bulk .223 bullets

[deemus]

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?

 

[vmax]

8208 XBR is great powder for 223 and it meters wonderfully

 

[ROGER4314]

......"apparently everybody has a bad day; these two sentences are just crap. Bullets that enter and cross the transonic range become more susceptible to wind drift."

I guess I missed this post a while back. Be advised that there are superb long range shooters who will strongly disagree with you. The shock waves resulting from transitioning through the sonic barrier are what fouls up accuracy. In the early days of flight, those same shock waves crashed a lot of high speed fighters before we learned to deal with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier

As to calling my post "CRAP", I don't know who you are or why you would disrespect me like that in the open forum. PM me with your comments and if you make a good case, I'll even correct myself in the open forum. I do not know it "all" and can be wrong at times. (Not this time.) Keep your nasty comments to yourself or share them in private. Be polite, stay courteous or get away from me.

There are over 20,000 members of this forum and I have THREE members on my "Ignore list". You just became number FOUR.

Flash

 

[benenglish]

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.

One of these things is not like the other.

...In the early days of flight, those same shock waves crashed a lot of high speed fighters before we learned to deal with them.

Bullets and airplanes are not the same thing. Airplanes have movable control surfaces that can influence flight radically in all directions when buffeted by transonic weirdness; bullets do not.

For folks who would like some insight into the subject of transonic buffeting and bullet flight, offhand I can suggest three sources of knowledge.

The first is Black Powder Cartridge Rifle shooters. They live in the transonic range. They understand that it's a very broad range, not a gremlin that pops up right around the speed of sound. It actually runs from about 2300fps down to 900fps, if you consider the entire range where time of flight and wind drift are disconnected from the experience of high-speed flight. Feel free to run simulations on any reliable ballistics software, your own or something online like at JBM: JBM . You'll find that time-of-flight and wind drift are unrelated. Wind drift is a function of the rate of velocity loss, something that changes in a non-linear fashion over the transonic range. The divorce between time-of-flight and drift is first noticeable at ~2300fps. While this makes wind drift calculations much more difficult and, thus, often results in larger groups on paper, it also has essentially zero effect on mechanical accuracy as long as you don't get into edge-case exceptions where insufficient rotational bullet stability adds complications. Unfortunately, that caveat tends to come into play far too often, e.g. in high-speed .22LR ammo and many 7.62 loadings once they get past 800 yards, thus leading to the persistent erroneous belief that accuracy mysteriously goes to hell when a bullet is flying along at approximately the speed of sound.

To be scrupulously fair, it's possible there is a tiny kernel of truth in this belief. General consensus on the subject will never be achieved unless short-range benchrest competition with ammo limited to ~1400 fps becomes a popular sport. That's not going to happen. Besides, the 1000-yard benchrest folks have pretty much already proved they can compensate for this theoretical, most-likely-nonexistent problem by loading up with very high-BC bullets and spinning them a bit faster than Greenhill would suggest. Seriously, IMO it's a non-issue and I believe my opinion is a reasonably informed one.

As an aside, pistol silhouette shooters deal with the same stuff but since their need for gilt-edge accuracy is a bit less, I find they tend to understand the topic a bit less than the BPCR folks.

Of course, if you want to go deeper and don't know any top-shelf BPCR shooters to consult, feel free to go on to option 2 and grab a copy of Rinker's Understanding Firearm Ballistics, 4th edition, specifically note 2 at the end of Chapter 17 and the entirety of chapter 20, especially the section on .22 rimfire drift anomalies. Rinker is a bit incomplete since he apparently has no practical experience with wide-range transonic problems (like BPCR and pistol silhouette shooters do) so he limits his discussion to the immediate transonic range traversed by normal .22LR loads, 1000 to 1350 FPS. Still, all the math is there and so is the commentary to directly contradict the incorrect statements up-thread.

While I'm on the subject of good references, Zediker's writings (including Handloading for Competition and, even better, others specific to High Power) address the topic, too. They just don't include all the math that Rinker does.

Third and finally, there are the thoughtful writings of winning long-range riflemen. There are plenty of long-range rifle shooters who understand that their .308 shoots great to 800 yards and then seems to go to hell for that last short walk out to 1000. Most of them don't know why and there are all sorts of funky ideas floating about on the subject. Some of the writings on these problems, however, come from winning competitors who have actually figured this stuff out. They are the ones to listen to. Many of their writings are collected at that classic site for long-range riflemen, The Rifleman's Journal. Online, it's at: The Rifleman's Journal . There's nothing in there about bullets jumping about randomly at any velocity range and, frankly, if such a thing actually happened Salazar and the other writers who penned all those wonderful articles would have noticed it and studied it to death. Thus, it's difficult to point to one article but start with the ones in the Ballistics index.

No, strike that. Read 'em all. They're pretty much all gold.

In other business -

I stand by my earlier statement that Flash is a man of valuable experience who has greatly contributed to this board and, I feel sure, will continue to do so. I will certainly continue to read his posts. I don't, however, get into petty PM spats over minor technical disagreements or misunderstandings of tone. I prefer to make my apologies publicly so that all may judge me an ass when that's what I am. God knows I'm capable of it.

Flash won't see this because he has me on ignore but, frankly, I don't mind. I get the same treatment from women and I'm accustomed to it.

But for the benefit of other readers and for the record, I was too familiar in my tone with Flash and didn't realize he'd take it so personally. I apologize to TGT, generally, for polluting the atmosphere by being too straightforward and, it seems, crossing over to discourtesy. Such was not my intent and I'll be more careful in the future.

 

[deemus]

Ben, I don't have you on ignore.

I think both of you have wisdom to share, and I enjoy most of what you both share. Although I did get tired head reading your last post there, I may revisit this later, as I think there is something to be learned there.

 

[benenglish]

...I did get tired head reading your last post there...

I do tend to go on, sometimes, don't I? Sorry about that.

 

[deemus]

I do tend to go on, sometimes, don't I? Sorry about that.

Ha! Just messing with you. There really some good info in there I plan to go back to later. My day gave me mush head, and I had to back out of it.

 

[Pawpaw40]

Hey, did Vaquero ever post how the x-treme bullets worked out vs. the dogtown? I didn't see it if he did.

 

[Vaquero]

Hey, did Vaquero ever post how the x-treme bullets worked out vs. the dogtown? I didn't see it if he did.

I havent had time to do a good accuracy comparison yet.
It's either work or weather stopping me.
I'll get there eventually.

 

[Pawpaw40]

I'm having the same problem here. Trying to find the sweet spot on a SS bull AR. Like to find something cheaper for plinking than the 52 gr or 69gr SMK.

 

[1slow01Z71]

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? The BC between the two isn't that much different, certainly not 200yds worth of supersonic flight different. Some bullets can make the transonic transition better than others. That is why you will notice many people shooting 338s do not use SMKs if theyre shooting past the transonic region because they do not transition well. The 300gr bergers are negligible in speed difference yet remain accurate at subsonic velocities. While obviously the BCs of the bullets change dramatically once going subsonic and wind affects them much more, its simply not just a wind issue after a bullet goes subsonic. This is also a big reason why hornady after years has finally brought the 285gr bullet into the amax line due to the BTHP not doing so hot when going transonic plus that little polymer tip helps it keep up with the big boy 300gr bullets.

While many smart people who shoot competitions have written books Id keep in mind the competitions they talk about and have gained their knowledge from were at 1000yds and less. Even 308s can be shot supersonic at that range. Look at what guys are doing with 6mms out to 1300, hell guys getting first round hits at 1550 with 6.5 creedmoors. Some bullets just do not make the jump as well as others, regardless of whatever literature you read. The world of shooting has DRASTICALLY changed in the last decade. Hell even since 2005 when the 6th edition of that book you were citing the 4th edition of. Nobody was shooting bullets into the subsonic region with any regularity at the distances were are today. Hell guys are taking factory savage 338s with good glass and shooting almost 2 miles with them. Ole boy writing that book in 2005 would have shit his britches if someone told him theyd be doing that today.

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. Referencing books and not real world results is akin to the engineers I deal with at work all the time that tell me how we are suppose to build a building and I show them very quickly how the real world works. Youre welcome to believe whatever it is you want but I judge off performance, not "what things should be" and real world evidence points to certain types of bullets being more accurate when making the long jump than others. Theres a reason Amaxs and Bergers are so popular for that type of work and SMKs are falling off. Hell Sierra even got the memo, they just released polymer tipped 77 and 175 SMKs.

 

[benenglish]

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?

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?

the 6th edition of that book you were citing the 4th edition of.

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 just don't buy the 2300fps non-sense either. ...

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:

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.

...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:

After 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.

and

The shock waves resulting from transitioning through the sonic barrier are what fouls up accuracy.

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.

 

[Vaquero]

Ben,
I like the direction you have taken the thread. Carry on please.

 

[Sapper740]

Ben, Flash, et al, the wealth of your experiences and your desire to share it with the rest of us great unwashed is the reason I keep coming back to TGT. Thanks guys and keep posting. Very informative...and entertaining thread!

 

[Pawpaw40]

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)

 

[Vaquero]

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)

Lol! Yeah, I still want to know too. Weather looks promising saturday. Work schedule too. Cross yer fingers.

 

[1slow01Z71]

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.

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?

The tumbling of 168 SMKs after 800yds is so well known Im surprised an expert in long range shooting such as yourself is not aware of this. Your whole argument is that the actual act of a bullet going subsonic(or transonic region) does not affect its accuracy, its the shooters crappy ability to judge what a slower bullet is doing is the problem right? That's simply not the case. Of course the amax and SMK are different designs but the point Im making remains the same. Some bullet designs do not make the long haul as well as others just like flash said. Run the ballistics calc between a 168 SMK and a 168 amax, there is literally a 30fps difference between the two at 1000 yards yet the amax has been shown to make the 1000yd haul just fine while its widely documented the smk tumbles at 800yds.

While I agree the sound barrier plays a wider role than just right at 1100fps, it has a major affect on bullets with crappy designs. The boat tail design of the 168 SMK has been shown time and again to be a flawed design and why they perform poorly at longer distances. How do explain the amaxs that which for all intents and purposes are identical in speed are accurate to hundreds of yards farther than the SMK if it isn't the design of the bullet not playing nice with the transonic region?

 

[mikeofcontex]

My longest competition range was 500m in hunter's silhouette. It's been a long time ago.

Without the technical knowledge... when the velocity of the projectile decays to 120% of the speed of sound (varies with temp and pressure) there is a change in the status of the longitudinal axis. After the trauma, the axis seldom returns to its previous status. In my experience, groups grow in all directions. This is observable with 22lr in group size between 50 yards and 100 yards. Often the 1MOA group at 50 will grow to 2MOA at 100 everything else being equal.

That's simple enough for we short range shooters.

 

[benenglish]

...have you actually shot to these distances...?

To those distances, yes. Through the velocity ranges in question, yes, extensively.

I do not, however, have enough experience in rhetoric to reconcile this:

...as far as I can tell, we're in complete agreement on all substantive points.

with this:

...you essentially call me a liar...

except to note the caveat "essentially", which serves the same function as in my original

...unless there are other factors...

I prefer to believe that no one is being deliberately rude but, rather, we're just not operating from the same set of assumptions.

For example, this:

Often the 1MOA group at 50 will grow to 2MOA at 100 everything else being equal.

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.

External ballistics is a subject that requires so many inputs to understand even one particular application that it's pretty much impossible to explore generalities without authoring rather thick textbooks. I've seen impassioned threads on other boards go into the multiple thousands of words, all authored by people much smarter than me, most being right about most things they say, yet everyone disagreeing in the strongest terms with everyone else.

I screwed up by forgetting something I once knew: this subject can be as toxic and irresolvable on gun boards as the abortion debate is on political boards. I should have never told Flash that I respected him and his wisdom and then appended "but" to that statement.

I apologize to everyone for that and accept full responsibility for the acrimony that has now been shown on TGT as a result.

I like the direction you have taken the thread. Carry on please.

Well, I tried to take it in the direction of courteously discussing some interesting stuff and, quite obviously, I failed.

So I don't think I will carry on. I think it best if I just stand on this:

I won't post further in this thread on the subject...

and bow out.

Again, my apologies to all.

 

[1slow01Z71]

I get defensive when someone calls me a liar. I stated that 168 SMKs tumble past 800 you come right back and say they don't. Its kind of hard to have a discussion with someone who will not accept a widely proven fact because it does not fall in with their line of thinking. At 880 yards, FGMM with 168 SMKs keyholes on the target, period. Even in handloads it keyholes at that distance and with a simple google search you will find I am not alone in that experience, even at high elevation. Ill let you get back to reading your books while I get back to pull triggers and gathering real world info.