Have we hit the wall?

[CoryT]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

So far as I can tell from my personal testing, solids in the 338 seem to have no particular advantage over jacketed lead bullets. You can push them faster than a lead bullet, but not fast enough to overcome the BC reduction. The materials being used simply don't have enough mass to make a BC worthy of the shape.

Requiring a special barrel that can use only a hard to get projectile is just a non-starter for all but a very few. To be of any practial value, bullets need to work in commonly available barrels and twist rates. For the 338, that means a 10 to perhaps 8 twist.

Deriving a BC from a long range drop is probably the least accurate methodology. Errors of 10% or even more are not uncommon with that approach, due to lack of a precise starting velocity for each shot, shooter error, vertical deflection, etc.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Cory,

In caliber lenghts that a dedicated barrel will stabilize, the amount of tungsten required the bring a machined copper projectile up to the mass of the heaviest jacketed equivalent is as little as 44 grains... and the turned bullet will be running 150 fps faster (assuming the ZA is restricted to the ultimate velocity limitations of jacketed lead), with a superior form factor. Even the first generation 278 grain ZA, fired at the test, needed only 20 additional grains to best the entire field in BC.

I realize that you are speaking from experience gained in "personal testing", and within that qualifier your conclusion is reasonable. Your criticism of barrel unavability is also understandable.

I am not interested in working within the parameters of an obsolete paradigm.

The coming generation of ELR barrels, cases, and projectiles has not been publicly released yet. Until they are, criticism of an unresponsive supply infrastructure is senseless.

 

[CoryT]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

It's not a criticism, it's just the way it is at the moment. Certainly there is much promise for the future, but it currently looks to be a fair ways down the road, years, not weeks or months.

Most people are interested in what they can get today, not, "What will the norm be in 5 years?". There are certainly some shooters that wish to be out there on the bleeding edge of technology. Developers such as yourself are creating the next generation of that technology, and I hope for the best. It CAN be done, so it will be done, sooner or later. However, for the question, "What's the best performance can I get TODAY for the rifle I have NOW?", the answer does not appear to be supplied by a solid.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Thanks for the clarification Cory.

I have, on occasion, been accused of lacking a sense of time... but we are not talking about years for change to be implemented at the "bleeding edge".

You probably are in the right ballpark with a five year estimate for the "norm" to shift.

As to what is available "right now" (or at least three weeks from "now"), keep an eye open for 310 grain PDT cored hunt bullets, which will feed from a magazine in a Norma Magnum loading out of a 1: 9.5" twist.

 

[Gerard Schultz]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Augustus,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mr Schultz, I will have to look up the thread but there is a picture of Extremist 458 holding a 420 gr solid copper projo.</div></div> I think I found it. Is this the picture?

The thread is on Long Range Hunting

http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/375-416-barret-51389/index8.html

 

[Augustus]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Mr Schultz, that looks like the picture but that is not the thread I was referring to. I will see if i can find it later tonite. I am pretty sure the thread in question was on SH. I'll let you know if I find it.

 

[JFComfort]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

That picture is also posted on a Facebook group called Tactical Long Range Shooting.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/115380726911/

 

[ELR researcher]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

JFComfort:

Please be more specific on the location in the Facebook group. The link provided is only to the group's home page.

Thanks.

 

[JFComfort]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

When at the group page click photo's at the top. Scroll down, you will see the photos and who they were uploaded by.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/115380726911/photos/

 

[Gerard Schultz]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

JFComfort,
Which of the two bullets on your picture is the bullet in the picture above?

 

[redirt78]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JFComfort</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When at the group page click photo's at the top. Scroll down, you will see the photos and who they were uploaded by.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/115380726911/photos/ </div></div>

Says "closed group" when I look...

 

[cali_tz]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

@Bryan, I have loaded up a bunch of 250 Scenars at 2950fps and 3050fps, both OCW optimal prospects. I will compare against my 300 Scenar load at 2760fps tomorrow at ranges 1600 yards and further.

It won't be scientific but I should get a feel for which bullet is better at transsonic distances. Looks like a no wind day tomorrow, so that should help remove that variable from the test.

 

[Augustus]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Mr Shultz, I scrolled through some of the threads and here are a few posts and listings that Extremist 458 participated in.

Highest BC Bullet, Pg 10 on the thread list of beyond 1000 yds, started 7-29-10. Extremist listed a 450 gr. 375 bullet with a BC of 1.4 at 3100 fps
Same thread he told me the 414 was tested and ready for sale BC 1.25


375 Bullet Comparisons, pg 19, thread started 4-5-10. In this thread Extremist 458 advertised a 420 gr Bullet with FANTASTIC stability BC 1.31


In another thread he told of a bullet ( 50 cal I think ) that had been tested at 3600 FPS and indicated it was GTG with a BC around 2.


I did not find the one about the 420 that had been tested to 3400. I am now cross eyed so I will go to sleep. Could you comment on these bullets and let us know if they are available and if any of them can turn the numbers outlined in these posts.

 

[goober]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Augustus</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mr Shultz, I scrolled through some of the threads and here are a few posts and listings that Extremist 458 participated in.

Highest BC Bullet, Pg 10 on the thread list of beyond 1000 yds, started 7-29-10. Extremist listed a 450 gr. 375 bullet with a BC of 1.4 at 3100 fps
Same thread he told me the 414 was tested and ready for sale BC 1.25


375 Bullet Comparisons, pg 19, thread started 4-5-10. In this thread Extremist 458 advertised a 420 gr Bullet with FANTASTIC stability BC 1.31


In another thread he told of a bullet ( 50 cal I think ) that had been tested at 3600 FPS and indicated it was GTG with a BC around 2.


I did not find the one about the 420 that had been tested to 3400. I am now cross eyed so I will go to sleep. Could you comment on these bullets and let us know if they are available and if any of them can turn the numbers outlined in these posts.



</div></div>Mr Shultz at what altitudes are these speeds shot at?

 

[JFComfort]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gerard Schultz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">JFComfort,
Which of the two bullets on your picture is the bullet in the picture above?</div></div>

You tell me.

 

[Gerard Schultz]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Augustus,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will have to look up the thread but there is a picture of Extremist 458 holding a 420 gr solid copper projo. He asked the question ( Are you ready, can you handle it )</div></div> So you were mistaken about which thread it was, the weight of the bullet (it is 414gr) and that he said the 375414SP was tested to 3400fps. I did not enter the discussion either, you were mistaken about that too.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if I understand you correctly you are are telling all of us now that you do not have, nor have you ever had a solid copper projo in excess of 400 gr that has been tested out of an 8 twist to 3400 fps and has a BC of 1.25.</div></div> GSC has a 375414SP that has been tested successfully out of an 8" twist standard as well as a gain twist barrel with an 8" exit twist. No one has ever said that the bullet was launched at 3400fps. So, no, you do not understand me correctly. Dave Viers gave the info and published this picture. You have been told about this bullet a couple of times now.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also I looked up the thread where zman shot some of the GS425HV and the 414 from an 8.25 twist. He stated the 425s made football shaped holes.</div></div> He also stated that the football shaped holes came at a charge level that gave pressure. When he backed off to a reasonable charge level, the bullet was stable. What is wrong with that? He also told GSC, when we discussed the use of this bullet, that the rifle has an 8" twist and he was wrong about that.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He left me with the impression </div></div> I have seen from the above and what follows, that your impressions are less than reliable. What is more important than your impression is what Kelly actually said. Read it again.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I cant imagine having a rifle built specifically for the GS 414,</div></div> Neither can I. GSC bullets do not require anything special or custom, other than that the bullet must match the twist. How uncomplicated is that?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyway based on what zman openly stated and the impression I got....</div></div> Well I know that your impressions cannot be taken at face value and that he had more hassle with the other makes he tried than with GSC. I think Kelly needs to measure the twist of that rifle positively. It may not be what he thinks it is.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please share with us once and for all, what you really have,</div></div> All here http://www.gsgroup.co.za/techdata.html

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Highest BC Bullet, Pg 10 on the thread list of beyond 1000 yds, started 7-29-10. Extremist listed a 450 gr. 375 bullet with a BC of 1.4 at 3100 fps</div></div> You will see that the bullet is not listed on the GSC Tech Data yet. We are waiting for a rifle to be completed but the development is shelved, pending the completion of other projects.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Same thread he told me the 414 was tested and ready for sale BC 1.25</div></div> The BC of 1.25 is for the maximum design launch speed of 3400fps. At 2300fps the BC is 1.10 and at 1200fps it is 0.82. We give the maximum launch speed of GSC bullets and three BC numbers. It is then up to the individual to develop his own drop tables for his conditions. How many manufacturers give guidelines as detailed as what we give?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">375 Bullet Comparisons, pg 19, thread started 4-5-10. In this thread Extremist 458 advertised a 420 gr Bullet with FANTASTIC stability BC 1.31</div></div> I cannot find this one. Could you give me a link please?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In another thread he told of a bullet ( 50 cal I think ) that had been tested at 3600 FPS and indicated it was GTG with a BC around 2.</div></div> You must be mistaken about the 3600fps. Your impression is definitely wrong on this, sorry.

ch'e,
Given that all the information that your question is about is wrong, I cannot give an answer.

JFComfort,
Unfortunately your link does not work so you have all the information. Your picture does not tie up with the one I posted.

 

[wadcutter]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Noel Carlson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In caliber lenghts that a dedicated barrel will stabilize, the amount of tungsten required the bring a machined copper projectile up to the mass of the heaviest jacketed equivalent is as little as 44 grains... and the turned bullet will be running 150 fps faster. </div></div>

Noel,
This sounds interesting.
Just a couple of questions on this idea.... How do you add the Tungsten to a machined copper projectile. And how do you get an extra 150fps if the projectiles have the same mass?ie weight. Less friction????
This sounds like a way to get a projectile with a better form factor and a heavy mass to maintain B.C but it sounds like a complicated design.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Wadcutter,

The method used for tungsten augmentation was developed very early in our experimentation... around January 2009 if I recall correctly. The challenge to public release has been creation of the tooling capable of producing the best balance of precision, and rapid manufacture. The design is not so overly complicated as to be incompatible with these objectives, but it is highly engineered. Both Australia, and New Zealand, will have distributors for ZA components. Product specification details will have to await publication just a little longer.

The answer to your second question was answered by you. The frictional properties of an engraving-band configuration is perhaps one tenth, or less, that of a full length guilding-metal bearing footprint. The machined material itself is also much more suitable in this application than guilding metal, which has as its primary redeeming feature good drawing characteristics.

A separate thread will be started soon to discuss this more.

 

[Dark Horse]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cali_tz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">@Bryan, I have loaded up a bunch of 250 Scenars at 2950fps and 3050fps, both OCW optimal prospects. I will compare against my 300 Scenar load at 2760fps tomorrow at ranges 1600 yards and further.

It won't be scientific but I should get a feel for which bullet is better at transsonic distances. Looks like a no wind day tomorrow, so that should help remove that variable from the test. </div></div>

I'm really looking forward to hearing about your results. We may actually pull something relevant from this thread after all.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

I shot the SW Ammo 250gr Scenar load to 2100 yards in October, my MV was about 3050 and my rifle needed roughly 23.5 Mils of elevation at that distance. Accuracy was very good and everything was predictable at all distances out to 2100 yards.

Almost all hits were 3 rounds or less, with many first round hits on UKD targets scattered around the Gunsite ELR range.

 

[Augustus]

Re: Have we hit the wall?


Mr Sscultz, the thread describing the 420 GSC 375 bullet is 375 GSC 355 gr SP, it was started by MasterDiver on 12/8/09. Extremist posted the info on the 420 on 1/11/10. He describes the 420 as a 7 caliber and says that is the sweet spot, it gives a BC of 1.31 with fantastic stability. He also stated it required no more than a 7 twist.

Regarding the 1100 gr 50 cal, Extremist stated he expected the bullet to be tested at 3400 but the person doing the test reported taking it to 3600 fps. No mention of instability in the post, sooo, I reakon it was tested to 3600 according to Extremist 458.

I did not indicate the thread abuot the 420 gr being tested to 3400 did not exist, I did not find it and I dont intend to spend any more time on this subject. If you cant produce these bullets in a timely and ecnomically feasible manner it really dont matter how high their BCs are.

The time for talking is over, get them to folks so they can get them tested. Whoever tests them is going to need more than a handfull

 

[cali_tz]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I shot the SW Ammo 250gr Scenar load to 2100 yards in October, my MV was about 3050 and my rifle needed roughly 23.5 Mils of elevation at that distance. Accuracy was very good and everything was predictable at all distances out to 2100 yards.

Almost all hits were 3 rounds or less, with many first round hits on UKD targets scattered around the Gunsite ELR range.

</div></div>

I also had very good results yesterday with the 250 Scenar at 2950fps. I didn't have time to try my 3050fps 250 Scenars. The wind was quite calm for a change so we had good luck out to a mile for a change. It being my first time using 250s (normally shoot 300s for the higher BC) I was happy with the results.

 

[Gerard Schultz]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Augustus,
The 420gr 375 quote from Anthony was in January 2010. That was the first prototype and became the 414gr bullet that was tested by Dave Viers later in 2010. It was stable from an 8" twist and static stability would have been better from a 7" twist. It is now in our listing as the 375414SP. The 420gr 375 does not exist in SP format. You have been told about this several times.

Bear in mind that the thread about the 375420SP being tested at 3400fps cannot exist because the bullet does not exist and neither does the case capable of doing so.

It would be good if we could stick to facts and accept that a set of criteria may be mentioned here while development is still happening. Everything Anthony or I say is not an 'advertisement'. We are technical people, not ad men, and quite often GSC is asked for something that may not become reality. That does not prevent us from talking about it, or should we rather not?

 

[Augustus]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

I am aware most of the high Bc 375 bullets Anthony talked about does not exist. Does the 414 exist and does it have a BC of 1.250. Is it stable to top velocities of the 375 Chey-tac from an 8 twist. If so they are indeed a special breed and should be showing up in numbers all over the world.

 

[Gerard Schultz]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Augustus,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am aware most of the high Bc 375 bullets Anthony talked about does not exist.</div></div> The list of what exists is on the GSC Technical Data pages. I gave you the link 9 posts up from this one. Most of the bullets Anthony talked about are there, they exist and are being used.

You ask for the 5th time:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does the 414 exist and does it have a BC of 1.250. Is it stable to top velocities of the 375 Chey-tac from an 8 twist.</div></div>
1. See my previous post: <span style="color: #3333FF">"became the 414gr bullet that was tested by Dave Viers later in 2010."</span>
2. See my post #2999998 - December 29, 2011, higher up. <span style="color: #3333FF">"The BC of 1.25 is for the maximum design launch speed of 3400fps. At 2300fps the BC is 1.10 and at 1200fps it is 0.82. We give the maximum launch speed of GSC bullets and three BC numbers. It is then up to the individual to develop his own drop tables for his conditions. How many manufacturers give guidelines as detailed as what we give?"</span>
3. From this thread, my post #2994766 - December 27, 2011: <span style="color: #3333FF">"Dave fired the 414 from an 8 twist as well as from a gain twist with an 8* exit twist. They did very well all the way up to 3100fps which is as fast as he pushed them; good accuracy, good es and dial up about right for a calculated one."</span>
4. http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2348914&page=1
5. You asked this question on another forum as well and you were given the data.

All the above were replies to you. You have now been told about this bullet more than 5 times. I must assume you do not read replies because you ask the same question and I give the same reply.

 

[PeterPHWS]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

If threads like this one ... and there are many others similar ... show anything about ELR shooting ... it is that the technical guys behind the bullets need to get past this bickering because it takes things "no where".

They also need to carefully watch out for being "labelled" by many average "ELR Shooters" as being a possible "fraud operation". If they are marketing to this public a series of claims about THEIR bullets B.C.'s which dont stack up for END USERS/CUSTOMERS when they shoot them then something is wrong. Internal vefified testing ought to be done with the most picture documented and detailed due diligence they can provide and placed on their web sites so the public can see for themselves what has been achieved.

Claims that the bullets were shot at 600m to 1600m need padding out with "where" and "when" and using what load with what powder and velocity and at what altitude and air pressure and how did they group.

At present the atmosphere is so bad I would'nt say anyone claiming any "high" level of performance is likely to be believed. Where as a "full diclosure" shoot such as that tried by Snipers Hide at least gives those who are their potential customers something to go on.

At the end of the day any one reading all the current stuff done is probably going to consider the SMK'S and Berger .338's their safest bet for trying ELR with a .338 .... if only because of the "whacky argumentativeness" shown by the smaller custom bullet makers.

Now in contrast to this look at the Jamison cheytac solids and their outsorced SMK ... they have a great name as good shooting bullets in ELR ... BUT ... are now no longer available ... and why ? Because of bickering and internal arguments once again.

This "bitchiness" is ruining things wholesale ... and probably to answer the OP ... is a more significant reason things have "hit the wall" than any other.

You could say that ELR is only going to advance well when either the liers have been uncovered and loose their market/reputation as a result ... or those who do have "true good product" prove it ...

When you are sitting on the side lines this is how it all appears to be ...

 

[ELR researcher]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Mr. Wilson has stated things quite well. Professionalism goes down the drain when bickering occurs. When good folks find it necessary to defend their products and their character, that's a shame on all concerned.

I note that, at least in this thread, no one has suggested a competitive shooting organization/league where actual shooters can show what is possible - rather than depending on the sellers to tell the buyers what to buy. For those of you who are not familiar with it, the 50 cal crew has a very well established association, the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association ( FCSA ). They have several matches each year around the country, have records kept, and an excellent magazine, <span style="font-style: italic">Very High Power</span>.

I bring the shooting association/league up because the FCSA has matches each year at the premier NRA range, the NRA Whittington Center, Raton, NM. The NRA also has various contractors that conduct training using their ranges and others carved out for their use (my supposition). In particular, there is the NRAWCU Precision Academy run by Professional Marksmen Inc. Their website (http://www.professionalmarksmen.com/precision.php) notes, "The NRAWCU Precision Academy courses take place in the beautiful NRA Whittington Center's Backcountry Training Area that is equipped with a 2000 meter Known Distance and Unknown Distance Range to maximize each course to its fullest potential." It also note the availability of, "The School of 1000 Yards (which) focuses on the caliber/cartridges and rifle platforms that are designed for engagements between 100 – 1000 yards, with the <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">School of Extreme Long Range</span></span> emphasizing the cartridge/calibers that are <span style="color: #FF0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">designed for 2000 yard engagements</span></span>."

The last line above grabbed my attention. The range exists, the shooters seem to exhist, there is plenty of hardware to go around, and NRA Whittington certainly knows how to manage shooting events. What if a "group" of shooters approached NRA/Professional Marksmen Inc. and asked NRA/Professional Marksmen Inc. to develop and sponsor regular competitions out to 2000 meters? Sound like a way to get the facts on paper? Literally.

Others thought would be appreciated. IF Wadcutter or LL feel this topic should be moved to a separate thread, please advise.

 

[ELR researcher]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

BTW, NRA has three booths listed for SHOT plus the National Shooting Sports Foundation has a booth. I for one would like to engage with them to see if an NRA-affiliated association/league would be of interest to them. Others interested in starting such a dialog?

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Peter,

"... or those who do have a 'true good product' to prove it."... and preferably before said product is released for public consumption. Failure to do sets up the "whacky" dynamic that you have described.

Some of this development is an art, but most falls squarely within the bounds of well understood physical laws. Progress will overtake the conventional designs, rest assured... but "proof" of merchantability should be demanded by a consumer prior to any purchase.

 

[Augustus]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Some of the bullets I tested were downright dangerous to shoot. The Vikings came with no warning that they may fly off into the wild blue yonder. This is a warning to those who might decide to man the computers downrange. If you are dealing with a promo in the 6 to 7 cal range you had best get your ass behind something Classified as COVER. I would hate to hear about one of the testers taking one through the back. A 7 cal 338 or 375 going end over end would leave a substantial hole. Don't take the manufacturers word that the bullets are stable at certain velocities and twist rates. From what I have seen they are just guessing.

 

[Gerard Schultz]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Peter,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Claims that the bullets were shot at 600m to 1600m need padding out with "where" and "when" and using what load with what powder and velocity and at what altitude and air pressure and how did they group.</div></div> Given that this is obviously directed at GSC (#2994550 - December 27, 2011 this thread), herewith the answers that I am permitted:
Where and when: Western Australia, 2008
Load: 232gr GSC SP bullet, 96gr N560, Fed 215 primer, 3085fps
Rifle: Blaser Tactical 2
Atmosphere: Details not known except for the mention "precise measurements of Altitude, Temperature, Barometric Pressure, Humidity, Direction of Fire, and GPS positions were taken."
Grouping:
600m - 4 shots fired, one to determine strike and the next three on target inside a 6cm circle.
800m - 11cm circular orange target. "Three hits in a row on these disks were enough."
1000m - 11cm circular orange target. "2 hits out of four shots were recorded at this range, with the misses only 1 or 2 inches away from the clay targets."
1200m - "The accuracy of these bullets at 1200m was also impressive, however once I started to shoot at 1400 and 1600m the consistency seemed to drop off. This showed to me that, before the 1400m mark these bullets were entering the transonic zone."
1600m - "The remaining few rounds I had left were used to hit a small steel plate at the magic mile."

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Tell us about Australian testing of the GS338/6.7-295 grain that Anthony referenced.

 

[PeterPHWS]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Noel, Gerard, the back and forth arguements don't need to kick off again in this thread, please.

Gerard, from where you are in Port Elizabeth how difficult is it to commute to the General De Welt range at Bloemfontain ?

That range goes out to 1000m and is able to be booked is'nt it for a single target for practise? Would it be feasible to use a similar accoustic chrono from the firing point to another location in the butts ( which would be safe ) to measure velocity decrease over a given known distance and check the BC's in this way rather than using bullet drop which as I understand is a bit less accurate ?

The "butts" system for that range should enable safe testing over what would be a sufficiently long enough distance and similar to the Nevada tests done by SH's. I appreciate though that accoustic chrono's are not easily used ... or perhaps even affordable ... but given the business you have plus the liklihood of third party work being generated by having this equipment ( perhaps for the SA Defense Force ) might it not be worth looking at ?

There may well be ample oppertunity to shoot and test nearer to you by simply going out in the "bush" and measuring off a known distance and using the chrono in the same way ?

Maybe an accoustic chrono is'nt really needed. Bullet drop and grouping speak volumes if seen on a U Tube style video which you could put on your site.

Or even doing a little fun shooting such as the SA Open Championship which is coming up in March. A .338 is above the 8mm limit for F Open but I am sure they would let you shoot alongside. You might not be able to use a muzzle break because of close proximity of other shooters and a moderator will "cook" on the high round count and in your heat ... but if the barrel were heavy enough the recoil would be doable for a seasoned shooter on a normal none mussle break barrel.

I have used a .30-338 like this using 240g SMK's and with the rifle weighing 10 kg there was no issue at all.

Anyway ... what I am saying and not just to you but to any small specialist bullet maker is that having some "validation" bumf on your web site would do a lot more to encourage buying product than just figures based on B.C's.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Peter,

My reading of your posts indicate a general seriousness in intent. I can only assume that your proposal is intended to perpetuate this shell game.

The entire purpose of involving the Hide in the validation process was to avoid *precisely* the type of nonsense that your suggestion invites. I understand the frustration that the so-called "back and forth" generates. If this thread proves anything it is that the phenomena is quite independent of any particular combination of participants.

The obstacle to progress in the improvement of ELR hardware has no relation to online debate whatsoever... sideline perceptions notwithstanding.

Please watch the Hide test results. The results are much less suspect, or prone to dramatic degeneration.

 

[goober]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Healthy debate is both interesting and insightful.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

These are the kind of epic threads missed when you take your first real vacation in a year. It's both fascinating and frustrating to read though...

 

[PeterPHWS]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

My perspective in this is simple -

"I would like to see some "validation" of the claims made by bullet makers of their BC and general performance."

Given that Gerard chose not to do the SH's test I have suggested some alternatives.

I am looking for a good bullet which can be used in a .375 CT and have an interest in those who can fulfil this. I also have some interest in the .338 LM. I think for now the .338 market is lead by Sierra and Berger ( as per the SH's test ). The .375 CT market though, is now wide open, as the prior best "solid" performers are not available.

But ... these are expensive things to buy ... and I don't want to waste my money ...

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

All of Pete's comments are spot on, but there are two very important points made, and worth highlighting.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PeterWilson</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My perspective in this is simple -

<span style="font-weight: bold">"I would like to see some<span style="text-decoration: underline"> "validation" </span> of the claims made by bullet makers of their BC and general performance."</span>

Given that Gerard chose not to do the SH's test I have suggested some alternatives.

I am looking for a good bullet which can be used in a .375 CT and have an interest in those who can fulfil this. I also have some interest in the .338 LM. I think for now the .338 market is lead by Sierra and Berger ( as per the SH's test ). The .375 CT market though, is now wide open, as the prior best "solid" performers are not available.

But ... <span style="font-weight: bold">these are expensive things to buy ... and I don't want to waste my money ...</span></div></div>

I would like to point out, in testing, anything less than 5 rounds is not a group, and any test using less than 10 rounds of any single sampling not be considered worth mentioning. If you do 10 rounds for velocity, and 5 rounds for group, that this fine, but when you seen 2 rounds on the target and call that a test... please. Or you give a "tester" 10 rounds total to do all they ask, doesn't really help ease the end user's mind when it comes to making an accurate choice. This is why Sierra, Lapua, and Berger are leading, they are putting a lot of rounds out there for use.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Peter,

Those objectives are entirely reasonable, it is the methodology that I question.

The Hide testing is not a fiat accompli, nor was it intended to be. Your assessment of the 338 BC results should allow the flexibility to reflect this... doing so will save both time, and money, if your objective is performance at the highest level.

A close examination of the results that you are relying upon reveal more than you are seeing even at this stage.

 

[Gerard Schultz]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Peter,
Bloemfontein is about 8 hours by road (700km) from PE and not a proposition. I must check if a friend of ours will be competing in March. I built the F Class rifle he used last year and he did not do too badly.

I have access to land within an hour from PE where 2500m is not a problem and I can work alone or with whom and when I wish. I have been using the facility since 2001.

However, I chose to skip the SH test in Las Vegas because GSC is involved in activities that will keep us busy to about mid year. Gina and Anthony were hoping to get to the SHOT show but that is now also cancelled.

The advice was given above that manufacturers often thumb suck their data and cannot be trusted. This cuts both ways. As a manufacturer I frequently find that product is miss applied. That is why we give extensive information in the Tech Data on our site, to enable a user to make the correct choice.

In 20 years of bullet designing and manufacturing I have learned that one can only put the information out there and trust that it will not be misunderstood. On both sides, the learning curve never flattens.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Gerard,

There is another chance coming up for BC validation (and more after that).

Will your 295 grain be among the test pool?

 

[Early Cuyler]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Augustus</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In another thread he told of a bullet ( 50 cal I think ) that had been tested at 3600 FPS and indicated it was GTG with a BC around 2.
</div></div>

Augustus,

I saw that bullet too looking at GSC's site and it sounded off to me too (3600 fps?!!!). So I pmed Gerard regarding it and he said anzio Ironworks had a specialty case specifically for that bullet. Basically it is a 20mm case necked down to accept 50 caliber bullets. Anzio has a rifle that shoots that cartridge.

While the barrel life must suck on it, the increased case capacity probably does allow for some screaming velocities.

 

[PeterPHWS]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Gerard,

Misapplied product is a fair point but some of this is happening because of different twist rates needed for different bullet types.

My .375 CT is on a Lawton Barrel with a Lost River Bore for the Jamison solid. This is a 1-11.5 twist. My nearest substitute bullet now that Jamison is in a fix is the Rocky Mountain 370g Aluminium Tip bullet or perhaps your 330g solid. Your table suggests a minimum of 1-11 but if the velocity was high this may enable sufficient stability to compensate for the .5 difference.

The thing is however, that for your heavier bullets a much faster twist barrel is needed. Augustus with his 1-8 twist should be in the right ball park ... but this is one of the "costly" aspects of going for "drive band" technology ... the need for much faster twists on barrels and having a barrel which if they don't work ... is more money wasted on top of the cost of the bullets.

I have to say I feel for the likes of Augustus ( and others ) who have taken a leap of faith on "drive band" bullets as their barrel cost and fitting and the cost of the bullets probably has them well over $1000 invested.

I chose to go for a more standard twist for the reasons of safety and variety in bullet choice.

So when you are putting bullets out that need such a significant investment of a special barrel twist and expensive bullets ... a little bit of "validation" would go a long way.

 

[Gerard Schultz]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

An explanation is needed. Take this page as an example: http://www.gsgroup.co.za/5101100sp097.html

In the blue section (Speed / BC) is listed a maximum speed of 3700fps and a BC of 1.928. This is the maximum speed at which the bullet will be stable over the entire trajectory and the BC at that speed. It means that the bullet must not be driven at more than the listed speed, it does not mean that the bullet has been shot at that speed. The BC number is not the BC at all speeds, it is the BC at that speed.

So, if a maximum speed of 2900fps is given for a bullet, driving it faster than that, takes it beyond the design parameters for that bullet.

Peter, the 375330SP is good from 11.5" twist or tighter. 11.5" is right on 1.2 s/f.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Gerard,

You are blowing sunshine again. Will you make your 6.7 caliber, 295 grain, GS338 available for independent BC verification?

 

[QRE23]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

I'm gonna go out on a limb, a very short limb at that, and guess the answer will be NO....

 

[PeterPHWS]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Noel,

I have looked at the GS web site and their line up does not include a 295g .338 bullet. They go from 267g's to 309g's which is something I suspect you know.

Was'nt it previously explained that the 295g bullet was unsuccessful and re-developed to the 309g bullet ?

My point being that "baiting" someone to get an arguement going does'nt make for easy reading when it has been done a fair old bit already. First time these threads went like this it was a bit of a "popcorn" moment and enjoyable from the side lines ...

Now it is just a bit lacking in "sunshine" ...

 

[dynamic research]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Just for some comparison, lets look at some balistic drop numbers with the Dynamic Research Predator with a 338 lapua with a 100 yrd zero.

Bullet weight: 236 grains,

BC .556, 3130 FPS BC .820, 2950 FPS

Range Drop in MOA Range Drop in MOA
100 -0- 100 -0-
500 6.37 500 7.05
1000 17.25 1000 18.33
1500 30.53 1500 31.24
2000 46.88 2000 46.03



As you can see by the calculated numbers, the difference in drop is an MOA or less as you look at the two charts. This is all calculated and gives a good guesstemation of the predicted drop. One calculation that has not been taken into account is form factor, or how aerodynamic the bullet is. As I have said before, we get wrapped around the axle with BC's. I have watched black powder shooters shoot out to 1200 yards and hit a 10 inch gong. The BC on the bullets that they are shooting is very low, but what they concentrate on is consistant loads with consistant bullets. Shooting the bullet with the highest BC will do nothing for your $10,000 rifle if it wont group. No matter what the BC is, go the the range and get the dope, find the best round for your rifle and have fun. If your bullets are consistant in weight, shape and perfectly round, you can produce great loads.

The art and science of making bullets is a very difficult and demanding process. It cost alot of money to produce just one prototype in one caliber. If changes need to be made, it gets more expencive. So lets just take our hats off to the the people who come up with these ideas so we have a greater selection of bullets to shoot.

 

[Dark Horse]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

It's entirely possible that I just missed very pertinent information along the way, but can anyone tell me why the 300 gr Scenar was/is not part of the testing/discussion? I would rather not skim through all the bickering to find the answer.

 

[Noel Carlson]

Re: Have we hit the wall?

Peter,

Per Anthony; the 295 grain GS338 is not only the earliest successful example of GSC's foray into the 6.5+ caliber projectile game, but is still available as of last month.

There is no "baiting" here.

Perhaps you are confusing a 1-1/2 year old field report by JeffVN, with something Gerard *should* have said.