Which Published Berger BCs Are From Predictions Rather than Measurements?

[Michael Courtney]

I really liked the insinuation several pages back that point losses in F-class due to windage were somehow relevant to the discussion of whether the BC numbers from a manufacturer were accurate.

It is well known that higher BCs correlate to less points dropped due to windage. If one is shooting a bullet with a BC advertised at 0.291 that is really 0.245, she will drop more points than a bullet with a BC advertised at 0.290 that is really 0.290. The 53 grain VMAX is a better F Class bullet than the flat base Berger bullets, because its BC is higher. Hornady really measured it, so their advertised spec is more accurate.

On the subject of Blue Dot, how does it overcome the harmonics of the barrel? What qualities in that powder reduces muzzle whip? I'll have to test that one... Might be my new go-to load for the 222 in benchrest.

Barrel harmonics are never zero. But as a general rule barrel harmonics decrease with less energy dumped into the system by the powder. Blue Dot dumps much less energy into the system as it releases much less energy when it burns. Also, Blue Dot burns so quickly that the pressure that reaches the thinner part of the barrel (well in front of the chamber) is much lower than for standard rifle powders. This reduces the annular pressure waves.

If you can accept the loss of muzzle velocity, Blue Dot can be very accurate. I don't think we've evaluated the limits down at benchrest accuracy, but it is MOA first time every time out of the sporter barrels we've used it in. Good enough to hit the center of the gelatin block, the armor sample, or the chronograph window every time. A few years back 11 grains of Blue Dot and a 40 grain varmint bullet was my go to load for shooting varmints out of the window without waking sleeping children. Living on a farm, I took out a lot of groundhogs, rabbits, coons and other critters raiding the garden or threatening the sheep. Once hit a coyote on the run about 60 yards out with that load. With a 55 Hornady JSP, this was by discrete load for killing deer on a nuisance damage control permit.

I think my daughter's benchrest load in .222 Rem is H4895 at near book max for around 3000 fps. A max load of Blue Dot in .222 Rem will be considerably lower than in .223 Rem, and you'll probably lose 400 fps or so compared with traditional rifle powders. Velocity spreads are very good compared with other reduced load options, but it is rare that we see single digits.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I've never seen anyone use varmint bullets for f-class. Sounds like a moot point.

I've noticed that you are quite a fan of Hornady bullets. Why?

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I'll not even comment on the semantics of accurate - let's agree to disagree on the definition.

 

[Michael Courtney]

I've never seen anyone use varmint bullets for f-class. Sounds like a moot point.

I've noticed that you are quite a fan of Hornady bullets. Why?

It's fairly common for folks where our family shoots to bring lower twist rifles to F-Class matches for the first year or so while they are testing the waters and deciding if they want to invest in a more specialized rig. Sure, but the time they're winning, they are probably shooting high BC boat tail bullets, but not everyone starts with combos that can win. Depending on how many kids and friends make the match, it's not uncommon for someone to be making holes in the F class target with 53 vmax bullets. Most relatively inexperienced shooters aren't great with recoil and couldn't keep it in the 10 ring anyway. But they walk away very satisfied with the number of varmint bullets they keep in the 8 and 9 rings from 600 yards away. And if the wind behaves, some better shooters can put a bunch in the 10 ring.

The purpose of a rifle is too kill at a distance, not make holes in paper. I like Hornady bullets because they've never let me down once a live target is in the sights. Hundreds of varmints and deer. No unexplained misses, no failures to expand, no need to fart around and re-test loads with a new box of bullets. Bang-flop.

Hornady realized early on that there are several key advantages to plastic tipped bullets. Nosler realized the advantage at initiating expansion, but exaggerated their BCs and was never committed to publishing measured BCs. Noslers also have unacceptably large lot to lot variations. In contrast, the BCs of Hornady plastic tipped bullets are good enough as advertised to predict drop, drift, and retained energy reliably to 600 yards. Hornady has also realized the advantage of plastic tipped bullets to deliver consistent BCs with very little shot to shot variation. Open tipped match designs face the ongoing challenge of consistent meplat diameter which opens up the BC variation even with bullets from the same box.

Hornady bullets are also more cost effective than many other brands, and they've done a great job keeping them on the shelves. Cost and availability are important with a family of avid shooters and a ballistics business also. We've selected bullets from Barnes, Berger, and Nosler for specific applications, developed loads, and fully wrong out performance issues only to have bullets DISCONTINUED. When you have that happen a few times, eventually you prefer to pick bullets from a company that can maintain the supply.

Since the main purpose of shooting is killing, and punching paper is really skills development for that possibility, I personally lean away from tricked out paper punchers in favor of using the same rifles for hunting and matches. A number of the AMAX and VMAX designs allow the same bullet and load to serve the dual purpose also, so punching paper isn't just practice with the same rifle, it's practice with the same load also.

Yeah, one can get all high and mighty about accuracy, but for my purposes a $300 rifle that shoots everything into 1 MOA can be tuned with good handloads to 0.5 MOA. In the real world, that's good enough for 99.9% of the killing that ever needs to be done, and odds are that wind or shooting position or range uncertainty will quickly diminish the accuracy of benchrest jobs costing 10X as much in any real world application. For real world applications, 10 0.5-1 MOA rifles are much more valuable than 1 0.25 MOA rifle. Delivering downrange energy and resisting wind drift are the key features to killing stuff that needs killing.

I've probably helped well over a dozen kids (and several adults too) from the church youth group learn to shoot and kill their first deer. This is all about what works on the side of a Colorado mountain, on farms in Ohio woods, or in the Louisiana deer woods. In Louisiana, you have to work pretty hard to get far enough away from a critter to need better than MOA to make the shot. We'll take the better shooters down to 0.5 MOA, but reading wind is more important.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Your fascination with killing cheaply is fascinating.

I disagree with you on so many points that I won't even bother to try to explain all of it in detail. I've shot a lot of targets in my life. I find it fun to take a "hunting" rifle out and spank the unwary - even in F-class. With all things considered, it is more of a stunt than anything else.

I've shot many of the bullets you mention and can tell you that my experiences are the polar opposite of yours. The V-max line is required at my family ranch for any high powered rifle shooting. They normally disintegrate upon hitting much of anything including ground squirrels. The exception is the 53 Vmax bullet. It repeatedly has ricocheted and failed to expand. likewise, the accuracy of that bullet, through multiple platforms, has been significantly less than the traditional 40, 50, 55, and 60 grain offerings. I actually tried shooting them at the 600 yard F-class target from a 12 twist 223 rifle. The result was oblong holes and a dispersion that resembled a shotgun.
In 30 caliber, the 155 Amax design has been abysmal on coyotes leaving penciled holes in more than one.

On the other hand, my F-class scores skyrocketed when I started using Berger bullets. I don't care what the BC is of the bullets I use. I care about reliability and precision. BC doesn't really matter if you have even basic skills. The operator is the limiting factor, not the bullet.

I finally figured out the basis of your argument. Here is how I understand it:

You think that bullet manufacturers should be shamed into expending more money testing their products so that the products get yet more expensive. The justifications for this is the simple fact that unskilled people firing rifles can't hit anything reliably if the wind blows. You then state repeatedly that rifles are only meant for killing. That combination makes you look more and more like a gun-control type trolling your way across the internet.

And I thought you only had a problem with Berger.

So, how do you feel about individual citizens owning and using firearms without the overarching supervision of the government?

While I'm asking personal questions, why weren't you wearing a uniform in that photo?

 

[Michael Courtney]

You think that bullet manufacturers should be shamed into expending more money testing their products so that the products get yet more expensive.

No. If a company wants to make it clear they computed rather than actually measured their BCs, I have no problem with that. But Berger, Nosler, Hornady, Sierra, and Lapua claim their advertised BCs result from test firing. Actually measuring BCs would cost much less than most companies spend advertising their BCs.

That combination makes you look more and more like a gun-control type trolling your way across the internet.

And I thought you only had a problem with Berger.

So, how do you feel about individual citizens owning and using firearms without the overarching supervision of the government?

I support individual RKBA. I am a life member of the NRA. I oppose many current restrictions on individual gun ownership and all proposed additional restrictions. One of the reasons we left Colorado was their new gun control measures and other moves away from Constitutional liberty, though their recent attacks on RKBA are really only deeper symptoms of the Californication of what once was a very pleasant and liberty-loving state.

Yes, I view the ultimate purpose of firearms as killing. The RKBA is not about F-Class or benchrest. It is not about duck hunting. Here are some quotes from the founding fathers that express my sentiments:

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."

-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

Would you suggest that an independent test lab advocating that car makers advertise accurate horsepower ratings had an ulterior motive of banning cars?

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I support individual RKBA. I am a life member of the NRA. I oppose many current restrictions on individual gun ownership and all proposed additional restrictions.

Finally, something we agree completely on.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

Seems like this topic has run it course.