• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

338 Edge and ELR type cartridges

Fredo -

Hitting the mark back to back at 1370yds hours apart at 0 and at 40-F, was his chronograph..... Low ES
If you think it was solely DA attributed, so be it. Regardless his report was first hand, and field tested.
Run your own, and report it the way you see fit, lab or field.

I take Matt's as a field test, from a referable source.
Donovan
 
I shoot H1000 in the edge with the 300 grainers at around 4.1" I tried rutumbo and rl33. 33 will get you over 3000 fps. But for me it was spikey. Every grain of powder spiked velocity. In contrast Retubo had a 2 grain window where speed did not change. I settled on 93 of H1000 and .016" in the lands for around 2800 fps in a 28" Broughton. Why? Shoots 3-4" 3 shot cold bore goups at 1k, every time year round. It always amazes me. Most consistent rifle I ever owned.
We tested the R33 in both my 338 Lapua Imp and a 338 Ultra. Both shooting 300 Bergers. The chrono showed almost 50 feet per second difference per grain of powder. That was an average of 4 shots. I didn't see no spiking and the chrono results were really close with no shots off by many feet. The groups were good in all the 338 Lapua IMP tests with around low 4 to 5 inch. Now my buddies 338 Ultra didn't like it above 3000 but shot pretty good around 2950. Matt
 
We tested the R33 in both my 338 Lapua Imp and a 338 Ultra. Both shooting 300 Bergers. The chrono showed almost 50 feet per second difference per grain of powder. That was an average of 4 shots. I didn't see no spiking and the chrono results were really close with no shots off by many feet. The groups were good in all the 338 Lapua IMP tests with around low 4 to 5 inch. Now my buddies 338 Ultra didn't like it above 3000 but shot pretty good around 2950. Matt


Matt, what I mean by spikey is every grain or powder caused a jump in velocity and there was no flat spot. I liked the window of error the H powders gave, I think I could load 92,93,94 and they would all group.
 
Fredo, it has nothing to do with defending anyone, your taking data from a program and using it to doubt real world experience, the data you obtain is a guide, real world experience comes from doing it in the field. Google Matt Kline world record, you'll soon see what I mean about an "experienced" shooter
 
At the end of the day I'd shoot what is most accurate in your barrel, and trust Matt's data he knows what hes talking about. I may just have to re-visit 33 again.
 
In my experience with the 338 edge & 300g bergers and sierras is this if it is a short throated version h1000 is my 1st choice if it is throated deeper in regard to neck shoulder junction retumbo and reloader 33 have performed better considering velocity and brass abuse. h1000 also will shoot consistent with a deeper throat as well the difference being 2780fps to about 2810fps considering brass life where retumbo and reloader 33 will typically for me fall in that 2870fps to about 2940fps with equal precision etc. Reloader 33 being my top choice considering velocity to brass abuse etc. Reloader 33 characteristics are a lot more subtle than most any other powder I have every handle so use cation when getting to know it. 338 edge one of my most favorite rounds to play with.
 
Fredo -

Hitting the mark back to back at 1370yds hours apart at 0 and at 40-F, was his chronograph..... Low ES
If you think it was solely DA attributed, so be it. Regardless his report was first hand, and field tested.
Run your own, and report it the way you see fit, lab or field.

I take Matt's as a field test, from a referable source.
Donovan

That's not the point I was making, sir.

I only mentioned how ignoring atmospherics can & will make a tangible difference in POI on target at that extreme distance. Without accounting for that potential variability, it is not possible for ANYONE draw a conclusion for temp. stability. Simply because there are no controls in place to isolate other factors that can & will affect the observed results. Forming a hypothesis because it "fits" information from a flawed test is no way to prove anything. That's how science works, and there is a very real science behind the study of external ballistics, as I'm sure many will note...

For reference, I have shot during sessions where my dope changed, due to atmospherics variation over that time period. In truth, I'd find it harder to try finding a shoot who hasn't???

Is that phenomenon really so foreign to you gentlemen? There are excellent resources available that explain how external ballistics affect bullet flight. Bryan Litz of Berger bullets, likely being a most notable reference to exoertise in that field. Thanks to the work he & other have done, most ballistics solvers available today can account for, and correct for how atmospherics affect bullet flight.

That said, a ballistic solver correcting for how DA affects bullet flight is no so easily dismissed. Rather the opposite...its verifiable & repeatable. That's how science works...

Are you leading everyone to believe that the entire scope of study into external ballistics is a "non-issue", and need not be accounted for when testing @ ELR???

Or is it just a "non-issue" when attempting to justify how using a subjective & scientifically flawed experiment should somehow bear factual information, by default of the observer's credentials?

I just can't wrap my head around NOT quantifying an easily measurable data point into a correction for a given load at that distance.

Nor, can I wrap my head around proving/disproving temp. sensitivity of a powder with a "test" that does not factor in obvious variables which could tangible affect/alter the outcome.

What is the logic behind trusting a scientifically flawed & subjective observation, over hard data from reliable measuring device like a Magnetospeed chronograph???

If the gentleman has a world record, then he has my congratulations for that accomplishment!
But does that piece of paper allow for negating the reality of how environmental conditions can, and do, affect bullet flight in a real, measurable and correctable manner???
Please explain...
 
fredo -

Over a chronograph, at different atmospheric conditions (as your saying) is good way to finding sensitivity in powders, but it is not the only way of course. Myself I've even ran sensitivity tests using warmers and coolers to heat/cool ammo to extremes for tests (have shared a couple of them here on accurateshooter in past years).

Another way is to just go shoot (field test) in different conditions, at different times of the day and different days. Which is what Matt did, plain and simple, and reported his findings in his reply above. Just because he did not do it to the standards you think he should have, doesn't discredit his input at all. Especially from repeatedly hitting the mark at an extended distance of 1370-yards.
Unless you think 1370 is just some "chip shot", I can't see how you don't find Matt's input to have significance, just as he reported it.

By the way, Matt has been winning and breaking 1000-BR records for well over a decade.
He is one of the most accomplished shooters in the sport.

My 2-Cents
Donovan
 
Last edited:
fredo -

Over a chronograph, at different atmospheric conditions (as your saying) is good way to finding sensitivity in powders, but it is not the only way of course. Myself I've even ran sensitivity tests using warmers and coolers to heat/cool ammo to extremes for tests (have shared a couple of them here on accurateshooter in past years).

Another way is to just go shoot (field test) in different conditions, at different times of the day and different days. Which is what Matt did, plain and simple, and reported his findings in his reply above. Just because he did not do it to the standards you think he should have, doesn't discredit his input at all. Especially from repeatedly hitting the mark at an extended distance of 1370-yards.
Unless you think 1370 is just some "chip shot", I can't see how you don't find Matt's input to have significance, just as he reported it.

By the way, Matt has been winning and breaking 1000-BR records for well over a decade.
He is one of the most accomplished shooters in the sport.

My 2-Cents
Donovan

Thanks for the reply, sir.

The insignificance comes from a lack of accounting for variables that can & do affect bullet flight. And especially so, at 1350+ yds. Nothing more, nothing less...
Also, doesn't rifle's "tune" have something to do with POI shift at distance, as well? Isn't that yet another factor that could affect observed results, beyond the proven & measurable affects of environmental conditions?

Not discrediting anyone who can shoot tiny groups at long range, but I'm more concerned about & interested in, hitting the target...with the first shot. And doing it with a shoulder fired weapon from an impromptu field position, under otherwise unknown conditions, at that...

Without having atmospheric data to input & account for, trying to make a 1st round hit much past 800yds can be an exercise in chasing one's tail. At 1370yds, I wouldn't dream of ignoring atmospherics and having a realistic chance of actually making a first round hit on an appropriately small target. Simply because, air temp, pressure and wind have enough affect on bullet flight at that distance so as to make it a fool's errand to even try...

That may very well be where the difference in opinion is stemming from. I can see how a shooter can get by with ignoring atmospherics when 'sighters' are allowed on a huge target, and being allowed the opportunity to "walk in" POI to a desired center point, prior to shooting for score. In effect, that would be accounting for atmospherics by trial & error, vs. cutting to the chase, measuring & solving for them...

Unfortunately, the luxury of 'sighters' is not afforded a field shooter, hence the need to account for every possible variable to actually hit the chosen target...with the first shot. Different game, different rules & allowances...

That all said, when I "prove" a load, I will shoot it at a varying temps over the Magnetospeed & note and record °F/fps variability of said load in my ballistic program. I've measured sensitivity little as 0.1, and as much as 0.9 °F/fps for given powders. With that information "proven" via an actual measuring device, that is another data point which can be input into ballistic solver. That temp. sensitivity data point input allows the ballistic solver to automatically adjust MV when solving for corrections under current temperature...

Again, this stuff is essential to making a hit on target the first time, a different game than shooting repeatable groups in a BR setting.

I can learn & appreciate the attention to detail that BR shooter go thru to make as "perfect" ammo as possible, and I've learned much from those efforts! Case & bullet sorting, weighing cases, turning necks, etc... I incorporate all that shared & accepted knowledge into my efforts, doing all the same prep as a BR shooter does to make "perfect" rounds to send downrange.

What I'm not seeing, is how someone with the same mentality to strive for "perfection" & attention to the smallest detail, would so easily ignore/dismiss the external (atmospheric) variables that have a very tangible & measurable affect on the flight of their meticulously developed ammo?

Just don't make no sense to me, so I'll chalk it up to it being the different game we play.

Thanks for the thoughts. The path toward knowledge is in the ability to acknowledge & potentially accept a viewpoint that otherwise may not have been considered. That's really the reason for discussing this kinda stuff, don'tcha think???

Good shooting & take care!
 
Matt- i guess you shoulda added that click to your scope after all. You knew you shoulda did it- but to simply ignore the temp swing? I feel let down.
 
Like Mike pointed out already if dkhunt14, Matt says it just stop typing and listen. It's hard for some people but if Matt gives me info or posts something I am all ears.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,836
Messages
2,204,626
Members
79,160
Latest member
Zardek
Back
Top