• 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.

Calculation of Bullet Drop/ Various Models

Thauglor said:
Here is your 100gr bullet and a 108gr scenar. What is the actual BC or your bullet so we can compare wind effects? And how come we dont see the 40% improvement in range you claim?

View attachment 1566570
View attachment 1566571
Click to expand...
I got to say. Having all of y'all running trajectory comparisons is just like one of my classes. It makes me happy.

You might want to compare the 100 grain 6.5mm Scenar for a better comparison. Bullet weight covers a multitude of aerodynamic sins. A bowing ball at Mach 3 will still have a good bit of it's velocity at 1000 yards.

The range increase is for the 30 caliber aerospike fired from a 300 blackout. The blackout launches the bullet right in the sweet spot of the aerospike base and it has a big advantage over boattails. Pick a ~150 grain 30 caliber and compare it to the datasheet curves for the aerospike. You will see the numbers that I was speaking of.
 
HappyHellfire said:
I got to say. Having all of y'all running trajectory comparisons is just like one of my classes. It makes me happy.

You might want to compare the 100 grain 6.5mm Scenar for a better comparison. Bullet weight covers a multitude of aerodynamic sins. A bowing ball at Mach 3 will still have a good bit of it's velocity at 1000 yards.

The range increase is for the 30 caliber aerospike fired from a 300 blackout. The blackout launches the bullet right in the sweet spot of the aerospike base and it has a big advantage over boattails. Pick a ~150 grain 30 caliber and compare it to the datasheet curves for the aerospike. You will see the numbers that I was speaking of.
Click to expand...
You mean like this? Post 79

Why is it called a "Boattail"?

Reminds me of the other hot thread on here titled “not a hunter”. OP is a non-hunter making outlandish comments and statements about hunting when he really doesn’t have any experience with hunting at all. Here it appears we have an engineer designing bullets with no shooting experience. I run...
forum.accurateshooter.com
 
Your thinking that one bullet that weights 100gr is going to have the same B.C.
as another is far from correct. ( composition, length and shape will affect it )
An all copper monolithic bullet to achieve the same weight is considerably longer
to get close to the same B.C. as a lead core bullet. Now that you have a longer bullet, you'll
need to spin it faster to get it to stabilize.
 
Thauglor said:
What is the actual BC or your bullet
Click to expand...
That might be a problem right there. I’m not sure if he directly stated it or if he might have but his bullet might not fit any of the commonly used drag models very well.

Years ago there was an article in Precision Shooting by an aerodynamics engineer that worked on the space shuttle fuel tank re-entry trajectory. The article was “Why BC is BS”. BC is great for most of our quick and dirty purposes but it isn’t the be all end all. Applied Ballistics offering up personal drag models is a step in the right direction.

@HappyHellfire how closely or not does your design fit any of the common drag models? Would it match one of the drag models close enough to be useful in our ballistic apps using a BC value for your bullets?

Edit: I just now skimmed your previous post. I’ll go back to it later with more time to see if it answers any of my questions.
 
Last edited:
WSnyder said:
That might be a problem right there. I’m not sure if he directly stated it or if he might have but his bullet might not fit any of the commonly used drag models very well.

Years ago there was an article in Precision Shooting by an aerodynamics engineer that worked on the space shuttle fuel tank re-entry trajectory. The article was “Why BC is BS”. BC is great for most of our quick and dirty purposes but it isn’t the be all end all. Applied Ballistics offering up personal drag models is a step in the right direction.

@HappyHellfire how closely or not does your design fit any of the common drag models? Would it match one of the drag models close enough to be useful in our ballistic apps using a BC value for your bullets?

Edit: I just now skimmed your previous post. I’ll go back to it later with more time to see if it answers any of my questions.
Click to expand...

You just nailed the problem right on the head. If I gave y'all a BC value you would go to your ballistic computers and see no improvement at all and I would be ignored. By refusing to give a BC value I am getting people to see the difference and run the numbers.

I know I come across as a naïve noobie but I have been studying ballistics for over 25 years. I have calculated the trajectory of bullets fired into space. I have calculated the ballistics on the newest guided projectiles. I have calculated the ballistic tables for many of the existing navy gun systems. Hell, I have calculated the trajectory of a manhole cover that was fired into the Sun. I have worked with grumpy gun technicians and marksmen for most of that. I had to introduce my bullets in a way that made y'all realize for yourself the differences. I think it is going pretty well.
 
WSnyder said:
That might be a problem right there. I’m not sure if he directly stated it or if he might have but his bullet might not fit any of the commonly used drag models very well.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day you can still calculate a BC to compare it to. Will it be perfect no but at least you can compare it. That is why the g7 BC was developed, but you can still use g1 or g7 on current bullets. To say his bullet is so far from the design the current calculators can't use it bullshit, its still a bullet with a little longer boat tail.

Here is your 100 gr scenar, so tell me what does your bullet do at over twice the cost that a myriad of other bullets do. 100gr scenar, same performance as your improved bullets, again total bullshit on your claims
Screenshot_20240625_175749_Chrome.jpg
 
HappyHellfire said:
You just nailed the problem right on the head. If I gave y'all a BC value you would go to your ballistic computers and see no improvement at all and I would be ignored. By refusing to give a BC value I am getting people to see the difference and run the numbers.
Click to expand...

How convenient for you that nothing will work to compare it to while you sell you wares, and we have only your word to take for it. It's the perfect item to sell for a snakeoil salesman

A g7 or g1 BC can still be calculated and given, if only for a certain range of speeds, say 2000 to 2500 fps. That will be enough for the regular calculators to work and compare out to 400/500 yards.
 
Last edited:
Thauglor said:
At the end of the day you can still calculate a BC to compare it to. Will it be perfect no but at least you can compare it. That is why the g7 BC was developed, but you can still use g1 or g7 on current bullets. To say his bullet is so far from the design the current calculators can't use it bullshit, its still a bullet with a little longer boat tail.

Here is your 100 gr scenar, so tell me what does your bullet do at over twice the cost that a myriad of other bullets do. 100gr scenar, same performance as your improved bullets, again total bullshit on your claims
View attachment 1566588
Click to expand...
You're almost there. You added a tailwind to artificially increase the muzzle velocity. Fix that and rerun.
 
HappyHellfire said:
You just nailed the problem right on the head. If I gave y'all a BC value you would go to your ballistic computers and see no improvement at all and I would be ignored. By refusing to give a BC value I am getting people to see the difference and run the numbers.
Click to expand...
Awesome! I figured as much.

That PS article I referenced was great. It’s stuck with me all of these years. With the digital scans of the magazine becoming available I’ll see if I can find it and reference it back here.

I’m not sure if you know but Applied Ballistics has a mobile lab that they drag around the country. They’ll do personal drag models for you that you can plug back into their ballistics software.
 
Ranger188 said:
Your thinking that one bullet that weights 100gr is going to have the same B.C.
as another is far from correct. ( composition, length and shape will affect it )
An all copper monolithic bullet to achieve the same weight is considerably longer
to get close to the same B.C. as a lead core bullet. Now that you have a longer bullet, you'll
need to spin it faster to get it to stabilize.
Click to expand...
No but he is claiming superior performance from his 100gr bullet, i just gave you a comparison against a current 100gr bullet at less than half the cost. His has no improvement, and that is with him using his "calculator" for his results.

This is a researcher that doesn't know how the real world word works so can only try to woo people with his title and some math here and there. He is succeeding
 
WSnyder said:
Awesome! I figured as much.

That PS article I referenced was great. It’s stuck with me all of these years. With the digital scans of the magazine becoming available I’ll see if I can find it and reference it back here.

I’m not sure if you know but Applied Ballistics has a mobile lab that they drag around the country. They’ll do personal drag models for you that you can plug back into their ballistics software.
Click to expand...
That radar costs $250k. I had one at dahlgren. It's on my Christmas wishlist.
 
I use [Shooter] with the powder temp turned off. I've tried it with the powder temp on and it isn't even close. All in all I've had good luck with it, it was spot on with my 6br at 895 yards a few days ago.
 
I've been on this site since 2015 and I don't believe I've ever seen a member being belittled like the Dr. I don't believe even Guffy took as much criticism Now he is even being called names. If you don't like what he is doing then that's OK, just move on to another thread.
 
Murray Brook said:
I've been on this site since 2015 and I don't believe I've ever seen a member being belittled like the Dr. I don't believe even Guffy took as much criticism Now he is even being called names. If you don't like what he is doing then that's OK, just move on to another thread.
Click to expand...
Yea I agree with you but in my opinion this dude is going about getting his bullet out there in the wrong manner.
 
As Bill stated and I thought the same thing.
If he came on here saying he wanted to test a new bullet design and wanted some top shooters to test it out in real world conditions and provide their feedback, then it would have been a much different thread.
But instead, you know what transpired. Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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.

Classified Ads

Forum statistics

Threads
164,856
Messages
2,185,620
Members
78,561
Latest member
Ebupp

Share This Page

Back
Top