You know this is easy to test. Shot 5 shots pointed verses 5 unpointed at 1000 yards. Color the bullets so you know which are which and shoot round robin like a BR Match. The difference will show. Matt
Bullet Pointing
- Thread starter rwj
- Start date
rwj
Gold $$ Contributor
Yup... the POI rise was noticeable at only 300 yards for me. Regretfully, I didn’t observe a decrease in group size which was my initial motivation. But after learning more from the replies, I’m going to point more differently and try again.
Mixing it up with every other shot, one pointed one not. Then you cant argue with the condition from the first 5 to the second 5
Jim ... I’m just trying to learn something here. I am nowhere near the shooter level that You and others here are. Even if I attempted to point bullets I wouldn’t be able to tell a difference on target that I could attribute to pointing. You say you have a record of your loading. Do you happen to have any before/after data that shows your pullet pointing efforts? I apologize if I come off a little snarky at times. My past daily interactions with engineers tends to show up at times. In our development world, hard data trumps estimates and theories hands down. One of my interests for up-to-date hard data is too see if current design bullets have incorporated items learned maybe just 3-4 years ago. Maybe bullet pointing of today’s bullets may not reap the results it did when the people you mention did their testing. It takes a better shooter (and rifle/rests) than I to do the pointing and shooting. Thanks again for your efforts and replies.
Bullet pointing is a touchy thing. It works better on some bullets and or calibers then it does on others. The thing that a person has to be careful in is overpointing them to the point where you change the actual bullet. Meaning the bearing length. In other words if there is a 3 to 5 percent gain, the last bit of closing may change the bullet dimensions for very little extra gain. It improves the BC, which in turn makes less drop and wind drift. It also helps at farther distances, more then close up.
It is something you have to test in your gun because results vary with different bullets. Some show way more gain then others. Like i said before if you load 5 bullets pointed and five bullets unpointed (color them so you can tell the difference) and shoot them round robin at 1000 yards like a BR Match, the difference in elevation and wind drift becomes apparent. If it drifts less and drops less, the BC was improved. Matt
Here is some test data I gathered a while back. I make a "recipe" sheet for each test session. This is an excerpt from the notes which will explain how the test was conducted. Shooting was from a bench at a range of 200 yards, the greatest distance offered at my local public range. NOTE: "Chamfering" in this instance does NOT refer to chamfering the case neck. Rather it refers to using a tiny chamfering cutter used after meplat pointing to cut a tiny counter bore on the very tip of the bullet. As those who point bullets already know, the pointing die can produce a tip reduced in size and more pointed but often produces a bullet with a distorted shape at the very tip, especially if the factory tip isn't very uniform. The tiny chamfering die cleans up any distortion on the tip and makes the bullets more uniform and better looking while still retaining the pointed shape.
I brought the targets home, scanned them, and measured them using On Target Software which plots the bullet holes very accurately and calculates the results with great precision.
Here are my loading notes:
POINTING DIE TEST. Loaded 100 rounds of Berger Hybrid 105gr bullets with 29.00gr IMR 4895. Four round robin groups to test 5-shot groups at five different configurations; Factory meplat (Control), Trimmed, Pointed, Trimmed & Pointed, Trimmed Chamfered and Pointed (TCP). Each round robin test uses a different sequence for testing @ 200 yards with cleaning and 5 shot fouling rounds between each sequence. Uniformed Lapua Match fire-formed brass was neck sized with a .266" bushing, then wet SS tumbled, annealed, and a mandrel expanded the neck to provide .001" tension and uniform roundness just prior to priming. Powder charge was weighed to exactly 29.10 gr on a digital scale with a resolution of 0.02gr. Bullet seating force was moderately light and uniform.
RESULTS: Mixed results. The trimmed, chamfered, and pointed bullets (TCP) are the clear winner. What is less clear is why the pointed or the trimmed bullets didn't do better.
This is a chart of each treatment showing the vertical displacement from the aim point. NOTE: The aim point was set (by adjusting my scope) at 1.5MOA higher than the intended POI to avoid shooting out my aim point. In other words, -1.5 MOA is the intended point of impact. Better BC would be expected to result in a higher POI on the target (less drop) and it looks like the trimmed, chamfered, and pointed versions did best in these tests (less negative is better).
Below is a chart of the Average MOA, Average Mean Radius, and Average Group Height for each treatment. Although the TCP versions didn't product the lowest vertical dispersion, they did win when it comes to MOA and essentially tied with the Trimmed version for best Mean Radius (smaller is better)
All together, the data shows that, on average, the fully treated bullets come out best; i.e. TCP. The actual sequence is trimming, then pointing, finally chamfering. Less negative numbers indicate the bullets hitting higher on the target.
I brought the targets home, scanned them, and measured them using On Target Software which plots the bullet holes very accurately and calculates the results with great precision.
Here are my loading notes:
POINTING DIE TEST. Loaded 100 rounds of Berger Hybrid 105gr bullets with 29.00gr IMR 4895. Four round robin groups to test 5-shot groups at five different configurations; Factory meplat (Control), Trimmed, Pointed, Trimmed & Pointed, Trimmed Chamfered and Pointed (TCP). Each round robin test uses a different sequence for testing @ 200 yards with cleaning and 5 shot fouling rounds between each sequence. Uniformed Lapua Match fire-formed brass was neck sized with a .266" bushing, then wet SS tumbled, annealed, and a mandrel expanded the neck to provide .001" tension and uniform roundness just prior to priming. Powder charge was weighed to exactly 29.10 gr on a digital scale with a resolution of 0.02gr. Bullet seating force was moderately light and uniform.
RESULTS: Mixed results. The trimmed, chamfered, and pointed bullets (TCP) are the clear winner. What is less clear is why the pointed or the trimmed bullets didn't do better.
This is a chart of each treatment showing the vertical displacement from the aim point. NOTE: The aim point was set (by adjusting my scope) at 1.5MOA higher than the intended POI to avoid shooting out my aim point. In other words, -1.5 MOA is the intended point of impact. Better BC would be expected to result in a higher POI on the target (less drop) and it looks like the trimmed, chamfered, and pointed versions did best in these tests (less negative is better).
Below is a chart of the Average MOA, Average Mean Radius, and Average Group Height for each treatment. Although the TCP versions didn't product the lowest vertical dispersion, they did win when it comes to MOA and essentially tied with the Trimmed version for best Mean Radius (smaller is better)
All together, the data shows that, on average, the fully treated bullets come out best; i.e. TCP. The actual sequence is trimming, then pointing, finally chamfering. Less negative numbers indicate the bullets hitting higher on the target.
Mozella ... Great post! Pretty well shows pointing bullets does/can help. Just depends which process steps are utilized (and probably how well and consistently those steps are performed). The results are for this event only but support the assertion that bullet pointing, properly applied, is a good thing. I imagine the results would be more profound at greater distance. I did not go back and reread this complete post but, are there any good video/write-ups on bullet pointing that the folks in the post would recommend? I’m retired with plenty of time on my hands and now feel the investment in the proper tools and procedures would be a benefit. I may not be able to notice the exact effect but I do believe an improvement would be there. Thanks for all y’alls posts and insight on this subject. A great help to/by the board.
Like Matt said is how you see the difference, I can't see how you could determine if pointing helped at 200 yds when your groups will just be a 5 shot hole. If they aren't the equipment isn't up to the level needed to test. At least 600 would be a better evaluation, the groups there should be around an 1" over flags.... Knowing how to point is the biggest factor, and having bullet sorted and worth pointing..... jim
Jim ... why won’t you simply share some of your testing data with the rest of us here. I, for one, am just trying to learn all I can. No secret agenda or doubting Thomas here. I’m sure looking at some of your data would be helpful and should show more detail as it is probably done at 600-1000 yards.
People have asked about my bullet trimming tools so I thought I'd answer in this thread so everyone can view the answer. I use a Montour trimmer which has two cutters. One trims the meplat and then a tiny counter bore tool cleans up the trimmed meplat. Look here:
https://www.montourcountyrifles.com/meplat_uniforming_tool.html
I don't know this for sure, but the Montour device is the only trimmer I know about which has that tiny chamfering tool to counter bore the trimmed meplat.
After trimming and counter boring the meplat, it's ready to be pointed with any of the pointing dies. I use a one-off prototype, but any die will work. Just don't over do it and try to squeeze the meplat down to a needle point. I like to make my bullets look like a more uniform version of the factory shape with a more pointed tip and a tiny version of a well formed "hollow point", but I make sure to set my pointing die so that it won't completely close the meplat. I hope that makes sense.
The 6mm BR forum has a review:
http://www.6mmbr.com/MCRmeplat.html
https://www.montourcountyrifles.com/meplat_uniforming_tool.html
I don't know this for sure, but the Montour device is the only trimmer I know about which has that tiny chamfering tool to counter bore the trimmed meplat.
After trimming and counter boring the meplat, it's ready to be pointed with any of the pointing dies. I use a one-off prototype, but any die will work. Just don't over do it and try to squeeze the meplat down to a needle point. I like to make my bullets look like a more uniform version of the factory shape with a more pointed tip and a tiny version of a well formed "hollow point", but I make sure to set my pointing die so that it won't completely close the meplat. I hope that makes sense.
The 6mm BR forum has a review:
http://www.6mmbr.com/MCRmeplat.html
DaveTooley
Gold $$ Contributor
I have data but I'm not going to dig it out. Just a summary from testing done in 2003. All testing was done with an Oehler 43 with acoustical screens at 300 Yds.
Trimming meplats reduced the BC by 2-3% but showed up to a 50% reduction in the BC spread. Plastic tips were installed in bullets from 22-338. A test I did for Sierra. BC increased 2-4%. As you might expect BC spread was again reduced compared to untrimmed bullets. One test I remember we had 6MM bullets that varied .020" in bearing surface. All from the same box. Variations in the length of the bearing surface showed no significant change in BC. Any slight variations in weight will be lost in the background noise. It just doesn't matter. Go to your favorite ballistics program and change the weight of the bullet and see what it tells you. Now in the same program change the BC #. A .025 change in BC is significant at 1000 yds. I saw up to .040 variation one time. Most BC spreads were in the .020-.030 range. That is significant
In the quest for ultimate accuracy we reach the point of diminishing returns quickly.
Dave, To add to what you have said another thing overlooked is ogive variation. It doesn't matter who made the bullets they all vary checking with a comparator within a lot. does it matter I am sure it does but there is nothing that can be done about it...
DaveTooley
Gold $$ Contributor
Agreed but just how much is the question and can you shoot the difference? Probably not.
If you add up everything that can vary I don't know how in the hell we hit anything at distance.
Thanks again all for your inputs. Jim ... I understand now that your test data is not readily available, no issue here. I have noticed you and Mozella both refer to trimming, chamfering and pointing as the process to follow. All I find on the internet for bullet pointing are bullet pointing tools which seem to address using a press and die to adjust/point (over simplified for brevity on my part). Are you aware of any available written data describing how to trim/chamfer/point and can you point me in the right direction (no pun)? Thanks again.
Mulligan
Silver $$ Contributor
I groundhog hunted and starting shooting far. I was killing hogs at 800 to 1100 farily consistent. Then in 1999 i went to Williamsport to watch. I went there a few times and talked to people. I soon bought a heavy gun and started shooting 1000 yard BR. After shooting at Williamsport for awhile, I wondered how in the HELL I ever hit a groundhog. Matt
Thank you for that - you've answered a question I was about to ask - the nature and source of the counterbore drill. I'm most intrigued by the counter-bore step. It (or rather its absence) might explain why Applied Ballistics chronograph / downrange drag tests (Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting Vol II) fail to produce the previously calculated BC improvements that Bryan Litz sets out in his Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting book.
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.