Marty...take a look at the bak of a modern day FMJ bullet ...it is open bak there so they can get the lead in ..it is a full metal jacket on the front they cant get the lead in the front...it is very difficult and impractile to try and put a full covering of jacket mtl on the base...some have use a sort of gas chek on the rear but it proved to be to time consuming and not worth the effort...the reason that I turned them around was sorta like the troops did...to get better penetration,,,I wanted to shoot thru and not get severe meat or pelt damage,turkey-coyote) ...I usually use reduced loads because of the short range shots and the desire to reduce damage...,,,I am shooting wild turkeys with a 30-06 or 300 mag!!!!!)))...this is a ballistic problem that the computers or quik load can not help u with ...you just gotta get out in the fresh air and load and shoot some of these and see where the hit and how they perform..,use German bullets or the modern day stuff))I shot a few full power loads at 200 and they droped about 2" more than the same bullet point foreward,,,but my intented use was within 150yds,,mostly 50yd))because they tumbled beyond this at reduced vel...and as an aside the modern BT bullets are much more concentric than FMJ simply because it is easier to put the lead in the front and make a good ojive,,nice and concentric))vs. the lead in the rear of a jacket that is pointed by a ram clear thru..to the rear,which will be the front!!).you still havent told us exactly what or why you are interested in doing with these backwards loads...????other than you wanted to know how accurate they will be?? I know that the modern BT shot backwards is usually more accurate at 100yds than most modern FMJ's because of the manufacturing problems...they are made for fur harvesting and not accuracy and the modern BT's of any cal. or wt. are made to be accurate.. tell us more abut what you have in mind.this isnt a text book problem and there is no text book answer.. I shure hope someone is gleening some info from it.....I know Ray and I are........Roger
Backward Spitzer's And Shot Dispersion?
- Thread starter marty_01
- Start date
Like I say – I am not in a position to be able to field test any of this. I’d call myself an arm chair military historian with a great interest in ballistics. I don’t own any guns – never have. But I spent six years in an Army National Guard tank unit and have done a fair bit of shooting – 105mm M68 – M60 MG – M240 coax – 50-caliber, M3 grease gun, and 0.45 caliber pistol. I am also a collector and have a large number of armor piercing projectiles with designs stretching from WWI up through modern APFSDS. I’m an engineer by trade so I’m not afraid of math or physics or mulling over weirdo problems like this -- taking empirical information from dudes like yourself and crunching some numbers to see where it takes me. It’s goofy, but what the hell, we all have to have a hobby. And football season is over.
For example if you were to give me specific data from your own observations regarding base first shooting and the amount drop for a specific bullet and one or two specific ranges, it would be relatively simple for me to back calculate both a form factor and resultant BC for the bullet you were using. If you fired five or six shots from a bench and than gave me the size of the grouping I could determine what sort of inherent dispersion is associated with the bullet. Do the same for both base first and nose first shoots and it would be simple enough to determine the relative difference in accuracy between the base first and nose first shoots. I mean it would have to be a bit more specific in terms of care in measurements and such. I’m not suggesting you or anyone else go out and do this. I am simply fishing around to see if someone has already done this sort of thing and perhaps recorded the results – bullet drop and bullet spread for the same bullet,any bullet) – nose first shoots and base first shoots.
Why am I doing it – because it’s an interesting problem, and the more I ask about the problem the greater the diversity in answers I seem to get. I even have a few responses to emails I sent to Sierra and Speer. Of course their opinions on the question are contradictory. I am simply interested in sorting through the diversity in anecdotal information to see if there is a kernel of information that is consistent, and something useable in terms of developing a BC and getting a handle on inherent shot dispersion for this problem.
So in short I am interested in the anecdotes, but I was hoping there would be consistency in the anecdotes such that the answer would be blatantly obvious to me. But the variation in people’s opinions or in their respective experience has unfortunately not resulted in me smacking my head yet and crying out Eureka!
For example if you were to give me specific data from your own observations regarding base first shooting and the amount drop for a specific bullet and one or two specific ranges, it would be relatively simple for me to back calculate both a form factor and resultant BC for the bullet you were using. If you fired five or six shots from a bench and than gave me the size of the grouping I could determine what sort of inherent dispersion is associated with the bullet. Do the same for both base first and nose first shoots and it would be simple enough to determine the relative difference in accuracy between the base first and nose first shoots. I mean it would have to be a bit more specific in terms of care in measurements and such. I’m not suggesting you or anyone else go out and do this. I am simply fishing around to see if someone has already done this sort of thing and perhaps recorded the results – bullet drop and bullet spread for the same bullet,any bullet) – nose first shoots and base first shoots.
Why am I doing it – because it’s an interesting problem, and the more I ask about the problem the greater the diversity in answers I seem to get. I even have a few responses to emails I sent to Sierra and Speer. Of course their opinions on the question are contradictory. I am simply interested in sorting through the diversity in anecdotal information to see if there is a kernel of information that is consistent, and something useable in terms of developing a BC and getting a handle on inherent shot dispersion for this problem.
So in short I am interested in the anecdotes, but I was hoping there would be consistency in the anecdotes such that the answer would be blatantly obvious to me. But the variation in people’s opinions or in their respective experience has unfortunately not resulted in me smacking my head yet and crying out Eureka!
Hi Lynn....You know..my shootin buddy here says the same thing...he told me to shoot em backwards and they would be so blunt that they would punch a hole rite thru the wind and be lots better than havin that lil fragile point stikin out there........huummmmmmmmmmm....and they wouldnt key hole as quik.....this kind of inovative thinkin culd put me in the record books!!!!!! I shure hope that Rx-15 isnt toooo hot and burn the pointy ends rite off of those Sierra MK's...Thanks again ...good to hear from uu..Roger
,, you nut ...Im sittin here giggilin like a lil girl))
,, you nut ...Im sittin here giggilin like a lil girl))
expiper said:
When you reverse your bullets do you end up having to reduce the load in order to make room for the bullet?
A friend sent me a photo showing a sectioned 1905 spitzgechoss used in the Mauser. I got to fiddling with the picture. No idea if the sectional photo is an accurate representation of the the amount of the case that is physically occupied by the powder. If it is it looks like a fair bit of the powder might have to be dumped to make room for the bullet.
Im not shure if I got the quote's in the right spot...Im sometimes,usually),,always)) puter illeterate...BUT to answere your question .....marty_01 said:When you reverse your bullets do you end up having to reduce the load in order to make room for the bullet?expiper said:
A friend sent me a photo showing a sectioned 1905 spitzgechoss used in the Mauser. I got to fiddling with the picture. No idea if the sectional photo is an accurate representation of the the amount of the case that is physically occupied by the powder. If it is it looks like a fair bit of the powder might have to be dumped to make room for the bullet.
Most common hunting rounds in which I have used full powr loads backwards,.243-270-30-06-7mm mag-300 win mag)dont have 100% loading density like the one in the artists redition of the WW-II ctg. If the particular ctg was that full...you would just have to try it and see if the powder would compress enough to allow the projectile to be inserted backwards....I realise you have no guns and do no reloading, thus the ability to use various types of gunpowder with their inherrit load density and charge wt., which could be adjusted to give or duplicate,in some cases even increase) original velocity may be un-familiar to you. When doing this I did not just pull bullets from ammo that was loaded by a factory or armory,,These are all custom tailored hand loads from my lil' laboratory in the basement, so I have never encounterd this problem...I would not just pull bullets from old mil. surpluss ammo and turn them around and try to fire them.....It possibly could be done...but use caution and common reloading sense....
This load density situation is very critical and must be observed with caution. There is a very real possibilty of double charging the case with most of the "fast" shotgun or pistol types of powder that are used with the "reduced" loads...these faster powders are designed to work at pistol and shotgun pressures and perform properly at these reduced "pressures" that are encountered .This has been the topic of many discussions around the camp fire, and in the big boys lab's. Some loads are so light,10-15 gr) that the use of a filler such as Kapok or even common quilting mtl.is often used to keep the powder against or in the vicinity of the primer ignition flash.......this is the reason I like the 2400 so well...it is very fluffy,how is that for technical-you guys,hahah) and the common charge wt necessary fills the case near or even above 1/2 way,thus eliminating the possibility of a double charge,,,it is slow and tedious work when using 10 gr of bullseye in a 30-06...you have to look real close!!!! ....
I hope those that read this information to actually make either reduced or full power loads are seasoned reloaders....it is not to be tried by those with a limited ammount of reloding experience. There was an individual in my lil' town here that heard about my tinkering with reduced loads ..and he had limited experience and knowledge of reloading methods,,this person experienced a pressure excursion event and destroyed his deer rifle...thank goodness he was un injured,,,,sooo I have said all that to say this.....I realize you are just interested in downrage ballistic data,velocity, and shot dispersion,,but there are many who will actually use this info to produce loaded ammo..........I dont have lots of lab data...I have chronographed several just to see how slow they were,,,but was mostly interested in safe slow loads that didnt leave a lot of unburnt powder residue in the bore and gave good 50 yd accuracy,,,,,,and OBTW ..these wont function in a auto-loader).....Roger
Marty
You would need to get the details of the German tests to see how extensive they were. You're right that the space occupied by the backward seated bullet would prevent the use of a full power load. But there are ways to get around that such as a long necked case and a lengthened chamber. The US did that when experimenting with multiple-projectile rounds after WW II. I've attached a photo of one of the experimental cases that held 3 lightweight bullets,next to a standard '06). They also experimented with 2-bullet rounds, flechettes, and all other sorts of wierd stuff to increase the hit probability. For various reasons, all of them were eventually abandonded.
Ray
You would need to get the details of the German tests to see how extensive they were. You're right that the space occupied by the backward seated bullet would prevent the use of a full power load. But there are ways to get around that such as a long necked case and a lengthened chamber. The US did that when experimenting with multiple-projectile rounds after WW II. I've attached a photo of one of the experimental cases that held 3 lightweight bullets,next to a standard '06). They also experimented with 2-bullet rounds, flechettes, and all other sorts of wierd stuff to increase the hit probability. For various reasons, all of them were eventually abandonded.
Ray
Interesting stuff Roger & Ray. Thanks -- I just learned several new things today from your postings.
My thoughts on the 1905 spitzgechoss and using it to shoot at tanks and such,assuming this isn't just another battlefield myth) would be that the common soldier would probably only have standard issue cartridges. If they were actually instructed to use this sort of backward shooting expedient than I'd reckon they would be forced to make room -- or as Roger indicated see if the bullet could be pushed nose first into the existing load.
This is something else that I have a question -- about. It's probably a totally dumbass question -- but you folks are still bearing with my ignorance, so I figure I'll keep asking till you all get irritated and stop answering. Do small arms cartridges require some volume of "nothing" in the casing. I mean you have the volume of the case occupied by the base of the bullet -- than you have the volume of the casing that’s filled with propellant or powder. Does there also have to be some volume of air in the case as well for the powder or propellant to function correctly?
My thoughts on the 1905 spitzgechoss and using it to shoot at tanks and such,assuming this isn't just another battlefield myth) would be that the common soldier would probably only have standard issue cartridges. If they were actually instructed to use this sort of backward shooting expedient than I'd reckon they would be forced to make room -- or as Roger indicated see if the bullet could be pushed nose first into the existing load.
This is something else that I have a question -- about. It's probably a totally dumbass question -- but you folks are still bearing with my ignorance, so I figure I'll keep asking till you all get irritated and stop answering. Do small arms cartridges require some volume of "nothing" in the casing. I mean you have the volume of the case occupied by the base of the bullet -- than you have the volume of the casing that’s filled with propellant or powder. Does there also have to be some volume of air in the case as well for the powder or propellant to function correctly?
sorry -- just one more bit -- I have lots of questions. however if there is the potential someone is going to try any of this and potentially get hurt, maybe I should sign off now and forward along any other questions I might have via the forum PM. I'm new here, so I'll rely upon you dudes that have been here awhile to tell me if I shouldnt be carrying on with this sort of thing.
Cheechako said:
I just have to get my one rant for the day in here. I usually try to not have it on a forum, but....
It still saddens me greatly that the US military has spent literally billions of dollars on R&D of multiple projectile, three shot burst rounds when the average soldier would only get an annual allocation of just enough rounds to zero their weapon and then fire the qualification course.
Sorry for the disruption to the thread. I feel better now. I guess it was more of a sigh then a rant....
marty_01 said:
No. If you take a look at any of the load data on the net, you'll see that some loads are referred to as compressed. This means that when you are seating the bullet, you are actually compressing the powder into the case. It makes for interesting messes when you couple to much compression with too little neck tension....
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.
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.