Berger 208 30 cal?
- Thread starter shooter74
- Start date
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
Not sure anyone has had them in hand long enough to do significant testing as yet. I'm also curious to see how they compare to the 200.20X. The box G7 BC of the 208 is 0.354, whereas in my hands, pointed 200.20Xs generate G7 BCs on ~0.340 to 0.350 range, based on LabRadar velocity data. Note that the 208s come already pointed from the manufacturer, which means you're not likely to be able to improve the BC value much, if any, at home. Effectively, those BC values are the same, only differing in the third decimal place, meaning you can point the 200.20Xs at home and effectively achieve approximately the same BC as the 208 straight out of the box.
The external ballistics of the two bullets will ultimately depend on the velocity at which the 208s will tune in. With a 30" barrel as is commonly found in F-TR, I'd expect them to tune in somewhere in the 2600 fps range with Varget, or about 50 fps slower than the 200.20Xs. With the two bullets having effectively about the same BC, I'd guess that the 200.20X might even have a slight advantage in wind deflection, at least in theory. The 215s hybrids in a comparable rifle tune in with Varget at ~2550 fps, or about 100 fps slower than the 200.20X. In theory, the 215s at 2550 fps enjoy a small advantage over the 200.20X going 2650 fps at 600 yd, slightly more at 1000 yd.
How the new 208 and 220 Hybrids compare to the existing designs will depend on exactly what velocities they tune in, and how good their consistencies are. Even if the wind resistances are only about the same at their velocities in tuned loads as the 200.20Xs or 215s, if the new bullet designs have more consistent QC, i.e. their BCs are more uniform bullet-to-bullet, I think you'll start to see a lot of F-Class shooters using them.
The external ballistics of the two bullets will ultimately depend on the velocity at which the 208s will tune in. With a 30" barrel as is commonly found in F-TR, I'd expect them to tune in somewhere in the 2600 fps range with Varget, or about 50 fps slower than the 200.20Xs. With the two bullets having effectively about the same BC, I'd guess that the 200.20X might even have a slight advantage in wind deflection, at least in theory. The 215s hybrids in a comparable rifle tune in with Varget at ~2550 fps, or about 100 fps slower than the 200.20X. In theory, the 215s at 2550 fps enjoy a small advantage over the 200.20X going 2650 fps at 600 yd, slightly more at 1000 yd.
How the new 208 and 220 Hybrids compare to the existing designs will depend on exactly what velocities they tune in, and how good their consistencies are. Even if the wind resistances are only about the same at their velocities in tuned loads as the 200.20Xs or 215s, if the new bullet designs have more consistent QC, i.e. their BCs are more uniform bullet-to-bullet, I think you'll start to see a lot of F-Class shooters using them.
I am curious what the advantage of these two new 30cal bullets is.
As stated above pointing the 200.20 gives a boost to BC close to the new 208gr bullet.
I currently run the 215 in my 300WSM for F-open. The G7 is .0354, however after the pointing process they should gain a conservative 5% to their BC which would see them around 0.371 which eclipses the quoted BC for the new 220gr bullet.
Why wouldn’t Berger just point the 215 and the 200.20 for us??
If you line up the dimensions of the two new bullets (comparing them to the 215) the thing that does stand out to me is they are both shorter in OAL and both have longer bearing surface. Does this make for a bullet that is easier to tune? Maybe also more stable at 308 speeds??
Looking forward to range reports on both of them.
As stated above pointing the 200.20 gives a boost to BC close to the new 208gr bullet.
I currently run the 215 in my 300WSM for F-open. The G7 is .0354, however after the pointing process they should gain a conservative 5% to their BC which would see them around 0.371 which eclipses the quoted BC for the new 220gr bullet.
Why wouldn’t Berger just point the 215 and the 200.20 for us??
If you line up the dimensions of the two new bullets (comparing them to the 215) the thing that does stand out to me is they are both shorter in OAL and both have longer bearing surface. Does this make for a bullet that is easier to tune? Maybe also more stable at 308 speeds??
Looking forward to range reports on both of them.
Attachments
They are $$$$. I cannot see too much difference in using a 200.2 bullet thats already proven. To each his own
We now have them in stock!
steve@mcgeestocks.com
steve@mcgeestocks.com
shooter74
Silver $$ Contributor
The biggest gain for myself, would be I haven’t ventured into pointing yet so that would save another investment another time consuming process. But I may just keep shooting the 215’s in my wsm and look at a pointing die. What else would I need to start pointing Bullets ?
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
The bottom line is that solely based on BC, these new offerings do not seem to represent much of an improvement over the existing designs, other than that they come pointed in the box. I personally prefer to point bullets myself, as it gives me more control over the sorting and pointing process, so having them pointed in the box is a negative, rather than a benefit. Nonetheless, the real question is where each of these new bullets will actually tune in velocity-wise relative to the lighter existing designs. Once that is known, comparing predicted external ballistics is a relatively simple process.
Another question that is harder to answer is whether these new offerings have any intangible benefits; i.e. benefits that may sometimes be difficult to directly measure, but that provide a definite improvement over time. For example, more consistent jacket thickness and meplat shape would be an improvement. More uniform external bullet-to-bullet dimensions within a single Lot# might also be an improvement. As ben_g noted, they seem to have a longer bearing surface, which might promote better stability in the bore (i.e. less balloting), and allow them to "settle down" faster, and provide better long range consistency. Until they have been extensively tested by different shooters in competition and user's results have become readily available, it becomes more difficult to predict whether they may be about the same, or much better than the existing designs.
Another question that is harder to answer is whether these new offerings have any intangible benefits; i.e. benefits that may sometimes be difficult to directly measure, but that provide a definite improvement over time. For example, more consistent jacket thickness and meplat shape would be an improvement. More uniform external bullet-to-bullet dimensions within a single Lot# might also be an improvement. As ben_g noted, they seem to have a longer bearing surface, which might promote better stability in the bore (i.e. less balloting), and allow them to "settle down" faster, and provide better long range consistency. Until they have been extensively tested by different shooters in competition and user's results have become readily available, it becomes more difficult to predict whether they may be about the same, or much better than the existing designs.
LA50SHOOTER
Sworn To Protect The Constitution.
100% agree.
I was only going off the specs on Berger’s website which show the 220 significantly shorter than the 215 in OAL.
Interesting the actual difference on your picture.
Test on hold In today match I had two cases split and found five more about to split. The 208's are loaded with the same brass lot I nee to order some new brass before I go forward.
What is COAL ?
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
I also have a rifle with 0.180 freebore. Using the known COAL for my 200.20X load at .005" off (3.122"), and the nose lengths for both bullets as reported by Berger (200.20X = 0.848", 208 Hybrid = 0.742"), it is possible to estimate COAL for another bullet seated to the same depth. At .005" off the lands in a chamber with 0.180" fb, the COAL for a 208 Hybrid loaded to .005" off the lands should be very close to 3.016".
FWIW - I used this same method recently to make a COAL estimate for a different .30 cal bullet. The new Lot of this bullet arrived yesterday and I was able to measure with the actual bullets. My COAL estimate was within .003" of the actual value, so the method works as long as the nose length values are good.
I hadn't really paid all that close attention to the relative segment dimensions of the 200.20X and 208 bullets. Clearly the designs are quite different:
With the much longer BTO measurement and shorter nose, I'm guessing that a freebore of at least 0.225" to 0.250" would be more appropriate for the 208 Hybrid.
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.