dcali
Bullet Maker
Does this even need to be said?
Bullet Pointing
- Thread starter rwj
- Start date
Does this even need to be said?
dcali
Bullet Maker
I thought pretty much every one of us regard the specific way in which we each do something as having come from the mountain on a stone tablet LOL.
JimSC - I have been pointing the 90 VLDs for years. In my hands, it does offer a noticeable benefit. In fairness however, a good friend and fellow 90 VLD shooter also swears that pointing increased his vertical with them. I have not directly compared each of our pointed bullets to see if there is any noticeable difference in the points, so I can't really say with any certainty why his bullets seem to behave differently than mine. I'd guess there is something we each do differently in the pointing process. The easiest thing to do is simply point a few and see how they behave relative to unpointed bullets in your hands. If you like the results, pointing is pretty easy to incorporate into the reloading process. If not, it shouldn't be too hard to unload the pointing die or keep it to possibly use on some other bullet.
This just crossed my mind - what do your 90s look like in terms of OAL variation *after* you point them, across all your sorting "buckets"? Is overall OAL consistency improved? diminished? the same? And do you take care to keep the buckets in sorted order once they're pointed? I wonder if the OAL is playing as much of a factor as the pointing.
I sort mine the same way he does before pointing. After pointing the oal is increased by .002-.004. Since you are changing the setting on the die for each batch, all the groups grow the same. I shoot them in batches and try to not shoot a match with no more than two groups, so about a .004 oal spread across all bullets.
dcali
Bullet Maker
So that makes me wonder if some of the improvement in consistency doesn't come from the sorting rather than the pointing, since BC is fairly sensitive to OAL (at this level at precision at least), and the meplats I see on factory bullets are usually pretty consistent in size.
Yes my scores went up just by sorting in groups based on oal even before I started pointing. You will still get an oddball meplat that is larger or smaller in your sorted groups and I think pointing just helps to mitigate the oddballs. I just barely tip mine to even out the meplats to where they all look the same, I do not point for BC.
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
Damon - I think Brad answered most of your questions. As I mentioned, I never tested bullets sorted by OAL that were not pointed. I fully expect the length sorting made at least some contribution to consistency. However, the typically somewhat ragged meplats are also markedly tightened up and more uniform after pointing, so I don't doubt that pointing improves consistency as well. I know for a fact that the BC goes up as expected, because I've compared BCs using the LabRadar data.
I have always believed that most of the length variance in a traditional lead-core bullet should be found in the nose region, simply because of how they're made. My measurements in are generally in agreement with this theory. If most of the length variance resides in the nose, it can be argued that sorting by OAL prior to pointing may also be something like a poor man's way of using the Bob Green comparator. There are potentially a number of ways that length sorting and pointing together might improve consistency, as well as to reduce wind deflection slightly. After a certain point, I'm not so interested in measuring, sorting, analyzing, etc. I just want to shoot the damn things. So I try to do a sufficient number of tests up front to convince myself one way or the other that some new approach actually is an improvement. After that, I don't worry about it too much, I just point 'em and shoot 'em.
I have always believed that most of the length variance in a traditional lead-core bullet should be found in the nose region, simply because of how they're made. My measurements in are generally in agreement with this theory. If most of the length variance resides in the nose, it can be argued that sorting by OAL prior to pointing may also be something like a poor man's way of using the Bob Green comparator. There are potentially a number of ways that length sorting and pointing together might improve consistency, as well as to reduce wind deflection slightly. After a certain point, I'm not so interested in measuring, sorting, analyzing, etc. I just want to shoot the damn things. So I try to do a sufficient number of tests up front to convince myself one way or the other that some new approach actually is an improvement. After that, I don't worry about it too much, I just point 'em and shoot 'em.
Last edited:
So, after reading this thread from the beginning, I have some questions. If you trim bullets, what does that do to the weight of the bullet. Since they are all now the same length, do you then sort your bullets by weight? Or do you sort by the base to ogive? What is the tolerance you use for a criteria for sorting? If you point, without trimming, How much does that change overall length? How much pointing is the most that you can point a bullet without deforming it to where it will make a difference in it's flight? All in all, how much difference in actual score does this make?
I am assuming that all of the statements made about accuracy improvements are made by shooters who always fire perfect shots and anything less is the fault of the rifle or your ammo. It has nothing to do with wind doping or the elements involved in firing the shot. Right?
I guess that I am wondering is how many angels are you putting on the head of that pin?
I am assuming that all of the statements made about accuracy improvements are made by shooters who always fire perfect shots and anything less is the fault of the rifle or your ammo. It has nothing to do with wind doping or the elements involved in firing the shot. Right?
I guess that I am wondering is how many angels are you putting on the head of that pin?
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
So, after reading this thread from the beginning, I have some questions. If you trim bullets, what does that do to the weight of the bullet. Since they are all now the same length, do you then sort your bullets by weight? Or do you sort by the base to ogive? What is the tolerance you use for a criteria for sorting? If you point, without trimming, How much does that change overall length? How much pointing is the most that you can point a bullet without deforming it to where it will make a difference in it's flight? All in all, how much difference in actual score does this make?
I am assuming that all of the statements made about accuracy improvements are made by shooters who always fire perfect shots and anything less is the fault of the rifle or your ammo. It has nothing to do with wind doping or the elements involved in firing the shot. Right?
I guess that I am wondering is how many angels are you putting on the head of that pin?
This is really pretty simple. Side by side tests in matches where the only difference in the load is pointed versus unpointed bullets. Tested not just once, but many times, and with different calibers and loads. The pointed bullets routinely produce tighter groups, better scores, and require less elevation on the scope. That's the bottom line. If it was limited to a single point per day it would be worth the effort, IMO. One point can make the difference between being the winner, or the first loser. The rest of your questions and statements seem to be aimed at marginalizing the potential value of pointing bullets. From personal experience, no one else's descriptions or results posted here are likely to ever satisfy you or sway your opinion. So maybe you should simply try it yourself before drawing any conclusions.
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
After re-reading it, my last post may seem a little snarky, which was not intended. So I'll try to address some of cdparker's questions in a different way. It might also be of benefit for those that may be interested in pointing, but aren't too familiar with the process. Be warned in advance, this may be a long and potentially painful read.
I view the pointing process as primarily having two potentially beneficial, but distinct effects, which I will address separately.
1) BC improvement
2) Grouping consistency
The first of these is easy to demonstrate. At a distance of as little as 300 yd, pointed bullets can be shown to require less elevation to center a group on the target as compared to unpointed bullets. The most straightforward explanation for this is that pointing improves BC. The gains are typically modest, perhaps 3-5%, or so. The magnitude of the effect largely depends on the diameter of the meplat relative to the bullet caliber. The larger the meplat is proportionally, the greater the BC benefit you will generally observe after pointing. The take-home message here is that if you have improved the BC, you have also decreased wind deflection, even if by only a small amount. Over time, it is reasonable to conclude that decreased wind deflection will result in an improvement of scores. For example, a "9" just barely outside the "10-ring" with unpointed bullets might well have nicked the ring for a "10" if the bullets had been pointed. In any given match, how many "9s" you shoot that are very close to the "10-ring" may be a good indicator of the potential for bullet pointing to affect your score.
The second effect is the one that seems to vary more widely among those that point bullets. Some, like myself, have observed a noticeable improvement. Some have observed little to no effect, and some have even observed that groups became larger, particularly in terms of vertical at long range. It is difficult at best to compare different people's results because you typically cannot know exactly how they pointed their bullets, or what else they may have done in addition to pointing that could have affected the output. For example, I length-sort prior to pointing. I do this solely to sort bullets by OAL, such that I don't have to constantly adjust the pointing die micrometer while pointing bullets from a single length group. Because I never intended to use OAL sorting by itself, I have never tested its sole effect (if any) on unpointed bullets. It may well have some contribution to better grouping in a manner analogous to BTO sorting or the use of Bob Green's comparator tool.
The pointing process I use and would suggest to others that might wish to try it out is as follows:
1) Length-sort (OAL) unpointed bullets from a single Lot# into groups of approximately 0.0015".
I have found through testing and when setting the micrometer for the first time with a new Lot of bullets that I have to adjust the pointing die micrometer by at least 3 to 4 thousandths (or more) with a single bullet to visually detect a difference in the point. Length groups of 1.5 thousandths are therefore probably sufficiently small enough that a single micrometer setting can be used for all the bullets in that length group. You could even sort to .001" length groups, if desired. I routinely obtain from 6-8 length groups out of a typical Lot of Bergers. There will usually be a few extreme outliers in the shortest and longest length groups that fall outside the 0.0015" window. By eye, there is usually a Gaussian distribution of bullets, with the middle group(s) having the most, less toward the extremes. I usually only use the few bullets from either the shortest/longest length groups as foulers, but you could always re-sort them by OAL if you ended up with enough in either group to use in a match.
2) Point the bullets in the pointing die with the appropriate die insert, such that you are closing the meplat by about 50-75%.
It is not necessary to close the tips by 90-100% to increase the BC, and cthis an even be undesirable in that you will start to create a "bulge" behind the point if you close the meplats too much, which defeats the purpose of pointing.
To set the pointing die (I use the Whidden die), adjust the micrometer long so the insert doesn't contact the bullet as assessed by a gentle stroke of the ram. This is just so you don't accidentally "crush" a bullet of the die is set too short. Then adjust the micrometer down in small increments until the insert barely makes contact with the bullet nose. You will feel a distinct "touch" and slight pressure once the insert actually starts to contact the bullet and die lever starts to cam over. Continue to adjust the die micrometer down until the bullet meplats are closed by about 50-75% as compared to an unpointed bullet. Record the pointing die micrometer setting! From this point onward, you can simply adjust the micrometer by .002" increments between different bullet OAL length groups, making only a slight adjustment if necessary.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Next, I will touch on a couple other issues as outlined by cdparker above. If you look at the numbers I gave above, you will see that for the Berger bullets I am using, the majority of bullets within a given Lot# fall into an OAL range of about .015" or so. As you may have noticed, I do not trim meplats prior to pointing. This is for several reasons. First and foremost, I experimented with trimming early on and was never really happy with the appearance of the points afterward. Second, it's extra work that IMO, is of questionable benefit. Here's why:
Some people that trim before pointing will sort bullets by OAL to find the shortest, then trim them all to that length. However, if bullet OAL within a given Lot# varies by as much as .015" or more before trimming, you will not only be removing a different weight of material from bullets of different OAL, you will also end up with trimmed meplats that do not have the same diameter prior to pointing. In my hands, I could easily detect a visual difference between such bullets after pointing, which bothered me. Although I have never actually weighed bullets before/after trimming, my guess is that you're not removing enough material to markedly change the overall weight. That may or may not be correct. Nonetheless, the idea that the weight might be different bothered me. In addition, most of us have probably seen some rather ragged looking meplats, where the one side was noticeable higher than the other. That is one of the reasons some people like to trim before pointing. However, the ragged material around the meplat becomes less and less of a potential variance problem the closer and closer the pointing die pushes it in toward the axis of rotation. In theory, the magnitude of the meplat variance effect asymptotically approaches zero as it nears the axis of rotation. For that reason, I choose not to trim bullets prior to pointing. It's easier and faster, and I am not certain the trimming process provides a statistically significant improvement in performance.
Nonetheless, if you want to trim before pointing, I would suggest you length-sort first, as outlined above. It's very simple to do this with calipers; I can easily length-sort several hundred bullets in an hour watching TV - it's no biggie. By length-sorting first, then trimming, you will minimize or eliminate both the potential weight removal and meplat diameter issues I described above.
As far as weight-sorting bullets, I do this on occasion for important matches. Because I do not trim bullets prior to pointing, I can sort them by weight either before or after pointing; it doesn't really matter. If you decide to trim before pointing, then you might want to wait until after pointing to sort the bullets by weight, or at least do it that way the first few times until you can convince yourself one way or the other whether trimming significantly affects the relative weights.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In the end, I view bullet pointing as an analogous process to weighing powder to the kernel. There is currently an ongoing thread about weighing powder to the kernel and whether it is a necessary approach, or a waste of time. As you might expect, the arguments cover a broad spectrum. It is not easy to prove one way or the other that weighing powder to the kernel has a quantifiable benefit on the target. Nonetheless, a lot of people do it, including myself. If nothing else, you are effectively removing powder weight as a variable from the reloading equation. The peace of mind alone has value, IMO.
Likewise, it is very easy to demonstrate an increase in BC by pointing as I described above. However, it is relatively minor (~3-5%), so it becomes very difficult to rigorously and accurately quantify exactly how many points (if any) the pointing process is actually worth. I believe it has merit; therefore, I do it. I find the skepticism about bullet pointing somewhat surprising, partly because it really does not represent a monumental effort to do it. I am inclined to believe that many of the doubters with regard to bullet pointing, were they to see a new bullet advertised with a 5% better BC than what they were using, would not hesitate for a minute to try it out. So why not try pointing? At some point, there is almost no amount of information from a shooting forum that will be capable of removing all doubt from the minds of those that might be skeptical about bullet pointing. You simply have to try it yourself and see whether it is worth the effort in your hands.
At that point, if you can find someone that owns a pointing die that is willing to let you try it out, you can at least convince yourself quite easily that pointing improves BC, simply by comparing pointed to unpointed bullets and your required elevation adjustments for each at some distance of 300 yd or greater. That way, you won't be out the price of the die and inserts if you find out that pointing isn't for you. The potential effect on grouping/precision will be more difficult to quantify, but I suspect most will be convinced it is worth getting their own pointing die after they observed the effect of pointing on BC firsthand.
Whether you believe in the value of pointing bullets or not, one thing is certain: at least some of your competitors will be pointing theirs.
I view the pointing process as primarily having two potentially beneficial, but distinct effects, which I will address separately.
1) BC improvement
2) Grouping consistency
The first of these is easy to demonstrate. At a distance of as little as 300 yd, pointed bullets can be shown to require less elevation to center a group on the target as compared to unpointed bullets. The most straightforward explanation for this is that pointing improves BC. The gains are typically modest, perhaps 3-5%, or so. The magnitude of the effect largely depends on the diameter of the meplat relative to the bullet caliber. The larger the meplat is proportionally, the greater the BC benefit you will generally observe after pointing. The take-home message here is that if you have improved the BC, you have also decreased wind deflection, even if by only a small amount. Over time, it is reasonable to conclude that decreased wind deflection will result in an improvement of scores. For example, a "9" just barely outside the "10-ring" with unpointed bullets might well have nicked the ring for a "10" if the bullets had been pointed. In any given match, how many "9s" you shoot that are very close to the "10-ring" may be a good indicator of the potential for bullet pointing to affect your score.
The second effect is the one that seems to vary more widely among those that point bullets. Some, like myself, have observed a noticeable improvement. Some have observed little to no effect, and some have even observed that groups became larger, particularly in terms of vertical at long range. It is difficult at best to compare different people's results because you typically cannot know exactly how they pointed their bullets, or what else they may have done in addition to pointing that could have affected the output. For example, I length-sort prior to pointing. I do this solely to sort bullets by OAL, such that I don't have to constantly adjust the pointing die micrometer while pointing bullets from a single length group. Because I never intended to use OAL sorting by itself, I have never tested its sole effect (if any) on unpointed bullets. It may well have some contribution to better grouping in a manner analogous to BTO sorting or the use of Bob Green's comparator tool.
The pointing process I use and would suggest to others that might wish to try it out is as follows:
1) Length-sort (OAL) unpointed bullets from a single Lot# into groups of approximately 0.0015".
I have found through testing and when setting the micrometer for the first time with a new Lot of bullets that I have to adjust the pointing die micrometer by at least 3 to 4 thousandths (or more) with a single bullet to visually detect a difference in the point. Length groups of 1.5 thousandths are therefore probably sufficiently small enough that a single micrometer setting can be used for all the bullets in that length group. You could even sort to .001" length groups, if desired. I routinely obtain from 6-8 length groups out of a typical Lot of Bergers. There will usually be a few extreme outliers in the shortest and longest length groups that fall outside the 0.0015" window. By eye, there is usually a Gaussian distribution of bullets, with the middle group(s) having the most, less toward the extremes. I usually only use the few bullets from either the shortest/longest length groups as foulers, but you could always re-sort them by OAL if you ended up with enough in either group to use in a match.
2) Point the bullets in the pointing die with the appropriate die insert, such that you are closing the meplat by about 50-75%.
It is not necessary to close the tips by 90-100% to increase the BC, and cthis an even be undesirable in that you will start to create a "bulge" behind the point if you close the meplats too much, which defeats the purpose of pointing.
To set the pointing die (I use the Whidden die), adjust the micrometer long so the insert doesn't contact the bullet as assessed by a gentle stroke of the ram. This is just so you don't accidentally "crush" a bullet of the die is set too short. Then adjust the micrometer down in small increments until the insert barely makes contact with the bullet nose. You will feel a distinct "touch" and slight pressure once the insert actually starts to contact the bullet and die lever starts to cam over. Continue to adjust the die micrometer down until the bullet meplats are closed by about 50-75% as compared to an unpointed bullet. Record the pointing die micrometer setting! From this point onward, you can simply adjust the micrometer by .002" increments between different bullet OAL length groups, making only a slight adjustment if necessary.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Next, I will touch on a couple other issues as outlined by cdparker above. If you look at the numbers I gave above, you will see that for the Berger bullets I am using, the majority of bullets within a given Lot# fall into an OAL range of about .015" or so. As you may have noticed, I do not trim meplats prior to pointing. This is for several reasons. First and foremost, I experimented with trimming early on and was never really happy with the appearance of the points afterward. Second, it's extra work that IMO, is of questionable benefit. Here's why:
Some people that trim before pointing will sort bullets by OAL to find the shortest, then trim them all to that length. However, if bullet OAL within a given Lot# varies by as much as .015" or more before trimming, you will not only be removing a different weight of material from bullets of different OAL, you will also end up with trimmed meplats that do not have the same diameter prior to pointing. In my hands, I could easily detect a visual difference between such bullets after pointing, which bothered me. Although I have never actually weighed bullets before/after trimming, my guess is that you're not removing enough material to markedly change the overall weight. That may or may not be correct. Nonetheless, the idea that the weight might be different bothered me. In addition, most of us have probably seen some rather ragged looking meplats, where the one side was noticeable higher than the other. That is one of the reasons some people like to trim before pointing. However, the ragged material around the meplat becomes less and less of a potential variance problem the closer and closer the pointing die pushes it in toward the axis of rotation. In theory, the magnitude of the meplat variance effect asymptotically approaches zero as it nears the axis of rotation. For that reason, I choose not to trim bullets prior to pointing. It's easier and faster, and I am not certain the trimming process provides a statistically significant improvement in performance.
Nonetheless, if you want to trim before pointing, I would suggest you length-sort first, as outlined above. It's very simple to do this with calipers; I can easily length-sort several hundred bullets in an hour watching TV - it's no biggie. By length-sorting first, then trimming, you will minimize or eliminate both the potential weight removal and meplat diameter issues I described above.
As far as weight-sorting bullets, I do this on occasion for important matches. Because I do not trim bullets prior to pointing, I can sort them by weight either before or after pointing; it doesn't really matter. If you decide to trim before pointing, then you might want to wait until after pointing to sort the bullets by weight, or at least do it that way the first few times until you can convince yourself one way or the other whether trimming significantly affects the relative weights.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In the end, I view bullet pointing as an analogous process to weighing powder to the kernel. There is currently an ongoing thread about weighing powder to the kernel and whether it is a necessary approach, or a waste of time. As you might expect, the arguments cover a broad spectrum. It is not easy to prove one way or the other that weighing powder to the kernel has a quantifiable benefit on the target. Nonetheless, a lot of people do it, including myself. If nothing else, you are effectively removing powder weight as a variable from the reloading equation. The peace of mind alone has value, IMO.
Likewise, it is very easy to demonstrate an increase in BC by pointing as I described above. However, it is relatively minor (~3-5%), so it becomes very difficult to rigorously and accurately quantify exactly how many points (if any) the pointing process is actually worth. I believe it has merit; therefore, I do it. I find the skepticism about bullet pointing somewhat surprising, partly because it really does not represent a monumental effort to do it. I am inclined to believe that many of the doubters with regard to bullet pointing, were they to see a new bullet advertised with a 5% better BC than what they were using, would not hesitate for a minute to try it out. So why not try pointing? At some point, there is almost no amount of information from a shooting forum that will be capable of removing all doubt from the minds of those that might be skeptical about bullet pointing. You simply have to try it yourself and see whether it is worth the effort in your hands.
At that point, if you can find someone that owns a pointing die that is willing to let you try it out, you can at least convince yourself quite easily that pointing improves BC, simply by comparing pointed to unpointed bullets and your required elevation adjustments for each at some distance of 300 yd or greater. That way, you won't be out the price of the die and inserts if you find out that pointing isn't for you. The potential effect on grouping/precision will be more difficult to quantify, but I suspect most will be convinced it is worth getting their own pointing die after they observed the effect of pointing on BC firsthand.
Whether you believe in the value of pointing bullets or not, one thing is certain: at least some of your competitors will be pointing theirs.
Last edited:
Most things that enhance accuracy require work and time, Like trimming and pointing and weighing powder to +- .01 or better. Most write it off as unnecessary, but things proved out over the years dropped 7" groups at 1000 to 2". If you are going to spend the money to go to the match and shoot might as well do it right, then all you need to worry about is the wind..... jim
Sure would be nice to see some empirical data on the before & after affects of bullet pointing. Folks mention things like “their testing and experience” but I’d like to see some numbers from the testing. I do believe these small parameters make a difference but that is just a learned gut feel from working new missile designs and such. Thanks for your efforts and insight.
Ned,
What I wrote my post for was to ask questions for "others". I do use a Whidden pointer. Have been for several years. I guess what I wanted to do was make folks aware of the larger elements in this game that we play. I see that actually firing the shot is the most important element. Be honest with ourselves, did you actually fire twenty perfect shots? Consider your grip, your hold for perfectly consistent recoil management against your shoulder, trigger actuation and follow through. Was your sight picture focused on the center of the cross hair of your scope or were you guilty of "bull gazing"? Was your hold perfectly still? Did you place your shot exactly where you wanted to have the target come up with a center X? I think that this of greater importance than trimming or pointing. Like I did say though, I do weigh, measure and point.
Jim,
I know of what you speak about going to a match far away. In 2011 my shooting buddy Abe Klavan and I drove to the March Madness matches. Seven days of driving-one way. Abe since has passed away and I have not had the desire to try that by myself again. Besides, old age and treating a Staph infection in my replacement knee has severely hampered my travelling.
Craig
What I wrote my post for was to ask questions for "others". I do use a Whidden pointer. Have been for several years. I guess what I wanted to do was make folks aware of the larger elements in this game that we play. I see that actually firing the shot is the most important element. Be honest with ourselves, did you actually fire twenty perfect shots? Consider your grip, your hold for perfectly consistent recoil management against your shoulder, trigger actuation and follow through. Was your sight picture focused on the center of the cross hair of your scope or were you guilty of "bull gazing"? Was your hold perfectly still? Did you place your shot exactly where you wanted to have the target come up with a center X? I think that this of greater importance than trimming or pointing. Like I did say though, I do weigh, measure and point.
Jim,
I know of what you speak about going to a match far away. In 2011 my shooting buddy Abe Klavan and I drove to the March Madness matches. Seven days of driving-one way. Abe since has passed away and I have not had the desire to try that by myself again. Besides, old age and treating a Staph infection in my replacement knee has severely hampered my travelling.
Craig
Last edited:
You guys have my brain spinning now. I have never pointed bullets but found this thread packed with ideas and theories. First of all, I want to state that I am not on the level with you people as far as the F class etc. I struggle with reading the wind and deviating from my routine, my stone to bear. I have a question: If pointing bullets is beneficial, then are the tipped bullets like the tipped SMK or the Hornady ELD's desirable / superior ? And if available in the calibre and weight required, are many or any of you using them with success?
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
Essentially, plastic-tipped bullets are more or less similar to pointed bullets, or some bullet brands that come from the manufacturer already pointed (but not plastic-tipped). Like pointed bullets, the tips are advertised to improve BC over a typical un-modified meplat. Note that you cannot realistically do anything to gain more BC from either tipped bullets, or those already pointed by the manufacturer. The trade-off is that you don't have to point them yourself. This is also important when comparing BCs of different bullets. The increase in BC you can obtain by pointing bullets yourself is usually in the 3% to 5% range. If you're pointing your own, you'll want to increase their box BC value by that amount in order to compare BCs directly with tipped or factory-pointed bullets.
Whether tipped/pointed bullets from various manufacturers are as good or better than other brands like Berger that don't come pointed...well, you'll have to decide that yourself. There is no correct/incorrect answer. Like any brand of bullet known to man, if you're happy with the price, the box BC is satisfactory, and you can get them to shoot consistently at an acceptable level of precision, you should be GTG. You might find some useful load info online from people using a specific bullet, but the only way to really know for sure how they'll work in your hands is to do a load workup in your specific setup.
Whether tipped/pointed bullets from various manufacturers are as good or better than other brands like Berger that don't come pointed...well, you'll have to decide that yourself. There is no correct/incorrect answer. Like any brand of bullet known to man, if you're happy with the price, the box BC is satisfactory, and you can get them to shoot consistently at an acceptable level of precision, you should be GTG. You might find some useful load info online from people using a specific bullet, but the only way to really know for sure how they'll work in your hands is to do a load workup in your specific setup.
After reading the last few posts, maybe I can shed a little light on a couple of different questions. First, in relation to trimming/re-pointing factory pointed bullets.
I have one of the original Whidden dies and it has seen a LOT of use over the years.
BTW, I'm a sling & coat shooter but strive to achieve the level of consistency and accuracy of the BR crowd.
I am currently shooting SMK's in 6mm, 6.5mm and 7mm, and will be referencing these bullets below.
I have found that the heavy for caliber bullets exhibit more OAL and length/weight variation than the same caliber bullets that are of a lighter weight. I've never made a bullet, so I'll assume this variation is inherent to the drawing of such a long for caliber bullet jacket.
I try and buy enough bullets when I put on a new barrel, to last the life of the barrel. I take a sampling of those bullets to find the shortest one. I then set up my trimmer to trim to that length -.001. I'll then set up my pointing die and point them all to the same length and point closure. I have found this procedure to work well for a number of years but I'm never to old to listen to different methods.
If during the trimming process, I find a couple that were shorter than my sampling, I put them in fouler pile. I have found that once the bullets are trimmed to an equal length, the weight variation practically disappears, which would suggest that in the bullets I'm talking about, the variation is in the jacket.
I reference to elevating differences between out of the box vs trimmed/pointed. I shot a 1,000 yd. match yesterday with my 284 Shehane using the 183 SMK bullets. This rifle is one of the most repeatable elevation rifles I have ever owned. I put 24.5 moa up from a 100 yd. -0- and it stays centered up within .25 moa all day at a variety of ranges/elevations. Yesterday I was a full MOA flatter with the same load/velocity with the only difference being the pointing. I have duplicated these results enough times to rule out other variables such as weather conditions.
The groups were very tight all day assuming I did my part and was rewarded with a new personal best.
Lastly, I have found no benefit to pointing at ranges of 600 yds. and closer. I'm sure they exist, I just haven't seen them.
I hope this helps,
Lloyd
I have one of the original Whidden dies and it has seen a LOT of use over the years.
BTW, I'm a sling & coat shooter but strive to achieve the level of consistency and accuracy of the BR crowd.
I am currently shooting SMK's in 6mm, 6.5mm and 7mm, and will be referencing these bullets below.
I have found that the heavy for caliber bullets exhibit more OAL and length/weight variation than the same caliber bullets that are of a lighter weight. I've never made a bullet, so I'll assume this variation is inherent to the drawing of such a long for caliber bullet jacket.
I try and buy enough bullets when I put on a new barrel, to last the life of the barrel. I take a sampling of those bullets to find the shortest one. I then set up my trimmer to trim to that length -.001. I'll then set up my pointing die and point them all to the same length and point closure. I have found this procedure to work well for a number of years but I'm never to old to listen to different methods.
If during the trimming process, I find a couple that were shorter than my sampling, I put them in fouler pile. I have found that once the bullets are trimmed to an equal length, the weight variation practically disappears, which would suggest that in the bullets I'm talking about, the variation is in the jacket.
I reference to elevating differences between out of the box vs trimmed/pointed. I shot a 1,000 yd. match yesterday with my 284 Shehane using the 183 SMK bullets. This rifle is one of the most repeatable elevation rifles I have ever owned. I put 24.5 moa up from a 100 yd. -0- and it stays centered up within .25 moa all day at a variety of ranges/elevations. Yesterday I was a full MOA flatter with the same load/velocity with the only difference being the pointing. I have duplicated these results enough times to rule out other variables such as weather conditions.
The groups were very tight all day assuming I did my part and was rewarded with a new personal best.
Lastly, I have found no benefit to pointing at ranges of 600 yds. and closer. I'm sure they exist, I just haven't seen them.
I hope this helps,
Lloyd
Just my experience
I’ve found the smaller the caliber the greater the effect bullet pointing has. I believe this is due to the size of the melpat. The meplat is larger in ratio to caliber. So, you’ll see a greater % increase in BC in say a 223 caliber bullet than a 30 caliber. How much increase is the question. The only way to know if this is true is to shoot both pointed and non pointed bullets in your rifle.
Word of caution. Over pointing, closing the meplat, will do more damage than good. If you over point the bullet you’ll get some real squirley results at long range.
I’ve found the smaller the caliber the greater the effect bullet pointing has. I believe this is due to the size of the melpat. The meplat is larger in ratio to caliber. So, you’ll see a greater % increase in BC in say a 223 caliber bullet than a 30 caliber. How much increase is the question. The only way to know if this is true is to shoot both pointed and non pointed bullets in your rifle.
Word of caution. Over pointing, closing the meplat, will do more damage than good. If you over point the bullet you’ll get some real squirley results at long range.
Come and visit me and look on the wall and boxes of wood.. You had better believe it works if done correctly... jim
Just what I thought … no data to back up claims. I'm not saying these things don't or aren't worth the effort. Just want to see some data for what each reloading process brings to the table. Trophies and such don't tell a story of what the impact of bullet pointing was/is or even if that made a difference.
dcali
Bullet Maker
There is tons of data on meplat geometry. There’s a good bit in a couple of Litz’s books and much, much more that was done by the various government entities over the last 100 years. Pointing a bullet is an operation that is highly dependent on the exact bullet and the method used, so you’re going to hear a lot of “test it”. It may or may not help, and it can definitely hurt, depending on the specifics.
Why don't you admit you are trying to justify not doing something because you are too lazy.... I do have a book I kept with the testing I have done, Jim Hardy did alot also with Ferris Pindell..... jim
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.