Anyone tried H-335 or RL-17 ?
I use H 335 exclusively in all my 223s. 1/2 group at 100 yds draws no complaints from me. I seem to remember it may have been developed for it?
Anyone tried H-335 or RL-17 ?
Flash, I have great respect for your writings. Much wisdom has come from you to this board.
But apparently everybody has a bad day; these two sentences are just crap....
Keep your nasty comments to yourself or ... get away from me.
...In the early days of flight, those same shock waves crashed a lot of high speed fighters before we learned to deal with them.
I do tend to go on, sometimes, don't I? Sorry about that....I did get tired head reading your last post there...
I do tend to go on, sometimes, don't I? Sorry about that.
Hey, did Vaquero ever post how the x-treme bullets worked out vs. the dogtown? I didn't see it if he did.
Because they're completely different designs (even though the SMKs don't actually tumble unless there are other factors in play...and there often are).If transitioning through the sound barrier doesn't bother bullets why do 168 SMKs start to tumble around 800yds but 168 Amaxs are good til well past 1000yds?
That was what I had on my bookshelf. Guess I should update. Has your 6th edition moved the information I cited to different places?the 6th edition of that book you were citing the 4th edition of.
I'm not sure what's nonsensical about a number. Below 2300, wind drift and time of flight cease changing in a fixed relationship. Thus, that's where the upper limit of the transonic range lies, as the term "transonic" applies to shooting. Stated another way, a bullet traveling at 2300 fps or 900 fps is drifting at about the same rate. In practical terms, when bullets reach the target traveling at those speeds, they will have drifted almost exactly the same amount over the last 200 yards or so before they got to the target. At-target speeds that fall between these two will have drifted more (sometimes surprisingly much more) over the last 200 yards before arriving. The counter-intuitive nature of that fact leads people to fail to consider the problems that crop up when bullets are slowing down.I just don't buy the 2300fps non-sense either. ...
I know of many people shooting 16-18" 308s with no problems using simple free ballistics calculators out to 1000yds where the bullet is at or below 2300 for most of its flight. If it is an issue, is a VERY small one.
andAfter 200 yards, it's all about bullet consistency and keeping the projectile supersonic all the way to the target. Once the bullet drops below the sound barrier, shock waves will divert the bullet up, down or to either side.
The shock waves resulting from transitioning through the sonic barrier are what fouls up accuracy.
I just want to know which is a better value, x-treme or dogtown. Wasn't that what this thread was originally about? (It was a very interesting discussion though)
Before we go any further, have you actually shot to these distances or just read about them in your books before you essentially call me a liar?Because they're completely different designs (even though the SMKs don't actually tumble unless there are other factors in play...and there often are).
That was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?
That was what I had on my bookshelf. Guess I should update. Has your 6th edition moved the information I cited to different places?
I'm not sure what's nonsensical about a number. Below 2300, wind drift and time of flight cease changing in a fixed relationship. Thus, that's where the upper limit of the transonic range lies, as the term "transonic" applies to shooting. Stated another way, a bullet traveling at 2300 fps or 900 fps is drifting at about the same rate. In practical terms, when bullets reach the target traveling at those speeds, they will have drifted almost exactly the same amount over the last 200 yards or so before they got to the target. At-target speeds that fall between these two will have drifted more (sometimes surprisingly much more) over the last 200 yards before arriving. The counter-intuitive nature of that fact leads people to fail to consider the problems that crop up when bullets are slowing down.
Of course, nowadays ballistics calculators are ubiquitous so shooters are compensating for non-linear wind drift in the transonic range without thinking about it, understanding it, or even realizing it exists. You're absolutely right when you say that "The world of shooting has DRASTICALLY changed in the last decade." It would be tough to find truer words these days.
Despite the fact that I don't quite understand what you mean, I can't say we're in any disagreement. Why? Because you go on to say:
...which was exactly (almost entirely) the point of my previous post vis-a-vis accuracy. To restate, just because a bullet is traveling in the transonic region doesn't mean it's going to be less accurate than when it's traveling at high speed.
Flash had said the exact opposite. He said:
and
I disputed that. I said that while the transonic range can trip people up on wind drift calculations (which, like any variable inadequately accounted for, will produce bigger groups on the target) that's not the same as "fouled-up accuracy" in any mechanical sense.
When you point out that you know people shooting under 2300 fps "with no problems", you're saying the same thing I did.
We may phrase things differently and put different relative weights on different parts of the discussion but, as far as I can tell, we're in complete agreement on all substantive points.
Or am I missing something?
Ben
PS & BTW - This threadjack is entirely my fault and is really bad, even by TGT standards, so I won't post further in this thread on the subject of the mythical deleterious impact on accuracy of transonic velocity ranges. Since you're clearly capable of discussing this like an adult, I'd be willing to take this to PMs if you'd like to talk more. However, I hardly see the necessity of it since we basically agree.
To those distances, yes. Through the velocity ranges in question, yes, extensively....have you actually shot to these distances...?
with this:...as far as I can tell, we're in complete agreement on all substantive points.
except to note the caveat "essentially", which serves the same function as in my original...you essentially call me a liar...
...unless there are other factors...
is quite true but doesn't change the seemingly impossible/contradictory fact that short-range benchrest shooters have occasionally been able to show conditions where groups shrink in MOA size when moving from 100 to 200 yards.Often the 1MOA group at 50 will grow to 2MOA at 100 everything else being equal.
I like the direction you have taken the thread. Carry on please.
I won't post further in this thread on the subject...