Hornady DVRT ?

[SteveOak]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[Doom]

Exactly....why not just close up/flatten hp tips instead of putting a flat poly tip on them.

I think Sierra did close the tip on the 308 169 and 177 gr Matchkings.

 

[CJ6]

I think Sierra did close the tip on the 308 169 and 177 gr Matchkings.

But the new Hornady bullets are flattened, so why not eliminate the the tip and flatten the nose using a slightly longer jacket. No poly tips needed.

 

[Doom]

But the new Hornady bullets are flattened, so why not eliminate the the tip and flatten the nose using a slightly longer jacket. No poly tips needed.

You would have to ask Hornady that question but I suspect that it's fairly complicated to draw the jacket from the base and close the tip. Having something to machine would be even more of a problem as the jacket is very thin. I can assure you that cost is a driving factor.

 

[jelenko]

You would have to ask Hornady that question but I suspect that it's fairly complicated to draw the jacket from the base and close the tip. Having something to machine would be even more of a problem as the jacket is very thin. I can assure you that cost is a driving factor.

Also, it would seem that using a lighter weight material at the tip enables a longer shape with less total weight => better BC at a lower weight [i.e., higher velocity].

On the cost consideration, I wonder how much it costs to secure that plastic tip vs just grinding? Note: I have no idea if grinding would work without damaging the jacket/shape. At the same time, Hornady has already made the investment for a bunch of equipment to make and place a plastic tip.

 

[searcher]

Hornady puts out a fine product line and prices are decent, compared to others. They work well and are available when others are not, more often.
As for the tipping, How much does it really vary ? And if there is not something to the tip design, why do Whidden and some put out a tipping die to improve the tip of your bullet ?
It is more than just marketing, I feel.

Years ago, when I shot a lot of 600+ yard targets with my 6 BR and Dasher, I experimented with a lot of bullet techniques, such as pointing and leveling the meplats to have a small flat. I obtained increased accuracy with noted less vertical in my rifles. The tips of the Hornady bullet seem that the flat is large enough to increase drag - but I'm just guessing and don't have the equipment they do to test their bullets. Their idea does make sense - but to appeal to serious target shooters, they will first have to have a bullet capable of fantastic "bench rest" accuracy to start with - something they have not yet done. The benefits to most hunters, I think, will be somewhat negligible to all but the most extreme long-range hunters. One has been able to flatten the meplats on great target bullet (or hunting bullets) for a long time now - so I see this as a bit more of a marketing "gimmick" unless their new bullet is truly a better bullet all the way around. Will be interesting to see how they perform. I don't knock them for identifying what benchrest and f-class shooters have known for a long time - but they have to make a better bullet in my opinion.

 

[SeabeeKen]

My box of 76 gr 6mm Norma tipstrike already has the flat meplat. Hornady may be a bit late to this

 

[moondog]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Exactly! The Meplats on my Berger 300 grain OTMs are SO bad, and to a lesser extent, the 215s. I do point and trim those for consistency. I've tested both ways, and see an improvement at distance ->1500
I've also seen where over pointing causes a drastically worse outcome probably by creating a slight bulge. I've wanted to test just trimming vs pointing and trimming at some point (no pun intended). My Berger 220s look to be factory pointed btw.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

This has been hashed out by LR BR shooters for years now. Pointy is not always better, but in rare cases it is. You have got to test how much you point or trim on target at distance. And the recipe will change if you change lots of bullets. This is why Im not a fan or factory pointed bullets. You dont know how much to point them unless you test each lot. Now if I had to guess, Id go with less point every time.

 

[DocBII]

Good day,

Three points determine the curve, so the gains from being consistent everywhere else on the bullet show up on the overall form. Sort by OGL, trim to a consistent length, point to keep meplat diameter small (approximately 0.020 or slightly smaller) for the bullet.

Whidden has expressed warnings about over-pointing bullets since he released his dies. Buying in large lots (500) or greater improves the consistency of reloading by improving lot sizes.

Second Alex on factory pointed bullets, they probably haven't been through a process to sort by OGL. Lapua and Bergers included.

HTH,
DocBII

 

[Coyotefurharvester]

Often you see "blems" for sale, poly tip deformation is a common blemish. The blemish would probably be mold release issue or damage when seating the tip. I would think a mold shape less pointy is better and a blunt tip would reduce visual damage(quality control) to the bullet during tip seating qc operations. In order to "sell" changes to a bullet design that reduced qc issues(makes production lines more efficient) you need data that supports the change(for consumers). Although a percentage of shooters would understand(like) the information about increased production and a REDUCED price from reduced waste(blems).

 

[divingin]

I do know that when trying to break the sound barrier without high power to weight ratios we have today, it was critical to make the Bell X-1 nose extremely pointed, and that even today all supersonic planes are virtually needle nosed, as are fast subsonic planes that advertise fuel economy.

Here's another thing to consider though: most aircraft spend a majority of their time below Mach 1 (largely for fuel considerations.) With the exception of, say, the SST or the SR-71 (both designed a long time ago), supersonic considerations are, at least to large degree, outweighed by the subsonic performance requirements. Most aircraft also have a radar system to stick up front, that a bullet doesn't have. In any case, the X-1 is not the best example to use; it was the initial foray into supersonic flight and they were guessing on requirements needed and what was going to happen.

Bullets are different in that we're concerned with supersonic performance, with no added thrust. Basically, we're trying to bleed off as little energy as possible to stay above the supersonic threshold. While the goals may be similar, I don't think they're identical.

And to throw in another comparison to add to the confusion, look at the evolution of Formula One or Indy car nose shapes over the years. Used to be that a sharp edge nose was the norm; nowadays that's evolved into a more rounded shape (though these are also subsonic, so also make for a poor comparison to bullets - I'm using it as a counter-intuitive example.)

So what's best? I have no idea. I'll let the designers and engineers figure that out and use what works best for my goals. I will say that computer modeling in the past couple/few decades has made that design and engineering part much more efficient than the build and test method though.