I've been doing a lot of research on making my own bullets. In my quest for ridiculous amounts of information, I'm learning a lot of theories about bullet design. This one theory has me a little stumped....
In a short article from Corbin, they examine the pro's and con's of BT bullets, FB bullets, and RBT,rebated boat tail) bullets. source: http://www.swage.com/ftp/rbt.pdf
Based on the that article, an RBT bullet is superb to a BT for multiple reasons. If that's the case, then why are bullet makers using standard BT's? As an example, the 140 class 6.5mm bullets... All bullet makers are using a BT design with the exception of one custom FB bullet from CR. There are no bullets offered in in a RBT design.,For some reason I remember seeing a 139gr Scenar with a RBT, but can't remember for sure?).
Any thoughts or explanations on the article its self, or the theory of RBT's being superb to a BT, would be appreciated.
Walt
In a short article from Corbin, they examine the pro's and con's of BT bullets, FB bullets, and RBT,rebated boat tail) bullets. source: http://www.swage.com/ftp/rbt.pdf
Based on the that article, an RBT bullet is superb to a BT for multiple reasons. If that's the case, then why are bullet makers using standard BT's? As an example, the 140 class 6.5mm bullets... All bullet makers are using a BT design with the exception of one custom FB bullet from CR. There are no bullets offered in in a RBT design.,For some reason I remember seeing a 139gr Scenar with a RBT, but can't remember for sure?).
Any thoughts or explanations on the article its self, or the theory of RBT's being superb to a BT, would be appreciated.
Walt