Range Report Federals shady ballistics

[tna9001]

I've been watching the coverage of the new .224 Valkyrie. I was curious so I ran the numbers on Applied Ballistics and Ballistics AE which gave me the same numbers, numbers that aren't nearly as flattering as those Federal has put out that we see parroted all over the internet. From Federal's website:

"Transform your MSR 15. Loaded with the 90-grain Gold Medal® Sierra® MatchKing®, all-new 224 Valkyrie provides less wind drift and drop than all other loads in its class and stays supersonic past 1,300 yards. The cartridge is the new choice for both long-range target shooters and hunters."

I sent an email to Federal inquiring about their claim, here's their response:

What ballistic solver are you using?

Bullet:
.563 G1 BC, 90gr projectile, .224 in diameter

Weapon:
2700 fps, 100yd zero, 1.5in sight height, 1:7 twist

Atmospherics:
10mph wind in 9 0'clock direction, 59 degrees F, 29.92 inHg, 0% humidity

At 1300 yards we are going Mach 1.005 which in these conditions is 1122 fps.

Thanks
Federal

Despite the fact that Sierra provides G1 BC's for this bullet at three different velocity tiers, .563 above 2080fps, .550 2080-1640fps and .480 below 1640fps Federal is using a constant G1 BC of .563 on a G7 bullet. Using the above data, the bullet is at 2080fps at 406 yards yet Federal uses this BC for the entire flight.

 

[_Windrider_]

I've been watching the coverage of the new .224 Valkyrie. I was curious so I ran the numbers on Applied Ballistics and Ballistics AE which gave me the same numbers, numbers that aren't nearly as flattering as those Federal has put out that we see parroted all over the internet. From Federal's website:

"Transform your MSR 15. Loaded with the 90-grain Gold Medal® Sierra® MatchKing®, all-new 224 Valkyrie provides less wind drift and drop than all other loads in its class and stays supersonic past 1,300 yards. The cartridge is the new choice for both long-range target shooters and hunters."

I sent an email to Federal inquiring about their claim, here's their response:

What ballistic solver are you using?

Bullet:
.563 G1 BC, 90gr projectile, .224 in diameter

Weapon:
2700 fps, 100yd zero, 1.5in sight height, 1:7 twist

Atmospherics:
10mph wind in 9 0'clock direction, 59 degrees F, 29.92 inHg, 0% humidity

At 1300 yards we are going Mach 1.005 which in these conditions is 1122 fps.

Thanks
Federal

Despite the fact that Sierra provides G1 BC's for this bullet at three different velocity tiers, .563 above 2080fps, .550 2080-1640fps and .480 below 1640fps Federal is using a constant G1 BC of .563 on a G7 bullet. Using the above data, the bullet is at 2080fps at 406 yards yet Federal uses this BC for the entire flight.

Whats a G7 bullet? are you saying that because its a newer bullet we should be using a G7 BC? im not even going there, that has been beat to death here. I dont know many manufacturers that publish banded BC for Factory Ammo. The published BC on the box is only valid at that MV anyway so you cant even rely solely on that. this is why we have to true that stuff, MV and BC's. Im sure what they are reporting is accurate for their published data, but i also have no doubt its only half the story. Believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear.

 

[tna9001]

I'm not tracking ya on the G7 thing, If you're going to use BC to approximate the trajectory of a bullet, it makes sense to use the standard closest to the bullets shape, assuming you are interested in accurate data. Ammunition manufactures like G1 because the number is bigger. My point only point here is Federal is making false claims in their advertising which doesn't surprise. Sierra does provide banded BC's for the bullet, Federal could have used that but then their product wouldn't look as good. What they are "reporting" isn't accurate.

 

[Lowlight]

The bullet is not G7, the software is...

The G value used is meaningless, I use software that is not G Dependent meaning I get the same results regardless of the G value used, Remember G7 was first shot and modeled in 1940 and we did not use it until we started using Ballistic Apps. Hell FFS does not even allow you to use G7, there no way to even input this.

This is not false advertising this you being fed a line of BS that you have to have a specific G value. The benefit of the G1 number is the fact it also gives you the easiest wind, .563 means it's set up to use a 5 MPH wind, giving you

.1 hold in a 5MPH at 100
.2 hold in a 5MPH at 200
.3 hold in a 5 MPH at 300
.4 hold in a 5 MPH at 400
etc

Better results than G7 is to band the BC like Sierra provides if your software can manage multiple BCs, use G1 Banded. The BIG number has nothing to do with it. You simply don't understand what you are looking.

BCs are Velocity dependent as noted above, which is why even AB is now saying to True the BC before changing the MV to align the software. I use G1 almost religiously because it is easier to find.

 

[_Windrider_]

I'm not tracking ya on the G7 thing, If you're going to use BC to approximate the trajectory of a bullet, it makes sense to use the standard closest to the bullets shape, assuming you are interested in accurate data. Ammunition manufactures like G1 because the number is bigger. My point only point here is Federal is making false claims in their advertising which doesn't surprise. Sierra does provide banded BC's for the bullet, Federal could have used that but then their product wouldn't look as good. What they are "reporting" isn't accurate.

well G7 G1 G9 it doesnt really matter. just because its a BT doesnt mean G1 is wrong and G7 is right, it just means that the comparison drag model is different. But you could search this site ad noseum and its proven over and over that the drag model isnt the wow factor. yes G1 is old, but the methodology is still sound and G! numbers are still just as valid. G7 is a marketing thing for AB, it makes their stuff sound cooler and newer. but in the end it matters not which one is used. the important thing to know is that the published BC is only valid at that exact MV. even banded MV's are averaged for the range so still not 100% accurate. Federal states a .563 BC at 2700 fps, even according to Sierra's banded BC at that MV its 100% accurate.

Also, what Lowlight said while i was typing this is 100%.

 

[Long Range 338]

This is not false advertising this you being fed a line of BS that you have to have a specific G value. The benefit of the G1 number is the fact it also gives you the easiest wind, .563 means it's set up to use a 5 MPH wind, giving you

.1 hold in a 5MPH at 100
.2 hold in a 5MPH at 200
.3 hold in a 5 MPH at 300
.4 hold in a 5 MPH at 400
etc

These are the type of golden nuggets that I hang around here for. Lowlight doesn't disappoint.......

 

[Lowlight]

Here is an example of a custom wind chart, using a 175gr SMK with a BC of .496

 

[tna9001]

Frank, is it your assertion that if you are firing two identical bullets with long boattails and pointed ogives at the same velocity, and you use a ballistic solution based on a G7 BC for one, and a ballistic solution based on a G1 BC for the other, there won't be any difference in point of impact between the two down range?

 

[Lowlight]

Frank, is it your assertion that if you are firing two identical bullets with long boattails and pointed ogives at the same velocity, and you use a ballistic solution based on a G7 BC for one, and a ballistic solution based on a G1 BC for the other, there won't be any difference in point of impact between the two down range?

Depends on the Solver,

AB purposely makes G1 look bad because they use the original model from 100 years ago, If I use FFS, ColdBore or TRASOL there is no difference in the results. The artillery version of the G model is wrong anyway. I have posted the Hornady slides which show the true models will not work correctly, neither G1 or G7 match 100%. G1 is just a bit more velocity dependent.

Take the New Hornady 4DOF, they don't use BCs at all, it's all Form Factor. You don't even insert a BC number, doesn't use a traditional BC. You adjust the form factor.

Lapua also use the CD Doppler data, go to JBM and pick CD, that is a Doppler number.

In many cases, I recommend before they true any software like AB, Shooter, Ballistics, etc, to try the G1 number first and compare the prediction to both. In a lot of cases, the G1 works better, it depends on the rifle and shooter.

The only time you should see a difference is at Transonic and Beyond, at Supersonic ranges, there should not be a difference in the solution. As I already said, I rarely default or use G7, I only try to use it with AB and even then I keep all the extra stuff like SD, CE, off, it matches the real world better.

G7 has been around just as long, and the military and everyone else just started to use it because of AB. Prior, like when I was in, we only had and used G1. I managed to graduate Sniper School without G7, go figure.

I tell you for a fact that when you true these G7 dependent solvers by adjusting the MV, you will have problems. That is why they now tell you to adjust the BC first.

 

[tna9001]

well G7 G1 G9 it doesnt really matter. just because its a BT doesnt mean G1 is wrong and G7 is right, it just means that the comparison drag model is different. But you could search this site ad noseum and its proven over and over that the drag model isnt the wow factor. yes G1 is old, but the methodology is still sound and G! numbers are still just as valid. G7 is a marketing thing for AB, it makes their stuff sound cooler and newer. but in the end it matters not which one is used. the important thing to know is that the published BC is only valid at that exact MV. even banded MV's are averaged for the range so still not 100% accurate. Federal states a .563 BC at 2700 fps, even according to Sierra's banded BC at that MV its 100% accurate.

Also, what Lowlight said while i was typing this is 100%.

"but in the end it matters not which one is used" I agree with that as any bullet shape that doesn't match the model will require correction.

As far a Federal goes, you're missing my point. Federal chose to use a constant BC when a banded BC's are available for that bullet, they did that so they could make a false claim, that the bullet when launched at 2700fps under standard conditions, is "supersonic past 1300 yards". That, in fact, isn't' true.

 

[tna9001]

Thanks, Frank. I'm a bit confused about the reference you made to G1 and wind. Could you expound upon that please?

 

[TonyTheTiger]

Depends on the Solver,

AB purposely makes G1 look bad because they use the original model from 100 years ago,

Is that why I can't get any tables from AB to even slightly resemble the tables generated by almost any other solver? I gave up on the AB a while back but I always wondered why it was never close.

 

[Lowlight]

Why do you think we always used G1, the first number of the value, equals the wind speed.

Look at my wind chart, then consider a .G1 BC value that starts .4XX, that means a 4 MPH wind will appear like I posted if the BC in the bullet is .6XX you would move the values under 4MPH to the 6MPH column.

The Real world Doppler values do not line until you true it, and unfortunately when you true with MV you are doing it to where it honestly only works under those conditions. Inside 1k, it will work ok, but the reality is, it's a poor way to go about doing business.

The bullet doesn't care G1 or G7, the software does if they use the old Freeware like they do. You can write the software to not care or to care more, just depends on the author.

Nobody puts banded BCs out but Sierra, including it, will just confuse people. So they use one. And I don't know if all software will let you use a banded BC. The single BC is standard practice. Sierra is actually correct by banding it because the bullet will slow down, you can also Band G7 numbers too, but nobody does.

 

[lash]

"but in the end it matters not which one is used" I agree with that as any bullet shape that doesn't match the model will require correction.

As far a Federal goes, you're missing my point. Federal chose to use a constant BC when a banded BC's are available for that bullet, they did that so they could make a false claim, that the bullet when launched at 2700fps under standard conditions, is "supersonic past 1300 yards". That, in fact, isn't' true.

Have you shot these to prove it isn't true or are you just a numbers guy?

I've found that using a G1 BC for the MV I have has held a true curve throughout supersonic flight using simple Ballistic app. As long as everything else is entered correctly, it works. Some people get so wrapped up in running the numbers and shooting their mouth off on the computer and forget that actually shooting and verifying your dope is all that matters. You're calling out Federal over some numbers you ran on your computer is comical to me.

Now, if you go out and shoot the cartridge with the same starting velocity as they are getting and can prove they are wrong, then I'll concede. Until then your all noise and nothing more. Not buying your noise.

 

[Yondering]

Why do you think we always used G1, the first number of the value, equals the wind speed.

Look at my wind chart, then consider a .G1 BC value that starts .4XX, that means a 4 MPH wind will appear like I posted if the BC in the bullet is .6XX you would move the values under 4MPH to the 6MPH column.

I think I'm missing something here that you are assuming but didn't say - what muzzle velocity is that based on? Obviously changing the velocity changes those numbers. I'm guessing somewhere around ~2700-ish fps, maybe based on military 308?

 

[Lowlight]

BCs are all velocity dependent, G1 is a bit more dependent than G7, but the speed determines the BC.

Most companies figure it between 2800fps and 3000fps depending on the bullet and caliber, which is why as an example, we have .505 for the 175gr SMK but we use .496 (I know Litz has reduced this farther still,) that is what we always used. .496... 4MPH.

Very little has changed since the 1940s. They had access to Point Mass since the 50s and 60s, and had the ability to use G7 numbers with it, but we still used G1 because Ingalls was the standard to compare. It works and works perfectly fine, in about 1/2 the cases it will work exactly the same as G7 because we shoot a System and not just a bullet. There are enough variables to move things in both directions some good, some bad. Neither is immune

 

[tna9001]

BCs are all velocity dependent, G1 is a bit more dependent than G7, but the speed determines the BC.

Most companies figure it between 2800fps and 3000fps depending on the bullet and caliber, which is why as an example, we have .505 for the 175gr SMK but we use .496 (I know Litz has reduced this farther still,) that is what we always used. .496... 4MPH.

Very little has changed since the 1940s. They had access to Point Mass since the 50s and 60s, and had the ability to use G7 numbers with it, but we still used G1 because Ingalls was the standard to compare. It works and works perfectly fine, in about 1/2 the cases it will work exactly the same as G7 because we shoot a System and not just a bullet. There are enough variables to move things in both directions some good, some bad. Neither is immune

I'm struggling to understand the correlation between a G1 BC and wind, is this just something observed for a particular load? Otherwise, I don't see how the ratio of drag compared to the G1 standard could give any useful information about a bullets performance in wind.

 

[Lowlight]

Well if you can't see it, it must not exist...

Already demonstrated it with visuals, maybe ask yourself why we always used it until recently in the last 10 years vs the fact it has been around since 1940. Knowing all this the fact the Army had access to everything since the 50s, odd they never changed over to G7.

It's a rule of thumb method, just like the British Method, the Rule of 9s, etc... but I refuse to play games, sorry nobody explained this to you before.

 

[Lowlight]

Here is a clue since you like playing numbers, go to JBM and Under Wind Speed change that value to the first number of the G1 BC and it will look pretty darn close to what you see above under my 4MPH column. That column just shifts based on the BC value.

Personally, I think when people get a dose of reality vs reading stuff that is clearly designed to fit an agenda their world suddenly looks a bit hazy.

 

[tna9001]

I’ve got no agenda Frank, except to learn. If you’d mentioned you were talking about a rule of thumb there wouldn’t of been so much haze.

 

[Lowlight]

No, but you are following agenda-driven information that leaves out a lot of what we did prior to 2007 give or take a year.
The G1 BC absolutely has a wind component to it, run the numbers. All the wind charts we had prior to A.B. used this data.

None of this is new, most of what you are reading is a repackaging of McCoy, that is very dated data given to you with a modern bent to it in order to align your app to what they are using, which is McCoy.

Rule of Thumb stuff has been taught for a very long time and it's a way to get people on target when they lack a point of reference. The fact you always had a point of reference and didn't know it should be a clue.

 

[Yondering]

Here is a clue since you like playing numbers, go to JBM and Under Wind Speed change that value to the first number of the G1 BC and it will look pretty darn close to what you see above under my 4MPH column. That column just shifts based on the BC value.

Personally, I think when people get a dose of reality vs reading stuff that is clearly designed to fit an agenda their world suddenly looks a bit hazy.

I totally understand that this is just a rule of thumb, but you didn't really answer the question of what muzzle velocity range that rule of thumb is intended for. It's obviously wrong at 2,000 fps, and at 3,500 fps, and appears to be about right at ~2700 fps muzzle velocity, so I'm guessing that you use this for cartridges in that velocity range (which admittedly covers a lot of the popular long range rounds these days, but not the big magnums).

 

[_Windrider_]

I totally understand that this is just a rule of thumb, but you didn't really answer the question of what muzzle velocity range that rule of thumb is intended for. It's obviously wrong at 2,000 fps, and at 3,500 fps, and appears to be about right at ~2700 fps muzzle velocity, so I'm guessing that you use this for cartridges in that velocity range (which admittedly covers a lot of the popular long range rounds these days, but not the big magnums).

The BC for the standard .308 is .4xx so you use a 4 mph window.

100 = .1 mil at 4 mph
200 = .2 mil
300 = .3 mil
400 = .4 mil
500 = .5 mil
600 = .7 mil due to velocity bleed off and correcting the estmate
700 = .8 mil
800 = .9 mil
900 = 1 mil
100 - 1.1 mil

Every four mph window then becomes a multiple, so 16 mph wind at 500 is (16/4) 4 times .5 mil or 2 mils

This can be used for 5.56 with a BC of .3xx, using 3 mph windows, the 300 Win Mag with .5xx BC using 5 mph windows and so on. Adding .1 mil to the window for each mph, ie 5 mph at 500 is .6 mil will get you on the target.

This is minute of man accurate, it’s not gonna get you a soda can hit at 1400yds but it will get you a hit on a human size target.

 

[Lowlight]

The muzzle velocity is a function of the BC, so it doesn't matter.

you are keying off the G1 BC which is velocity determined. If you want a better solution, true the BC for the rifle you are shooting and it will work better.

 

[VegasHKShooter]

This post couldn’t come at a better time. The other day I was shooting my GAP-10 with Hornady 140 ELD-M. I was building my dope in my ballistic software. I use Ballistic A.E btw. I was using the G7 drag model because I “thought” that was more correct. I wasn’t getting the numbers in the software to line up with what I was seeing in real life. If I was on at 400, I wasn’t on at 1000. I was adjusting my M.V. to try and get things to line up, but that wasn’t getting me there. I am a big believer in actually shooting my gun, not just playing with ballistic apps. ?, but I am THE FIRST to admit that I don’t understand all there is out there with this software. I’m a shooter, competitor, not a computer guy. Anyway, I started adjusting the B.C. (Drag model), and presto!! There it was. The app was giving me output that matched what I was seeing on target. The G1 was where I ended up. I shot 600/700/800/1000/1200 all on, all hits. Using the exact come ups my app put out. I didn’t know the why, I just knew that I was getting somewhere. I see now that I was adjusting the B.C. to match real world observations.

That was a lightbulb moment.

Thanks for explaining why. Truing B.C. gave me better info than “truing” to velocity.

 

[lash]

That was a lightbulb moment.

Thanks for explaining why. Truing B.C. gave me better info than “truing” to velocity.

First of all, I laughed as I read this. Having multiple grandsons, I've seen "Despicable Me" a few times. There, the expression "light-bulb" is used to good comedic effect.

Secondly, I was gathering dope on a new load for my .260 yesterday. Using the same 136g Scenar-L I've been shooting quite successfully out to 1200, my numbers were off quite a bit starting at 600 and out. I was pushing this round at 2750 using the published G7 BC and Ballistic predicted things spot on. Now, pushing it just 75 fps faster, the G7 was way off.

I spent a little time working with different BCs and found the perfect curve fit using a slightly elevated G1 BC over published values.

Light-Bulb!

I guess there's always opportunity to learn and improve if you give yourself half a chance.

 

[Lowlight]

This isi the point, guys read in Bryan books, "You have to do this", meanwhile we have been doing things slightly different for a very long time with equal success, to me that = Caveat, which is never put forth. I see me as that Caveat,

There is no Black and White and pretending there is, never works and makes everyone promoting that way of thinking look bad. Then they have to stand in front of crowds and change the way of doing business.

We are shooting a system, in a lot of a ways a unique system. Truing that system, including the shooter on the fundamentals is important. When someone tests something across a statistically tiny sample size and then declaring it the winner may work marketing wise, but not in real life. I try to live and post based on real world experience, not a segment of it modeled on a computer, but as much real life, in as many places as possible. Even if I think I have it nailed down, I continue to test and don't close off any single segment just because, as things do change.

A slightly tweaked G1 BC is easy. Those numbers are everywhere, it's adjusted to your system and it gives you solid real world results, what is not to love about that.