Why the Berger 180 over the 184 in F Class?

[Terry]

180 VS 184, which? and why?

 

[Warren Dean]

Because it shoots better. B.C. isn't the holy grail. Shootability is.

 

[Ringostar]

Right now though, more people might start using the 184. The 184 is available in several places, there aren’t 180’s anywhere that I’ve seen.

 

[ShootDots]

I have shot them both. There is NO question of the accuracy increase over the 184. I know several people out here and in Houston who went to the 184 and came back to the 180 Hybrid. Much the same with the 200-20X and the 208s. Ditto with the 215s over the 220s. Making bullets to see if you can increase market share simply for the sake of a larger share of the market, will generally lead to less than desirable products>>>no matter what field of endeavor.

 

[Falfan2017]

180s just plain shoot. Easy to tune, hold their tune well in a variety of conditions.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

This^^^

 

[dskogman]

184’s made me give up on 7mm’s. 190’s are even worse.

 

[LA50SHOOTER]

180 VS 184, which? and why?

180’s have been easier to tune and tune to a greater degree of accuracy so far in a 280 AI and a 280 Nosler in my particular rifles.

 

[Willow]

I'll plead ignorance on this one - never tried the 180 hybrids - I previously shot the 180gr VLDs but when the 184s became available I tried them and they just worked for me so I've never given the 180 hybrids a go.

 

[KWeigel]

Terry, obviously they both shoot well. Saying the 184 isn’t accurate is a falsehood. I prefer the 180 and will continue to purchase them for future barrels because I know them well and my reamer was designed for them. Hard to replace that type of real world testing/results from season after season of use. I have a rifle shooting the 184s that hammers. I believe you were in La Crosse when I shot a 200 19x with them. That barrel will lose its life to the 184 hybrid!

 

[coldboreshot]

Terry, obviously they both shoot well. Saying the 184 isn’t accurate is a falsehood. I prefer the 180 and will continue to purchase them for future barrels because I know them well and my reamer was designed for them. Hard to replace that type of real world testing/results from season after season of use. I have a rifle shooting the 184s that hammers. I believe you were in La Crosse when I shot a 200 19x with them. That barrel will lose its life to the 184 hybrid!

Agreed.

 

[Rope2horns]

Yup 184's suck don't shoot them!!!

 

[rardoin]

^^^^ask @falconpilot how terrible they are

 

[Ned Ludd]

The difference in BC between the 180 Hybrid and 184 Hybrid is minuscule (0.349 versus 0.356 G7 BCs), or about 2%. Most shooters cannot reliably detect a difference in performance when the BC differential is that small. In fact, that difference likely falls within the BC variance range typically observed in a Lot # of bullets. In fairness, however, the thereotical BC differential is not zero. In such a case, the relative precision and ease of tuning of the two bullets becomes even more important in terms of making a choice between them. If all else is equal, going with the higher BC bullet of the two is a pretty obvious choice. If the BC differential is substantial, you might even be tempted to put a little more effort in getting the higher BC bullet to shoot if it is a little more finicky. However, a very small increase in BC won't mean much if the higher BC bullet cannot be loaded with comparable precision and ease of tuning. I would suggest that the only way you can really know with certainty is to work up loads in your specific setup and test them side-by-side.

 

[dthomas]

Ringostar is right. I am shooting the 180s now but could not find anymore so i picked up 2000 184s for my next barrel.

 

[davidjoe]

The difference in BC between the 180 Hybrid and 184 Hybrid is minuscule (0.349 versus 0.356 G7 BCs), or about 2%. Most shooters cannot reliably detect a difference in performance when the BC differential is that small. In fact, that difference likely falls within the BC variance range typically observed in a Lot # of bullets. In fairness, however, the thereotical BC differential is not zero. In such a case, the relative precision and ease of tuning of the two bullets becomes even more important in terms of making a choice between them. If all else is equal, going with the higher BC bullet of the two is a pretty obvious choice. If the BC differential is substantial, you might even be tempted to put a little more effort in getting the higher BC bullet to shoot if it is a little more finicky. However, a very small increase in BC won't mean much if the higher BC bullet cannot be loaded with comparable precision and ease of tuning. I would suggest that the only way you can really know with certainty is to work up loads in your specific setup and test them side-by-side.

About 2% is also the weight difference. When the 184’s were introduced, I had wondered whether the 2% benefit would be entirely offset by the penalty in getting them up to speed, and the theoretical rule that you simply cannot shoot 184’s as fast as 180’s, without paying a price somewhere else.

Berger Bullets had thrived on pushing BC limits while giving up nothing in consistency, which is now the accepted approach. I believe they were the original, true renegade (unabashed) in high BC match bullets, until “amazing” became normal, although few are old enough to recall all the loyalties and fur flying from back in “the day”. They are so good at it that all their match bullets hug a plot line on the ratio between BC and weight, within calibers.

I have always considered pointed 195’s to be a notch higher than that trend line, but with a thinner jacket (made it easy to accelerate) I eventually found their stress point in matches, but it was not related to weight or twist requirements.

It would be interesting to see if the 3-4 of their most widely used competition bullets are actually above or below the average BC to weight ratio of their yellow box lineup.

 

[Ned Ludd]

About 2% is also the weight difference. When the 184’s were introduced, I had wondered whether the 2% benefit would be entirely offset by the penalty in getting them up to speed, and the theoretical rule that you simply cannot shoot 184’s as fast as 180’s, without paying a price somewhere else.

Berger Bullets had thrived on pushing BC limits while giving up nothing in consistency, which is now the accepted approach. I believe they were the original, true renegade (unabashed) in high BC match bullets, until “amazing” became normal, although few are old enough to recall all the loyalties and fur flying from back in “the day”. They are so good at it that all their match bullets hug a plot line on the ratio between BC and weight, within calibers.

I have always considered pointed 195’s to be a notch higher than that trend line, but with a thinner jacket (made it easy to accelerate) I eventually found their stress point in matches, but it was not related to weight or twist requirements.

It would be interesting to see if the 3-4 of their most widely used competition bullets are actually above or below the average BC to weight ratio of their yellow box lineup.

My point was mainly that when the BCs of two bullets are close, let's say less than 4-5% difference, then the heavier, higher BC bullet will usually only enjoy a ballistic advantage if the precision is equal or better. However, the ballistic advantage will be small enough that if the heavier, higher BC bullet does not load to equal precision, it's probably not an advantage at all. As you noted, the velocities at which the two bullets will tune in almost always plays a role. Typically, the heavier bullet will tune in at a lower velocity. The velocity differential between tuned loads is not necessarily so large that the lighter, lower BC bullet is guaranteed to offer a theoretical ballistic advantage due to its higher velocity, but it certainly can in isolated cases. One example of this is Berger's .30 cal 168 Hybrid, which can be pushed fast enough with the right setup at reasonable operating pressure to provide equal or better ballistics than the 185 Juggernaut, even though the Jug has a higher BC. The reason for this is that the 168 Hybrid enjoys a very high BC for its weight, so the BC differential as compared to 185s is quite small. In most cases however, the heavier, higher BC bullet will still enjoy a theoretical ballistic advantage, even at the slower velocity of a tuned load. The farther apart the BCs of the two bullets, the better this will generally hold true. It is also dependent on load optimization; i.e. having the correct barrel length, freebore, powder type, etc., such that the heavier, higher BC bullet is not disadvantaged by a sub-optimal loading or rifle setup.

I have estimated BCs regularly for a number of different Berger bullets (and others) using LabRadar velocity drop data, although not for the 180/184 7mm offerings. Of course, the caveat with the LabRadar data is the relatively short distance over which it is measured. Nonetheless, I have been repeatedly amazed at how close the estimated BC values for non-pointed bullets comes to Berger's box value. In my hands, the estimated and reported values have been very close. Pointing bullets seems to increase the BC in the expected 3-6% range, which the LabRadar velocity data is also more than capable of detecting. The BC standard deviations for typical 10-shot strings are OK, generally in the 3-5% range for length-sorted/pointed bullets, sometimes a little less. More often than not, the higher SDs are due to a single outlier in the string. I also suspect that the principle caveat of the short distance over which velocity drop is measured with the LabRadar tends to inflate the SDs. They are probably better than my data indicate. I have to admit that I generally enjoy taking these kind of measurements and making theoretical estimates regarding bullet performance from them. That is the scientist in me. However, I readily admit that in many cases, I can likely not shoot the difference, even though I can demonstrate on paper that there should be a difference. Very small differences in external ballistics are difficult to quantify in terms of actual match scores. Sometimes it is possible to notice a slight difference over time.

 

[One Shot One Thrill]

I have shot them both abd they both shoot well.
I loaded the 184 for a friend to try some 1k F-class. He is a great shooter but had never shot F-class. His first 2 matches were clean with 10x each. He never held out the 10 ring.
Another shooter shot our last match with them and did very well in trickey conditions. I noticed his target velocity was exactly the same as mine.
1800 fps at target. I was running RL23 and he was using H4350. The MV right around 2950. I think most are trying to run them to fast..
Accuracy always Trumps Speed in my Book.
Going to buy them while I can.

 

[davidjoe]

I have estimated BCs regularly for a number of different Berger bullets (and others) using LabRadar velocity drop data, although not for the 180/184 7mm offerings. Of course, the caveat with the LabRadar data is the relatively short distance over which it is measured. Nonetheless, I have been repeatedly amazed at how close the estimated BC values for non-pointed bullets comes to Berger's box value. In my hands, the estimated and reported values have been very close.

An interesting facet of etargets these last couple of years, at both 1,000 and 600, is the velocity data captured at the target. Although a lab radar can’t reach those distances, between both it and then the target, especially 1,000 targets, about all the critical data can be captured.

I have found that my bullets don’t slow down as much as JBM would predict. Sometimes by a remarkable amount. In other words, my velocities at 1,000 yards on a given bullet whose G-7 and G-1 are inputted produce a chart that invariably indicates a higher muzzle velocity than Labrador reports they have. Also true at 600 yards (and supported by real and indicated come ups.). I have even tried to reconcile the discrepancy by not selecting from the menu “wheel” and bumping the box BC’s by the expected tipping benefit.

Tipping the point won’t increase muzzle velocity. It makes me wonder if the 1,000 yard benefit to tipping is actually much higher than we credit it, or, if the Berger generated BC, especially for the 195, is actually well below what the bullet actually has. To add to the curiosity, 180’s for example, truly have a very large meplat relative to 195’s. I still tip 195’s, but they are very pointed and uniform out of the box.

 

[Ned Ludd]

The relative benefit in terms of increasing BC by pointing bullets is definitely related to the meplat diameter of the bullet relative to the caliber. The larger the meplat in relation to caliber, the more the benefit of pointing, generally. Bryan Litz has suggested that an increase in BC from pointing bullets on the order of 3-6% is typical, and the BC numbers I have estimated from LabRadar data match that very well. I would also add that my drops at distance also seem to match pretty well the predicted increase in BC. A caveat regarding e-target velocity data is that I have seen a number of reports suggesting it may not always be completely reliable. It is also possible that the discrepancy you have observed could have come from trying to use velocity data collected by two different measuring devices, one at the muzzle (chronograph), and one at some specified distance (e-target). If the velocity values produced by either one of those measuring devices is off relative to the other, that could also account for the differences you have observed. Do you recall whether your measured drop at 1000 yd matched the external ballistic data generated from one BC value better than the other? That might be one way to help make a decision on which BC estimate was closer to the actual or "true" BC value.