I'm wondering how long range shooters define the maximum range a given load is good for? Is it the range where velocity drops to near Mach 1, or is there some other criteria?

the Mach 1 thing is a general rule of thumb, but sometimes you can go below mach 1 and still get pretty decent accuracy. a few years ago MontanaMarine here took his .308 to 1800 yards with very good results.

I accept that some loads on some days can transition to subsonic flight while retaining good accuracy. However, given the range to a target in advance, would you select a load that goes subsonic somewhere before impact, or would you stay above Mach 1? If you want to stay above Mach 1, how much of a cushion above Mach 1 is prudent?

Mach 1.2 is what German Salazar like to maintain for optimum accuracy. He's a very accomplished shooter.

If you go to the JBM trajectory calculator, it gives Mach values in the outputs.

http://www.jbmballistics.com/ballistics/calculators/calculators.shtml

Mach 1.2 is about 1,340 f/s under standard conditions per the JBM calculator. It seems then that if I'm selecting a load for long range shooting I need to find a caliber and bullet that gets me to the range I want with at least 1,340 f/s of velocity remaining.

Another consideration is the minimum terminal velocity at which your chosen bullet will still expand. If not, then the choice of bullet is immaterial other than for accuracy.

That's a good point. Just as an example, for a 300 Win Short Mag about the best flying "hunting" bullet I can find is the 150 grain SBT GameKing with a G1 BC of 0.558. A muzzle velocity of 3,300 f/s is reasonable in this caliber for a 150 grain bullet. From an accuracy standpoint it doesn't drop below Mach 1.2 until 1,375 yards, but it's down to 1,020 foot-pounds of energy by 1,200 yards where the velocity is still 1,515 f/s.

At least in this caliber it seems that good terminal ballistics sets the maximum range for hunting medium size game. Is that what others find, that the ethics of getting a clean kill on game is usually the limiting factor on range versus the potential for accuracy alone?

Per Sierra, that bullet only has a BC of .380 to .360, depending on velocity.

Sorry, it's the 200 grain bullet catalog #2165. All the velocity and energy information I gave before was correct, I just reported the wrong weight, but the MV might be beyond the 300 Win SM for a 200 grain bullet.

The 0.558 BC is the equal TOF to 1500 yards conversion of Sierra's multiple BC values (Ken Oehler's idea from the July 2007 issue of Shooting Times). Making the same conversion to G7 results in a BC of 0.282, which matches the drop of the 0.558 G1 BC to within 1% out to 1,500 yards. Strange, I thought there was supposed to be a big difference between G1 vs. G7 predicted trajectories.

OK, that sounds right.

I have some of the Sierra 200gr SPBT on the shelf here. Very accurate in my 308 Win. They do fly well too.

This is what I use as a general rule, give or take around 200 fps. Most bullet makers seem to have a floor of about 1800 fps. Not sure if that is around Mach 1.2 or not, but I would think it is. I do not pay much (any) attention the energy numbers, as in a real world, they mean very little, if anything at all to me.
Worry about the wind, everything else can be taken care of.

R.

Under standard temp and pressure, the speed of sound is 340.3 m/s[3] (1225 km/h, or 761.2 mph, or 661.5 knots, or 1116 ft/s) in the Earth's atmosphere

Mach 1.2 is about 1,340 f/s under standard conditions. I agree with you about accuracy being the number one consideration and that carries over to everything concerning shooting. The quality of a gun comes down to how accurate it is under field conditions. The quality of ammunition is judged by how accurate it is in the field, not the velocity of the bullet when it punches a hole in the target. That said, hunting ethics, at least for me, requires using a proper bullet for the intended game and having sufficient energy at impact to produce a quick kill.

1340fps would be a bit slow for me, based on the 1800fps most makers specify, being used a guideline only.

What makes a proper bullet for the intended game?
And what is sufficient energy at impact?

R.

If you're target shooting the bullet only needs to make a hole in the target, but for hunting, impact is just beginning of the bullet's job.

Other than for the smallest game you want a bullet designed for hunting rather than target shooting. Bullets intended for varmint hunting are designed for rapid expansion, but for medium and larger game hunting bullets are designed to expand reliably while retaining a high percentage of their weight for deep penetration.

How much power is needed can be calculated using various equations. For example, the Matunas optimal game weight formula.

I look at the problem from the other way around, very much like dennisiaz stated, but adjusted for my purposes. DI said he wanted to use the minimum terminal velocity to make sure the bullet expands and that is an excellent parameter. If you decide 1800FPS is your minimum, you can easily compute the maximum distance for your load to have that minimum velocity and you have your answer.

My parameters are that I want my bullet to be comfortably above Mach 1.25 at the target, the higher the better. The reason I aim for Mach 1.25 is is the start of the flight envelope when pressure on the bullet (or airplane, where I got this from) builds up rapidly as the shockwave catches up to and starts moving forward of the bullet. This reaches a maximum right at Mach 1 and then drops off rapidly below Mach 0.95. This is why you have airliners that fly at high subsonic speed but still below Mach .95. With computer control (fly by wire) punching through Mach 1 is no longer the event it was in the past, but bullets do not have on-board computer controls.

If your bullet does not get blown off course or set tumbling by the transonic passage (and very few bullets tumble) the subsonic portion of the trajectory will be very stable and you can get good accuracy. The last thing I want is to be in the Mach .95 to 1.25 envelope at the target.

So my goal is to find an accuracy node that will provide for a target velocity above Mach 1.25 (or 1.2 for general purposes) to keep my bullet from that transonic pressure area since the shock wave is left behind. Since Mach number is affected solely by temperature and I shoot most often when it can get quite hot, I try to give myself some margin. Then again, when the air is hot and humid bullets fly faster due to less air resistance so achieving a higher velocity is easier.

I used JBM to calculate the required MV for my parameters and my current .308 match load is Mach 1.4 at the 1000 yard target in 90 degree weather and 70% humidity. I suspect in July and August it�s even higher when we have 100% humidity.

So pick your desired parameter and then compute from there.

Beyond terminal ballistics, it seems the consensus is that the practical maximum range is where a given bullet drops below Mach 1.2 (about 1,340 at 59F), although some prefer Mach 1.25 or even Mach 1.6 as the low limit.

That's interesting, because while the magnitude of drag depends a great deal on the shape of a bullet, the drag profile is relatively insensitive to shape above Mach 1.2. What that means is that the G1 ballistic coefficient can accurately predict the flight of even VLD bullets in the Mach 3.5 to 1.2 velocity range, which is what it seems most long range shooters stick to.

I do things a little backwards too. Although all the charts and data look good on paper, I let the bullet tell me what it is doing. We all know that a lot of deer/elk are killed with cartridges that have 500-700 foot lbs. of energy (.30-30's, .44 mags, .223's .22's etc.) It isn't the energy that kills the critter, it is the bullet puncturing the vitals. It doesn't take much energy to do that. ON that note, I look at when the bullet starts to perform "strange" (accuracy drops off, steel target splash isn't happening, no noticeable on target impact etc.).

For instance, I shoot a .22-250 loaded with 75 grain Amaxs. It shoots great at 800 yards, just okay at 900, and crappy at 1,000. At 1,000 yards, the bullet is WAY below subsonic and becomes unstable and sometimes hits the target sideways. I don't even know if the bullet is still spinning So for this rifle, 800 is about the max I can stretch it to and actually kill/hit chucks and rodents. Flinch

Interesting, I was able to put 75gr A-max on the target at 1000 yards in summertime out of 24 inch AR-15 in .223. Winter time (such as it is in Texas,) the bullet would go in subsonic but still stable. What MV are you getting?

FTR Shooter,

Where in Texas are you? I spent the first 40 years of my life in Texas.

This is a topic I have spent much time on over the last decade and obviously there is some controversy !!!!!
This is just my opinion and experience from what me and my nephew have done over the last decade.
My longest range rifle is a 338 Lapua Imp. with all the bell's and whistle's (at 56#), throated to shoot the 300gr SMK.
Both me and my nephew have shot game past 2100 yards with this rifle but have noticed that just past this distance when this bullet starts to go sub-sonic or trans-sonic (depending on elevation, humidity etc.) all accuracy is lost and spotting a shot is next to impossible.
Other's have a different view.......For example gunsmith Gordy Gridder's has almost an Identical rifle to mine shooting the same bullet at the same velocity that he claim's is accurate to 5 miles (more than 3 miles sub-sonic!!!!!).

Make a Long Range rifle and find out for yourself

You're getting a muzzle-velocity of 3300 fps using a .30 caliber 200 grain Gameking? How long is your barrel? Are you getting any pressure signs?

Gordy built the rifle I'm using. He does excellent work.

I'm in the Houston area.

The 338 Lapua Mag is a great long range rifle and as of 2009 it held the sniper long range record with two kills at 2,707 yards. Still, the director of the company that manufactured that rife said "It is still fairly accurate beyond 1,500 m (1,640 yd), but at that distance luck plays as much of a part as anything." I wonder what they would say about Gordy Gridder's claim that his 338 Lapua Mag is accurate to 5 miles (8800 yards)?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "accurate". Shooting a target at 8,800 yards is impressive, but range estimation must be tough; I mean, if you're off by a yard or two, the bullet will miss the house. Are laser rangefinders good enough for that?

Also, I'm pretty sure he would not be doing this offhand, so if he's shooting from a bench, I think the target would be over the horizon. I'm sure it would be if he's shooting prone. Then again, it could be a huge target, like the side of a mountain.

My unaltered quote is as follows:



In my next post where I corrected the bullet weight I also said "the MV might be beyond the 300 Win SM for a 200 grain bullet." Also note that I said "Just as an example", not something like "My 300 Win Short Mag..."

At 5 miles you would have to elevate the 338 Lapua Mag rifle like an artillery piece and have a forward observer to call in corrections. Not that you could hit anything the .338 bullet would have much of an effect on, but with no wind you might be able get a group size of 255 yards, which works out to a 1 MOA group at 8,800 yards. Some would call that accurate, just not practical.

I stand corrected...

Okay I'm gonna have to pull the bullschit card out and lay it down on that one...

Many years ago I did a job for a client (Fort Knox Safes), while sitting in their office waiting for them to cut me a check I noticed a magazine that I had never seen before..."The Varmint Hunter". I was fascinated and asked if I could buy it from them. they said take it, it is yours. I read it from cover to cover more than once and got addicted to the writing's of Ned Kalbfleish,Major L.Boddicker, Steve Hanson and Steve Timm (dogzapper on this forum).
My hobby since that time has been to shoot varmint's at longer and longer ranges, me and my nephew have spent a decade or more and ten's of thousand's of dollar's in that persuit getting into the Varmint Hunter's 500,1000,1500,2000 yard club's.
In 2005 I recieved the Varmint Hunter's" Long Shot of the Year" award for shooting a marmot (rockchuck) at 2144 yards, I thought this was quite an acomplishment.

until the 2006 LSOTY award came out...........It was total B.S. what was claimed was not possible and all credibility was flushed down the schitter.
Ned Kalbfleish was gone, Steve Hanson was gone and one of the best gun writer's ever Steve Timm was banished.
Then the Varmint Hunter was left with with self promoters like Gordy Gritters (good gunsmith, but lack's reality in his shooting ability). and total moron's like L.P.Brezny that think's he know's it all when he has trouble wiping his own azz.
I am not sure since I cancelled my subscription and threw all my old one's in the trash, but he made this claim sometime in 2006

After the Sandy Hook tests of 1879, a new variation of the .45-70 cartridge was produced, the .45-70-500, which fired a heavier 500 grain (32.5 g) bullet. The heavier 500-grain (32 g) bullet produced significantly superior ballistics, and could reach ranges of 3,350 yards (3,120 m), which were beyond the maximum range of the .45-70-405. While the effective range of the .45-70 on individual targets was limited to about 1,000 yards (915 m) with either load, the heavier bullet would produce lethal injuries at 3,500 yards (3,200 m). At those ranges, the bullets struck point-first at roughly a 30 degree angle, penetrating 3 one inch (2.5 cm) thick oak boards, and then traveling to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) into the sand of the Sandy Hook beach*. It was hoped the longer range of the .45-70-500 would allow effective volleyed fire at ranges beyond those normally expected of infantry fire.

I think a lot of the difference in range between the loads from an accuracy standpoint is the intended use on "individual targets" as compared to "effective volleyed fire." Given the same shape, the heavier projectile would have a higher ballistic coefficient, but a lower muzzle velocity. I expect both loads would have similar accuracy, but with the heavier projectile having more penetrating power at 3,350 yards.

There's a difference between 'maximum range', and 'maximum effective range'.

And then 'effective' can be a lot of different things, depending on the intended purpose.

Effective range for harrasing fire on a troop staging area with volley fire, is a lot different than effective range on prairie dogs.

I think volleyed fire means a bunch of troops firing at the enemy. Given the ballistics of the .45-70-500 the elevation required to even hit the ground at 3,350 yards would be measured in degrees rather than MOA and likely beyond the adjustment of the iron sights on guns of the time. Aimed by vertical Kentucky windage, effective must mean the power to do real damage on the chance a particular bullet finds a target.

Well, I suppose my point was that often times the cartridge we choose may be far more capable than we would intially give it credit for. By citing that article I would have never dreamed that a 45-70 could even be considered fit for duty even much beyond 700 yards or so, let alone 3500. So I expect the intent of the long range shooting would actually be the goal.

My intent was not to showcase the 45-70 for this thread.

Gordy built my present long range rig, and I believe his gunsmithing abilities are second to none. I talk with Gordy fairly frequently. What precisely was it he claimed that the BS card is being thrown on, and when exactly did he claim it? Finally, who heard Gordy make the claim as described in this thread? The VH staff? A poster on this forum?

I plan on asking him, and hopefully clearing this up for myself. I find it difficult to believe Gordy would make such an outlandish claim as recounted on this thread, but I'll find out for myself. Gordy has always been straight with me, and I would expect he would continue to be so.

I'm sorry. LOL.

My brother and sister both live off of Jones Road in NW Houston. We all were born in Baytown and grew up in LaPorte. All three of us went to Texas A&M. I ended up going to work for the Brazos County Sheriff's Department in 1983 and worked there until 1999. My wife got her PhD from Texas A&M and was offered an Assistant Professor position (skipping the 2-year post doctoral period) at Southern Illinois University. I despise Illinausea more with each passing day. We now hold the distinction of being the ONLY state in the Union that does not offer some form of concealed carry. I think that's special; like short-bus special.

What was claimed? How was it determined the shot wasn't possible? Who claimed to have made the LSOTY of 2006?

You MOVED to Illinois. From Texas? Did you lose a bet?

Reloder28. I understand that you did not intend to showcase the 45/70. The way I see it is that the 500 grain bullet is going to rise pretty high to get to 3500 yard, and since everything that goes up must come down, come down this 500gr bullet will.

I don't know that I would even want to have somebody throw a 500gr bullet at me, I would definitely not want to have one fall out of the sky on my head or anywhere else, especially point on.

Yeah...something like that. I hate this over-regulated, gun-hating liberal wasteland. Chitcago runs the state. Southern Illinois reminds me of Texas...it's just on average 20 degrees cooler and when the sun goes down the temperature actually drops. I can remember days in Texas while I was waiting for it to cool off enough to run, it would still be 90 degrees at 11:00 PM.

I'd like to get a line of D9 Cats and push Chitcago and its corrupt political machine off into Lake Michigan.

When did Gordy make that claim? I find it hard to believe that he would say anything like that.

Illinois, Chicago epecially is a glowing example of how the imposter in the White House along with his monetary supporter George Sirosis, would fashion the whole of this country if those two had their way.

Can I help? That current machine is running our country right now.

Yep! Running and RUINING I might add.

I'm gonna have to pull the bullschit card out lay it down on the notion that Gordy Gritters would ever say anything like that.

5 miles?? The only calculater I can find to run these sort of numbers is the Berger Ballistics. It maxes out at a time of flight of about 25 seconds. A 300 grain .338 bullet .800 BC launched at 3400fps will travel about 7000 yards in 24.913 seconds and require 1068 MOA correction to get there. Is is showing about 658 fps when it arrives. Are you still sure about shooting anything at 5 miles? You would need a lot of butcher paper to ever find where you were hitting.

Someone smarter or has more time than me to figure out what that scope mount would look like.

Magnumdood, If you quit trying to boost your post count and read the entire thread you will find that I answered your question

You haven't answered ONE question yet, and I've asked several.

Is this what you consider the answer to my question? Did you and Gordy sit down over a beer and have a discussion where he revealed he had a .338 Lapua Imp that was accurate out to 5 miles? Did he tell you that over the phone? As I said, I'm throwing the BS card on your claim that Gordy said he had ANY shoulder fired weapon that was accurate out to 5 miles...post count be hanged.

HiredGun & Reloader28,

I know Gordy pretty well, and I feel comfortable in stating he would never say anything as outrageous as boatanchor is claiming he said. I'll get in touch with him today, and ask him directly, but I'm certain he'll say "No" when asked if he claimed a 338 Lapua Imp. that he owns is accurate out to 5 miles.


PS - I know for a fact that Gordy doesn't employee any forward observers.

[/quote] he made this claim in 2006 [/quote]

Magnumvagina, learn how to read instead of just bumping your gums

I keep answering your questions and you keep being an A-Hole....what is the problem with you Mag-Vag

buttanchor,

I don't believe you.

Didn't find anything on the 5 mile shot but I did find some info on a 18" group at 2miles. This has got the article from VH along with an email sent to Gordy getting him to explain.
http://www.longrangehunting.com/for...-dropping-out-supersonic-velocity-31623/

Thanks for the link to an interesting post by Fiftydriver. He mentions the speed of sound for his altitude, but as FTR Shooter has already mentioned, the speed of sound is affected only by temperature (also a bit by humidity). If someone as seemingly experienced at Fiftydrive doesn't appear to know this, then the misconception that altitude changes the speed of sound may be widespread.

Anyone looking at a drag coefficient graph can't help but notice the huge change in drag as a bullet's velocity passes form supersonic to subsonic. The range to the transonic zone changes even though there are two forces working counter to each other. As temperature goes up the speed of sound goes up, which tends to reduce the range to the transonic zone, but air density goes down, which tends to increase the range to the transonic zone.

I haven't looked, but perhaps there's a MV and BC combination where the two forces balance out and the distance to the transonic zone is relatively stable over some temperature range. If so, I would expect such a load to be have an edge in long range accuracy and it might be one explanation for some loads being accurate on some days, but not on other days.

Buttanchor, you are undoubtedly the stupidest poster the poor campfire has had to put up with in a long time. You don�t have any of your facts straight � NONE. You need to read the WHOLE thread by Fiftydriver, that�s linked in this thread. Gordy claimed to be shooting 3000 yards, then 3600 yards, or at the most, 2.045 miles, not 5 miles. That�s just one tidbit.

2 miles, 5 miles.... what's the difference, really?

Are you saying it's horsehockey either way? I have to agree with you.

None for you two or Kirby Allen.

Oh, now I'm hurt.

You know, you don't have to be afraid of calling "bulls**t" on something you know is not possible or repeatable. You can claim anything you want on the Internet and with pictures and video to support your claim. It does not change the fact it's still crap.

Can someone hit a target at 2 miles with a shoulder fired firearm? If you send enough ammo downrange, at some point you will. Can you do it several times in a row? Maybe if the firearm is not shoulder mounted anymore but strapped onto some kind of craddle and nobody touches it before it fires again immediately. Breathe on the rifle and kiss your "group" goodbye.

So, did your ever talk to Gritters?

Maclorry...you had some very good informative answers from knowledgeable shooters....until the posts went sub-sonic, and accuracy was lost.

IMHO, the limiting factor in a HUNTING load, is me. Too many variables. But, in conditions faverable to a shot, I would still want my bullet to be at, or above 17-1800 fps. on target.

The limiting factor in punching paper or steel, is the Mach number.

You're right, the skill of the shooter is paramount, but no shooter no matter how skilled can overcome an inaccurate gun and load combination unless they have a name like Davy Crocket or Annie Oakley and there's a film crew nearby.

While most on this topic believe staying above Mach 1.2 is sufficient, there was at least one other that wanted to keep above Mach 1.5 or 1.6 (1680 to about 1800 f/s). For paper or steel I believe Mach 1.2 is sufficient, but for hunting game other than varmints, Mach 1.6 is about as low as I would go.

Who on this forum could disagree with that

Well, of course you wouldn't disagree with your own position no matter how wrong it is.

Very helpful topic for anyone wanting an idea of what long range means.

Actually, if you realy read the posts, the definition of long range is in there.

I reckon so, but better it's in one thread and based on a technical description rather than anecdotal accounts that may be open to question.

There is no one technical definition of long range. It will vary from cartridge to cartridge. Additionally, where do you think technical descriptions come from? Technical descriptions are derived from empirical data.

Regardless of cartridge, Mach 1.2 is the same and that defines "a load's maximum range" for reliable accurate shooting per the title of the topic. The use of the word empirical was a mistake; now fixed. I meant to say anecdotal accounts.

I agree with you regarding anecdotal evidence. It tells us nothing...period.

1

1

Exactly the point I was trying to make....but MagnumVagina has to be the judge, if he does not agree then everybody is a liar, but what is his opinion is gospel truth

Magnumvagina, I would love to respond to your empirical....technical data....but too busy laughing about this post. who do you think you are LaBrick James

buttplug, you�ve had time to laugh at my description, now, tell me where it�s wrong, and, if you say my answer is wrong, supply the correct answer.

MontanaMarine,

What kind of accuracy were you getting? 1 MOA, 2 MOA...?

Were your bullets still super-sonic or were they sub-sonic.

I've had consistency of approx 1 moa at a mile.

This was in near calm, 70F, 4500' el. Load was a 208 AMax at 2620 fps, from a 308 Win.

My traj calc estimated retained velocity of 1104 fps, and a correction of 79.25 moa. For my calc I used BC .630 per Litz.

I believe the actual retained velocity was less, because I need 90 moa correction to get on target. Or, it's possible the range to target was over a mile. My LRF is only good to about 1200 yards, and I kinda did the leapfrog to figure the range.

You are reading the post wrong.
From that post:


I read it as an explanation as to why the distance it reaches transonic may differ from Gordy's.

Good point. I think you are correct.

In conclusion, Mach 1.2 is well known as the high limit of the transonic velocity zone as can be seen in the following quote from Wikipedia External Ballistics.



The reason most long range shooters stay above Mach 1.2 is also supported in another quote from Wikipedia.



The useful range of a load is determined by where the remaining velocity drops to Mach 1.2. Those who want to go further should use larger caliber bullets if the Lapua Doppler radar data is to be believed.

A lot depends on the application too.

The criteria for competetive target ammo is a lot different from other uses. Snipers in current wars are making a lot of kills well past Mach 1.2.

Hunting ammo is another game altogether. Most high velocity stuff probably wants 1600-1800 fps minimum. But muzzle loaders, 45-70s, handguns, and similar can work well into subsonic velocities.

Lots of variables depending on your equipment, and purpose.

Great post, MM

You are very correct. If snipers are using a .308 with M118LR ammo, their rounds are going below Mach 1.2 around 750 yards, further depending on elevation. For those hits they are able to make beyond that range I am sure they can inflict nasty wounds and kills. I would hate to be hit by a 175gr SMK even subsonic. One must also understand that these bullets are not designed to expand, the open tip is only an artifact of the production method used to make these bullets.

I was not aware that other let alone, most LR shooters are looking to be above Mach 1.2 at the target; all the ones I ever talk with just want to be above the sound barrier. When I explain that I look for Mach 1.25, I've never had anything to which to point that supported my theory except for the aeronautics sites. Now I have more.

My purpose is to punch the paper, the sniper's purpose is to hit the target. The hunter's purpose is to have the bullet expand to get a humane kill and the minimum velocity needed to do that depends greatly on the bullet.

The Lapua Doppler radar data shows that smaller caliber rifle bullets are more likely to experience problems when they drop below Mach 1.2. That could be why the longest sniper kills are with 0.338 and larger calibers. From Wikipedia Longest Recorded Sniper Kills.



Seems that if you're going to go past ranges where remaining velocity drops below Mach 1.2, then you should be using a larger caliber. That backs up what you said about muzzle loaders, 45-70s, handguns, and similar can work well into subsonic velocities. Even so, the Lapua data shows that accuracy drops off as a result of going through the transonic range.

Interesting that the maximum effective range of a 7mm Magnum is only 100 meters farther than the 7.62x51 round.

Those MEF comparisons are fairly meaningless without specifying the bullet, muzzle velocity, and elevation.

+1; His charts are probably based on store purchased ammo. Roll your own and check them up against store purchased ammmo --big diff.

If you follow the link it tells you that ATK is the source of the MER data. You know, ATK as in a major defense contractor. It�s dummied down data for politicians and executives, but at least it�s something. Would be interesting to see that 14.5x114mm in action.