Sorry... but it is in print. I did not misrepresent anything.
Nosler RDF Bullets
- Thread starter Delfuego
- Start date
Sorry... but it is in print. I did not misrepresent anything.
Quote it, link it, or at least cite the source for your errant claim.
You seemed to be referring to the matter I posted in the attachment, in which case you are completely wrong and misrepresenting it.
If you are referring to something else, put up or shut up.
Dear Mr. Hamberger.Fan, You have contributed nothing to this thread other than derailing it with prejudice and conspiracy. As the OP, I am asking you to please go away.
For the rest of you
These are supposed to be stock here. I still have high hopes for a competitive and reasonably price bullet.
https://www.coreshooting.com/collections/nosler
For the rest of you
These are supposed to be stock here. I still have high hopes for a competitive and reasonably price bullet.
https://www.coreshooting.com/collections/nosler
I'll join the Nosler love fest with everyone else if the BCs turn out to be as advertised and Nosler can produce a steady supply of quality bullets.
I have 20+ years of experience with Nosler that suggests this may not be the case.
I have 20+ years of experience with Nosler that suggests this may not be the case.
VH Magazine
January 2009.
October 2009.
Sonny, you know nothing about this subject.
I jumped it .020-.030 for best results but tested it out to .140 and they still shot great. The Bullets are jump tolerant.
And yet the attachment I posted above was from the Litz article in October 2009. You are misrepresenting the article. The Litz hypothesis has nothing to do with a bullet leaving the barrel "at a 10° angle" as you erroneously claim above. The hypothesis is about the pitch and yaw of the bullet, not the flight direction.
The hypothesis came about as a possible explanation regarding why Nosler bullets were measured to have much lower BCs measured from thin factory barrels than from thick match barrels. There was agreement from all parties that the Nosler BC specs were too high for all the bullets discussed, but the BCs were even lower for thin barrels than for thick ones.
Nosler bullets reported to have BCs lower than Nosler specs were:
0.308 150 Ballistic Tip 14.17% lower than spec
0.308 168 Ballistic Silvertip 12.83% lower than spec
0.308 125 Ballistic Tip 14.73% lower than spec
0.257 85 Ballistic Silvertip 6.47% lower than spec
There was another Varmint Hunter Magazine article a couple years later with a much longer list of Nosler bullets with inaccurate ballistic coefficients. I'm glad you brought up these VHM articles, they certainly shed some light on Nosler's pattern of BC inaccuracy over the years.
SIGH...
Can we all agree that Nosler has shat the bed over time in publishing multiple BCs that don't stand up to either independent lab or field testing?
Now if that can be agreed upon...can we say that any future published Nosler BCs (especially after the ABLR debacle) should be taken with a grain of salt?
And if we can agree upon that...can we say that multiple independent field reports that the RDF bullets (at least the 6mm) have BC better than published are encouraging that Nosler's published results now are at least accurate, if not conservative?
A box of 100 RDF bullets is about $30; loading some up and going shooting at distance over a chronograph (or doppler or whatever) alongside your proven SMKs, Hybrids, VLDs, ELD-Ms or whatever should be a fairly decent way to tell real-world performance...no? I'm no scientist, just a dumb airplane pilot with a Kentucky public school education, but if a 105 RDF leaves the barrel at the same velocity as a 105 Hybrid, and they have the same POI at 100 yards, impacts on a target at 700-1000 yards should be pretty telling of actual performance.
Can we all agree that Nosler has shat the bed over time in publishing multiple BCs that don't stand up to either independent lab or field testing?
Now if that can be agreed upon...can we say that any future published Nosler BCs (especially after the ABLR debacle) should be taken with a grain of salt?
And if we can agree upon that...can we say that multiple independent field reports that the RDF bullets (at least the 6mm) have BC better than published are encouraging that Nosler's published results now are at least accurate, if not conservative?
A box of 100 RDF bullets is about $30; loading some up and going shooting at distance over a chronograph (or doppler or whatever) alongside your proven SMKs, Hybrids, VLDs, ELD-Ms or whatever should be a fairly decent way to tell real-world performance...no? I'm no scientist, just a dumb airplane pilot with a Kentucky public school education, but if a 105 RDF leaves the barrel at the same velocity as a 105 Hybrid, and they have the same POI at 100 yards, impacts on a target at 700-1000 yards should be pretty telling of actual performance.
dmoran
Donovan Moran
Any one that truly cares about accurate ballistics is going to derive there own BC and calibrate there ballistics accordingly. Could care less what is advertised, and will always look to "field tested" results to all bullets.
Thanks to those that shared there field tested results!
Donovan
Last edited:
Yep. I'll keep beating the horse until Nosler publishes realistic BCs for all their bullet lines.
Then write a letter to nosler or better yet show up to there R&D division and have a chat with all of them. please stop restating your opinion over and over agian. nothing you post here will directly affect nosler.
Get off the keyboard and go make a difference!!!
P.S Happy thanksgiving to all.
Get off the keyboard and go make a difference!!!
P.S Happy thanksgiving to all.
If Nosler were really interested in doing the right thing, they would publish more accurate specs for all their bullet lines.
They are STILL publishing unrealistic BCs for the ABLRs, Ballistic Tips, and Partitions. I'm sure some sucker will buy the 70 grain RDFs and let me Doppler them to see what the BC is, but it ain't gonna be me. I'd love to be wrong, but I'd bet the BC of that 70 grain RDF is exaggerated by at least 5%. If not, it would be a great choice for the AR Tactical High Power category.
Wow. So, you will not buy a box and dopler them but you will continue to talk trash.
Well here's the new 140 RDF (left) and a Berger 140 Hybrid on the right. You make your own conclusions, I'll be working on mine.
Berger.Fan222,
I agree that a full powered Doppler radar system is the gold standard for testing of bullets. There is a problem with the science of using the LarRadar, because the range of it is a few 100 yards and the bulk of the drop happen say between 700 and 1000, for many of the bullets and loadings that LR shooters use. Different figures of merit can be used to say you should start at 800 and stop at 1,300 yards depending on the bullet and muzzle velocities I don't think any well though out design of experiment would say the bulk of the drop occurs in the first 200 yards for supersonic projectiles that those with smokeless powders use. That is why Brian more densely samples the long range portion of the bullet's path than the near field so to speak.
In general when making sound measurements of physical quantities you want to measure the region of greater change as it increases your signal to noise ratio. If you recall Bryan L looked forward to the possibility of using LabRadar downrange as a means of measuring the ballistics coefficients, I don't recall if I read that on this forum, another forum, or on his web site. Unfortunately, he found they could not be used for downrange trajectories so decided they were not a great device for measuring BC's.
wade
I agree that a full powered Doppler radar system is the gold standard for testing of bullets. There is a problem with the science of using the LarRadar, because the range of it is a few 100 yards and the bulk of the drop happen say between 700 and 1000, for many of the bullets and loadings that LR shooters use. Different figures of merit can be used to say you should start at 800 and stop at 1,300 yards depending on the bullet and muzzle velocities I don't think any well though out design of experiment would say the bulk of the drop occurs in the first 200 yards for supersonic projectiles that those with smokeless powders use. That is why Brian more densely samples the long range portion of the bullet's path than the near field so to speak.
In general when making sound measurements of physical quantities you want to measure the region of greater change as it increases your signal to noise ratio. If you recall Bryan L looked forward to the possibility of using LabRadar downrange as a means of measuring the ballistics coefficients, I don't recall if I read that on this forum, another forum, or on his web site. Unfortunately, he found they could not be used for downrange trajectories so decided they were not a great device for measuring BC's.
wade
Last edited:
There is no reason not to use light loads to measure BC across the desired range of velocities.
Further, BC tends to decrease with range. If the BC doesn't meet the spec in the first 100 yards, it ain't gonna over 1000.
Last edited:
dmoran
Donovan Moran
Great looking bullet. It spells obvious high BC by my eyes !.!.!
Thanks for putting the picture up.
Donovan
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.