment.
I dont reload but I have done some reading and deductive logic tells me that checking bullet weights, uniformity, concentricity are are critical. Also that a precision press will give you more consistent bullet seating depth I would imagine.
So basically he believes that as long as the bullet has enough steam to get there, no one round is better than any other round.
The argument started over 7mm Remington Mag. He says that round can do anything and everything ever required by any long distance shooter and everything else is either overkill or voodoo nonsense. He says Im just splitting hairs and being trivial.
I say that as with anything thats precision, splitting hairs is whats it is all about. Minutia is the key.
I say that there's much more to it, but instead of arguing I just cite the fact that if he was right and that one bullet didn't really matter from another, the precision arms race would have ended with the 7mm Rem Mag.
Since I dont reload and I am not an expert on ballistics, maybe some here can help me with my argument. Or maybe tell me he's right.....if he is.
