Nosler RDF Bullets

[DocUSMCRetired]

Doc, Real world result with some of the top shooters in the nation using Kestrel 5700s and AB with your proposed result doesn't add up. We should wait until a thorough test is conducted

I can tell you testing has been completed on some of these. Our results are accurate.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

On a everyday shooter level, without access to a laboratory of machines and radars. I can only calculate a BC for a given round that will work in my "rifle system".

Going out and shooting will give drops that correlate with the SCOPE/BARREL setup. Using that information I can customize any application to give drops that have been derived from actual field testing, in its given "rifle system".

Weather/Wind gives a measure of unreliable results during field shooting when strictly measuring BC of a bullet. However it will give you extremely useful drop data information of a projectile in the parameters of your "rifle system".

At the end of the day each "rifle system" is different from the next. The scope might track differently through a certain portion of the elevation adjustment vs others. Barrel lands and grooves might in-part a certain degree of jacket deformation that another barrel might not. Along with "true Barrel Twist" might degrade stability of a projectile which in-turn degrades BC. This also works in the opposite direction.

At the end of the day going out and shooting YOUR "Load" in your "rifle system" will give you your "BC for a bullet" that works for you.

I hope this makes sense.

I am looking forward to shooting the Nosler RDF 70 22cal bullets, and the 175gr. Using berger stability calculator, a 1/11 is needed for the 175.

I help people on a daily basis that do this, and it fails the next time they go out for a number of reasons. I am not saying it can't work for a shooter, however my daily routine is to help shooters fix their firing solution. The way that works best 9 times out of 10, is when I work with them on a BC that is correct and then adjust from there.

When using the drop method their are 16 variables I have found that can regularly be the culprit. Their are more variables than this, when needed to dive in to deeper details for certain cases. But I have 16 regular items that I use on a daily basis to fix this for shooters, and generally once fixed their numbers are lining up with consistent accuracy over many different shooting scenarios. The reason I bring this up, is simply to show just how complicated getting it right can be.

 

[eric32]

I completely agree with you, this circles back around to the shooter and his rifle system.

I also sent a PM

 

[Berger.Fan222]

The attached table shows one reason why I remain doubtful about accuracy of Nosler's BC numbers. The table is just one example of many instances where reliable sources determine BCs significantly lower than Nosler's claims.
The prudent course is to wait until the Nosler RDF BCs are independently confirmed by reliable sources using reliable methods before putting too much confidence in them. Sure, you could buy a box or two to play with for a new project, but no one should be surprised of the BCs turn out to be 8-10% lower than Nosler is claiming.

It is telling that Nosler is still using the overly optimistic BCs for the Long Range Accubond line. They seem to have very little interest in accurate BCs. I happened to help out a buddy with some testing recently. It turns out the BC of the 190 grain ABLR we measured with the LabRadar is much closer to the one reported by Bryan Litz than the one claimed by Nosler.

 

[jbentham84]

View attachment 994020 The attached table shows one reason why I remain doubtful about accuracy of Nosler's BC numbers. The table is just one example of many instances where reliable sources determine BCs significantly lower than Nosler's claims.
The prudent course is to wait until the Nosler RDF BCs are independently confirmed by reliable sources using reliable methods before putting too much confidence in them. Sure, you could buy a box or two to play with for a new project, but no one should be surprised of the BCs turn out to be 8-10% lower than Nosler is claiming.

It is telling that Nosler is still using the overly optimistic BCs for the Long Range Accubond line. They seem to have very little interest in accurate BCs. I happened to help out a buddy with some testing recently. It turns out the BC of the 190 grain ABLR we measured with the LabRadar is much closer to the one reported by Bryan Litz than the one claimed by Nosler.

I'm one of the shooters who's been testing the RDF's and my independent conclusions line up with Scott, Jake, and Kevin. I shot the NWPRL finale running a .294 BC and had multiple first round hits on many of the targets over 1100 yards. This was over two days of shooting them and 150 rounds fired. I initially started out with a .287 BC and was consistently high on all targets 500+. After increasing the BC to .290, then finally to .294 everything lined up and I dropped 6 shots on day two.

As far as the Accubond LR's we all know Nosler messed up with the BC's on that bullet. We can get over it or not. I'm choosing to move forward because these new RDF's are worth shooting. I've been shooting the 70's, the 105's and soon the 140's and can't come up with anything bad to say. They are extremely consistent, high BC, basically already pointed, extremely easy to get to shoot, and cheaper then the best competition. What's not to like?

If someone with the screen name "berger.fan222" wants to sit here and argue I would have to say A. You're bias based on name alone, and B. have you personally shot them or are you sitting on a forum arguing data points on a bullet you've never pulled the trigger on?

- Jeremy Bentham

 

[Berger.Fan222]

If a car maker had exaggerated gas mileage on every line of its cars for the past 20 years, do you really think everyone should believe them when they roll out their advertising campaign for a new line of cars claiming the best gas mileage ever?

I've shot enough Nosler bullets and measured their BCs to be confident of them fibbing not only on the Long Range Accubonds, but also on Ballistic Tips, Partitions, E-Tips, Ballistic Silvertips, and Custom Competitions. Nosler claimed a BC of 0.305 for their 69 grain Custom Competition. We measured it at closer to 0.270. Why should anyone believe their 70 grain RDF is over 0.400?

At some point, users realize that one need not buy and shoot a box of bullets to have doubts about the claims. Don't need to buy another Chevy to realize it is unlikely to last as long as a Toyota.

 

[BoilerUP]

If a car maker had exaggerated gas mileage on every line of its cars for the past 20 years, do you really think everyone should believe them when they roll out their advertising campaign for a new line of cars claiming the best gas mileage ever?

No.

But if a bunch of independent, competitive hypermilers drove the new line of cars and each one said they exceeded factory stated MPG, and each person came to their own MPG conclusion that as a group was a consensus...you'd believe that, no?

And who is this "we" you speak of that measured the 69gr CC @ 0.270 BC?

I use the 77gr CC and while its listed G1 is 0.340, my AB Mobile & Shooter apps show it with a Litz-measured G1 of 0.376 and 0.377, respectively...that's purt good, no?

 

[Berger.Fan222]

No.

But if a bunch of independent, competitive hypermilers drove the new line of cars and each one said they exceeded factory stated MPG, and each person came to their own MPG conclusion that as a group was a consensus...you'd believe that, no?

I'd ask if they measured it using a reliable technique. If not, I would not believe them.

I'd ask if they'd been given the bullets or other incentive to have a positive report.

I'd ask if any independent party had used a reliable method to double check the claims.

A handful of people using unreliable methods does not yield a reliable report.

 

[BoilerUP]

I'd ask if they measured it using a reliable technique. If not, I would not believe them.

I'd ask if they'd been given the bullets or other incentive to have a positive report.

I'd ask if any independent party had used a reliable method to double check the claims.

A handful of people using unreliable methods does not yield a reliable report.

Four different shooters, at the same match, shooting in excess of 1000 yards, each came up with a BC higher than the 0.280 G7 Nosler put on the 105gr RDF box.

Now one person I could see being skewed..but four independent shooters coming up with the same basic number based on field data? That's borderline conspiracy, and rather accusatory toward shooters with excellent reputations.

And since you mentioned it...who again was the "we" you mentioned that measured the 69gr CC @ "closer to 0.270"?

 

[Berger.Fan222]

And since you mentioned it...who again was the "we" you mentioned that measured the 69gr CC @ "closer to 0.270"?

My shooting buddies prefer to remain private. It's not a question of personalities.

It's just that Doppler radar and a Kestrel are a more reliable method of measuring BCs than inferring them from drop.

One reliable method is discussed here:
https://www.shootingsoftware.com/doppler.htm

With Doppler radar so widely available now, it is somewhat surprising folks are insisting on trusting less reliable methods.

 

[Terry]

This is why some will not post on this site. A simple report becomes a pissing contest.

 

[BoilerUP]

AB Mobile shows Litz measured the 69gr CC at .309 G1...which beats the Nosler listed G1 of .305.

That's quite a bit different than your observation, and I don't think many people question Litz's methods.

So...how about we see what people observe in the real world with these RDFs instead of a biased academic opinion?

 

[Berger.Fan222]

That's quite a bit different than your observation, and I don't think many people question Litz's methods.

Bullets can show considerable variations in BC from lot to lot and from one rifle to another, not to mention when measured at different velocities.
I don't question Litz's methods, I question the assumption that the bullets Nosler sent him to measure BCs were the same as everyone else is getting. I also question the assumption that a given bullet will have the same BC from everyone's rifle.

But returning to the RDF bullets, even if we accept the BCs of the RDF bullets that a handful of shooters determined from drops were accurate, what confidence level do we have that the design or actual delivered bullets won't change between the cherry picked bullets sent out for testing and the mass produced bullets that end up in stock from suppliers?

Mass producing bullets is a different deal than making a few thousand to send out for testing. Often there are subtle design changes and/or dies simply wear out so dimensions change over time. We'll see what the BCs are when the real bullets hit the shelves and they are tested with reliable methods.

If you don't question Litz's methods, you should be aware that most of the Accubonds, Ballistic Tips, and Partitions he's tested also fall well below Nosler's BC claims.

 

[jbentham84]

Dude I'm at a loss with you. You're borderline a conspiracy theorist. Yeah Nosler is picking a choosing what they sent us, you caught them! You're "shooting buddies prefer to remain private". You're getting called out on a BS BC you posted by your "buddies" and Litz is saying it's higher? Then you question US who have walls of trophies and NATIONAL match finishes to back us up. Please indulge me, tell me more about your buddies because THEY SEEM RELIABLE. Four of us came up with those BC's independently on our own, and no I'm not affiliated with Nosler other then living in the same state.

Get a grip dude, if you don't want to shoot them then please don't it will leave more of them for the rest of us.

 

[dmoran]

 

[John Russell]

My shooting buddies prefer to remain private. It's not a question of personalities.

It's just that Doppler radar and a Kestrel are a more reliable method of measuring BCs than inferring them from drop.

One reliable method is discussed here:
https://www.shootingsoftware.com/doppler.htm

With Doppler radar so widely available now, it is somewhat surprising folks are insisting on trusting less reliable methods.

All of "My shooting buddies" and 98%+ of the folks I read on the forums, are interested in "drop" at a given range, not velocity.

So Doppler is not the answer, it is a possible step towards the answer - I trust properly done drop tests over any theoretical data, every day of the week (and Sundays too).
Some years back, Brian Litz used two sets of terminal velocities (instead of drop) in a bullet comparison, and the results made him come up with the silliest theory ever present in a publication - that barrel thickness affects BCs (???) It was embarrassing to read.

Given either downrange drop, or terminal velocity, the formulas for determining BCs are not all equal, so it is possible for the same bullets, with the same data, to be assigned different BCs, depending on which formulas or software is used in the final determination... which makes no difference, as long as you use that same formula to do your own drop calculations.

And to think that a bullet company would use a different design to test, and then release an inferior design to the public??? They spent 1,000s of dollars making the dies, why not just keep on making those same bullets, instead of spending 1,000s more dollars on dies to make a bad design to sell to the public?? This is the most loonie thing I have read this year. Are there black helicopters flying over your house??

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

All of "My shooting buddies" and 98%+ of the folks I read on the forums, are interested in "drop" at a given range, not velocity.

So Doppler is not the answer, it is a possible step towards the answer - I trust properly done drop tests over any theoretical data, every day of the week (and Sundays too).
Some years back, Brian Litz used two sets of terminal velocities (instead of drop) in a bullet comparison, and the results made him come up with the silliest theory ever present in a publication - that barrel thickness affects BCs (???) It was embarrassing to read.

Given either downrange drop, or terminal velocity, the formulas for determining BCs are not all equal, so it is possible for the same bullets, with the same data, to be assigned different BCs, depending on which formulas or software is used in the final determination. - which makes not difference, as long as you use that same formula to do your own drop calculations.

And to think that a bullet company would use a different design to test, and then release an inferior design to the public??? They spent 1,000s of dollars making the dies, why not just keep on making bullets, instead of spending 1,000s more dollars on dies to make a bad design to sell to the public?? This is the most loonie thing I have read this year. Are there black helicopters flying over your house??

Actually, it is not that far fetched for them to use different tooling and equipment between production and testing. In fact, this very thing has been stated by a company as a reason for their changing their BC numbers, along with using Peak BCs for marketing purposes to look better in comparisons. This is directly from that company as well, and can be found publically.

However the Nosler RDF Bullets we tested are production bullets, not prototypes. As each one hits the shelves, we are obtaining a box and using it to obtain the published BCs that will go out for these.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

All of "My shooting buddies" and 98%+ of the folks I read on the forums, are interested in "drop" at a given range, not velocity.

Maybe, but most of the paper punchers I know personally care more about reducing wind drift than drop, many long range shooters try and keep things supersonic (velocity not drop), and those shooting at live targets also care about retained energy (velocity) and being above a bullet's expansion threshold (velocity).

So Doppler is not the answer, it is a possible step towards the answer - I trust properly done drop tests over any theoretical data, every day of the week (and Sundays too).

Doppler is the gold standard in experimental drag measurements. There was a time when theoretical data dominated advertised BCs, but one needs to be fairly ignorant of ballistics over the past 20 years to refer to Doppler measurements (or other accepted reliable BC measurement techniques) as "theoretical."

Some years back, Brian Litz used two sets of terminal velocities (instead of drop) in a bullet comparison, and the results made him come up with the silliest theory ever present in a publication - that barrel thickness affects BCs (???) It was embarrassing to read.

Reading the Litz paper and a follow-up paper did seem to show that the barrel thickness hypothesis was not the cause of reduced drag in those cases. However, I recently came into possession of some Doppler radar data that shows convincingly that the increase in drag from a skinny barrel is due to increased tip off angle and peak yaw in early flight, which agrees completely with the Litz theory. So, there are at least some cases where the Litz theory (skinny barrel -> larger yaw -> more drag) is correct.

Given either downrange drop, or terminal velocity, the formulas for determining BCs are not all equal, so it is possible for the same bullets, with the same data, to be assigned different BCs, depending on which formulas or software is used in the final determination... which makes no difference, as long as you use that same formula to do your own drop calculations.

The only Precision Rifle event I ever won was won by reading the wind and hitting the targets under very difficult wind conditions. The drop part of hitting has always been much easier for me: just know what drop to dial in at each range. The ease of the experimental side of validating drop charts makes that only weakly dependent on BC. Wind drift, in contrast, is more strongly and directly dependent on BC. Reduce BC by 20% and you have 20% more wind drift. High BC buys more margin for error in reading the wind.

 

[John Russell]

Reading the Litz paper and a follow-up paper did seem to show that the barrel thickness hypothesis was not the cause of reduced drag in those cases. However, I recently came into possession of some Doppler radar data that shows convincingly that the increase in drag from a skinny barrel is due to increased tip off angle and peak yaw in early flight, which agrees completely with the Litz theory. So, there are at least some cases where the Litz theory (skinny barrel -> larger yaw -> more drag) is correct.

Litz's theory of bullets leaving a light barrel at a 10° angle is indefensible by anyone who made it past 10th grade science... nor can such an off axis bullet find it's way back on axis - it violates Newton's 2nd law of motion (which has never been wrong in 327 years).

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Litz's theory of bullets leaving a light barrel at a 10° angle is indefensible by anyone who made it past 10th grade science... nor can such an off axis bullet find it's way back on axis - it violates Newton's 2nd law of motion (which has never been wrong in 327 years).

Litz did not opine that the velocity vector could be 10° off from the bore direction, but rather the peak pitch and yaw angle of the bullet's coning motions could be 11° misaligned from the bullet's velocity vector and this could lead to a 7% decrease in BC. (See attachment.) I was reviewing Doppler radar data earlier this week which showed that the pitch and yaw Litz describes can account for up to 20% decreases in BC.

Stop embarrassing yourself by such blatant misrepresentation of other's work.