24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 14 of 16 1 2 12 13 14 15 16
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 21,686
C
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
C
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 21,686
Originally Posted by Mule Deer
One of the best hunters I've ever known was a guy who bought a RCBS press and two sets of dies while he was still in high school in the 1950's. The dies were for the .250 Savage and .30-06, because the two centerfire rifles he owned were a .250-3000 Savage 99 and a "sporterized" South American Mauser in .30-06. Both had their original open sights.

He bought the cheapest 100-grain .25-caliber and 180-grain caliber bullets he could find in local sporting goods stores, and used the "middle" load of IMR4320 in his Speer manual. He was married to a woman who was an enrolled member of the Montana reservation they lived on, so could hunt big game on the rez under the same regs as tribal members. He also hunted coyotes, foxes and whatever other furbearers he could every winter, and every fall drove 600 miles across Montana to hunt elk near the Idaho panhandle, where he killed a bunch of 'em, usually with the .30-06 but sometimes with the .250. I hunted with him quite a bit, both in eastern and western Montana. Witnessed him killing deer at 150-200 yards, often running, and he always got an elk back when elk weren't nearly as abundant as they are today--and often several, because this was back when many hunters shot enough elk for everybody in camp, if they had a chance. He didn't really care much about trophy antlers but killed some big-antlered deer and elk anyway, because he loved to hunt, so hunted hard.

He never hunted outside Montana, where he was born, and was also the only handloader I've ever known who actually did it to save money. When he died, he was still using the same rifles, press and dies he'd purchased in high school, the press mounted on a 2x12 screwed down across the back of his livingroom closet. I don't believe he ever shot a group in his life other than when sighting-in his rifles the first time. After that they always shot right to the same place with the same charge of IMR4320 and the cheapest bullets he could buy.


Thank you for taking the time to type that up. I really enjoyed reading it. When you said used the "Middle" load of 4320, I got a chuckle, because I remember back to loading my first handloads and picking the middle load out of the old Speer #9 manual. I suspect there were several folks who did that, for a long while. On a semi-related note, I always appreciated Nosler for putting an asterisk beside the most accurate load they came up with for each powder in a given cartridge. More often than not, I have had good accuracy with whichever load they marked with that asterisk.


"The number one problem with America is, a whole lot of people need shot, and nobody is shooting them."
-Master Chief Hershel Davis

BP-B2

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
Jesus. Stick to discussions about bullets killing schit that don't involve physics. The discussion of physics here proves one thing: that modern public education is worthless.

First: Einstein. The energy of an object is its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light. It need have no velocity to have energy. If you think it must be so, explain a fission weapon.

Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.

Third: force applied is the definition of work, and is not defined by energy, but by mass and velocity.


You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

First, the kinetic energy of an object is NOT it’s mass multiplied but the speed of light squared. It is 1/2 the mass multiplied by its velocity squared (E = 1/2*m*v*v). Contrary to your claim, an object MUST have velocity to have kinetic energy, which is the type of energy being discussed.




Second, objects with measurable mass CAN approach the speed of light. I posted the following earlier but you apparently didn’t read it.
Quote
Scientific experiments have succeeded in accelerating massful particles to speeds very close to light-speed in a perfect vacuum and much faster than light travels in air, where it is about 90km/s slower, or water, where it is about 25% slower.

For example, the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) has accelerated protons, which have mass, to 299,792,447 meters per second. That is 99.9999991% or just 11 meters per second shy of the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. 

Those speeds were actually rather slow compared to those achieved by the LEP (Large Electron-Positron Collider). The LEP has accelerated electrons and positrons, both of which have mass, to 299,792,457.9964 meters per second. That is 99.9999999988% or just 0.0036 meters per second slower than the theoretical speed of light in a perfect vacuum. 

Granted, 99.9999999988% is not the same as 100%, but frankly, I don't care. For our purposes here it is close enough and then some.


Moreover, because velocity measurements are relative to a particular point of view, there are galaxies in our universe which are speeding away from our galaxy at greater than the speed of light.





Third, force is NOT the definition of work. Force is not work and does not do work unless an object is accelerated in some direction. The formula for work is Work=Force*Displacement*cosine(theta) where the angle theta is the angle between the direction of the force and the direction of displacement. That said, when work is done, energy is transferred from one object to another or changed from one form to another.




Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 09/13/17. Reason: spellnig

Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
...
Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.
...


One other thing regarding your statement above. Photons have a theoretical mass of zero when at rest. When moving they have mass. And they are ALWAYS moving.

You say objects with mass cannot approach the speed of light. Please explain at what speed photons travel. The speed of....sound?

You really are clueless when it comes to physics.


Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,605
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 21,605
This is the first thread that has fallen so high that my dumb a-s can't begin to understand it.


Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
You know that which is why you wouldn't use a 60g Partition at 1800fps but would choose a heavier bullet at that velocity instead. Mass matters. Velocity matters. Energy matters.


1) On the 60-grain bullet the reasons I wouldn't choose it are twofold. First, it would be a .223 bullet which is illegal for big game in my state. Which is also your state by the way. Second, it wouldn't make a big enough hole in my opinion. I realize that others may not share that opinion, but I don't believe it's my place to go on and on about how and why others choose the bullets they shoot. That's none of my business and just plain stupid.

2) On the 500 grain bullet, I wouldn't choose it because it results in more recoil than I want to deal with. Again, if someone else chooses to shoot one, more power to him, it's not my business to tell him how or why he chooses his bullet. Maybe he just likes the sound of "500 grain bullet." It's none of my concern.

3) Lastly, I don't shoot very many Nosler bullets so their data (the basis of your argument) are 100% irrelevant to my bullet choices.


You avoid answering the question by hiding behind specious arguments. But duck and dodge all you want – you and I and everyone else knows why you would choose a bullet heavier than 60g .22 -- because heavier bullets at 1800fps have the potential for greater destruction. And that potential is because they carry more energy.

1) You’ve hunted Alaska. Alaska has no minimum cartridge for elk – a 60g Partition would be legal there. As it would be in Idaho, Montana and possibly other places as well. Colorado could eliminate minimum restrictions but even then I doubt you would choose a .22 caliber 60g Partition at 1800fps for elk.

You say a 60g Partition “wouldn’t make a big enough hole”. Just how big a hole do you need? Hunters kill a lot of elk with hardcast bullets that expand very little – to less than the 60g Partition would be expected to expand – and impact at velocities under 1800fps. Yet they get the job done.

2) OK, you don’t like the recoil of a 500g bullet at 1800fps. Neither do I, but at 1500fps they aren’t bad. In any case, whether 1500fps or 1800fps, a 500g would be an easy choice over a .22 60g at 1800fps. So tell us – just what caliber and weight would you choose for elk if limited to 1800fps impact velocity?

3) You say you don't shoot “many” Nosler bullets so their data is irrelevant to you. Another duck and dodge but not a very good one.












Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 09/14/17. Reason: typo

Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
IC B2

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter

You avoid answering the question by hiding behind specious arguments.



LOL, I've avoided nothing you dumbass. Not once have you asked me how I choose the bullets I shoot or what's important to me in making that decision. I've had no chance to avoid the question you never asked. Just as with your entire post above, you never ask the question, you just proceed to tell me what's important (to me!!) and then accuse me of "not answering the question" which is hilarious.

And I've told you you're wrong because you are.

If you want to ask the question I'll answer. Einstein.





A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter

You avoid answering the question by hiding behind specious arguments.



LOL, I've avoided nothing you dumbass. Not once have you asked me how I choose the bullets I shoot or what's important to me in making that decision. I've had no chance to avoid the question you never asked.

All you've done is tell me how I choose my bullets and what's important to me. And I've told you you're wrong because you are.

If you want to ask the question I'll answer. Einstein.




OK, so what bullets and weights do you choose to use when hunting elk? And why do yyou choose them?


Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
I'll answer the question for big game in general when I get a few minutes later today.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
F
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
F
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,395
Not sure what the fascination with shooting an elk with a .224 bullet is...I'll happily shoot an elk with a .224 60gr Partition. And if it was between that or a 500gr Partition, and my life depended on killing an elk, I would rather have the 60gr Partition.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
I only brought it up to show that CH was wrong about why I wouldn't choose one. it's not an option here.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

IC B3

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,197
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,197
Originally Posted by Formidilosus
Not sure what the fascination with shooting an elk with a .224 bullet is...I'll happily shoot an elk with a .224 60gr Partition. And if it was between that or a 500gr Partition, and my life depended on killing an elk, I would rather have the 60gr Partition.




I've done it....more than once.

Not a big deal if you know how to shoot.


Luck....is the residue of design...
[Linked Image]
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189
H
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
H
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot
...
Second: Einstein part 2. Any object (particle) with measurable mass cannot approach the speed of light. In the equations, mass becomes an asymptotic line, meaning that as a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its mass multiplies exponentially, with the upper limit being infinity. Basically, Einstein's equations showed that no object with mass can approach the speed of light, or it will end up outweighing the universe. Using the speed of light to define the energy of a thing with mass has nothing to do with its velocity. It is a misapplication of physics.
...


One other thing regarding your statement above. Photons have a theoretical mass of zero when at rest. When moving they have mass. And they are ALWAYS moving.

You say objects with mass cannot approach the speed of light. Please explain at what speed photons travel. The speed of....sound?

You really are clueless when it comes to physics.

I'm not going to bite. It is obvious who has read the physics here, and who understands the equations, which are all theoretical, and who has pulled things out of their ass. Keep posting what bullets at the speed of light behave like.


I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter


OK, so what bullets and weights do you choose to use when hunting elk? And why do yyou choose them?



Since you finally asked the question, I’ll answer. My bullet choice is based on a few different characteristics with accuracy at the top of the list followed by low recoil, and as good a BC as I can get with accuracy and low recoil optimized. Shot placement is more important than bullet weight or KE (to me anyway) and those all help with shot placement. Accuracy is obvious but low recoil helps because it means I’ll shoot more and be better with the rifle and BC helps with long shots.

I start with the rifle I want to carry and shoot, not the bullet. I hunt in the mountains and most often while backpacking so I try to minimize the weight of everything I carry including the rifle, the exception being pronghorn hunting. For elk and deer my favorite rifles are a Kimber Montana and a NULA. I bought the NULA for the AK sheep hunt and it’s one of my favorite rifles because it’s very accurate. Again, shot placement is my top priority.

Light rifles are not fun to shoot in magnum chamberings or with heavy bullets so I tend to go with milder chamberings based off the .308 case. Velocity and flat trajectory are not that important with a good repeatable scope, even for long shots. The .223 is not legal for big game where I hunt so that points me to the .243, .260, and 7-08 as giving the best combination of lighter, low-recoiling bullets with good BCs. It’s more difficult to get a high BC in a .243 bullet (and .243 bullets top out at lower BCs than 260s or 7 mms) so that further narrows it down to .260 and the 7-08 for me. And that’s what my favorite two rifles are chambered in, .260 Remington and 7-08, the NULA and Montana respectively.

So once I have the rifle I want in the chambering I want I shoot a few different bullets to see which are most accurate in that particular rifle. I start with bullets I know to be accurate with good BCs which for me lately tends to be the Lapua Scenar. I’ll shoot a few different weights with a few different powders, again, to see which combination is most accurate because bullet placement is most important to me.

In my .260 I settled on the 123 grain Scenar because it’s very accurate in the rifle (the most accurate bullet I tried) and has a decent BC of .525. I worked up the load for my 7-08 before I started shooting Scenars and settled on the 120 ballistic tip because it was very accurate in the rifle (the most accurate bullet I tried) and the 120 has a reputation as a very tough bullet. I own probably 15 rifles and the 7-08 is the lone example where I settled on a Nosler bullet in case you’re wondering. The BC of the 120 BT is not optimum but as I said accuracy is my top criterion. And both the .260 and the 7-08 shoot accurately enough that I’ve killed prairie dogs out past 600 yards. If energy or bullet mass was important to me I wouldn’t have chosen either bullet or either chambering for that matter. The 7-08 is the rifle I take elk hunting when I go for elk with a centerfire which is seldom. I most often hunt elk with a muzzleloader and the bullet I chose for my muzzleloader is once again the bullet that shoots most accurately in the rifle I use, a 348 grain Powerbelt.

My other favorite rifle is a very accurate model 70 re-barreled to 6.5-06 AI with a McMillan Hunter stock. It weighs around 9 lbs. so I don’t take it on mountain hunts but I do use it for pronghorns although lately I’ve been leaning toward the .260. The model 70 shoots bugholes with the Berger 140 grain bullet (great combination of low recoil/high BC) so it’s best suited to long distance shots on the plains where it’s windy. But I like the .260 better for some reason.

There you have it.




A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
smokepole -

Thank you for the answer.
When you specify a caliber and a B.C you are also specifying the things that go into them. Caliber for one. Bullet shape plays an important part, as does ... mass.

In your .260, for example, you specified a 123g Scenar, chosen for its accuracy and "decent B.C.". Given the caliber and shape, the B.C. is inextricably tied to bullet mass.

Now, why do you want a high B.C.? High B.C. values allow a bullet to retain velocity and shoot flatter. In doing so (retaining velocity) they also retain more energy.

So, to avoid the 60g-500g extremes, assume you have a choice between two .264 bullets, the 123g Scenar and an 85g bullet of the same design. (OK, I know 100 is the lighted made. Play along for a moment.) Assume accuracy was the same and velocity was 1800fps at impact. Which bullet would you prefer?

My guess is the 123g, which is the one I would choose as well. Not because I have to figure out the retained energy to make a decision (the Scenar isn't a bullet I would choose to use if given a choice, which is why I don't), but because experience tells me that, other factors being as equal as possible, a heavier bullet at velocity X has greater potential to cause damage and will likely do so. I suspect your thought processes really aren't all that much different.

If you ever get to Denver/Castle Rock, I'll be happy to buy you a beer and we can discuss it.









Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 09/14/17. Reason: spelnig

Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
In your .260, for example, you specified a 123g Scenar, chosen for its accuracy and "decent B.C.". Given the caliber and shape, the B.C. is inextricably tied to bullet mass.


No, you're wrong. BC is not inextricably tied to mass. You can have two bullets shaped identically, with the same BC, but with different mass. One way to do that is to make the bullets out of something lighter than lead like the Nosler E-tip. The other way is to have a big cavity in the nose of the bullet, like Berger bullets and Scenars do, which increases BC but not mass.




Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
Now, why do you want a high B.C.? High B.C. values allow a bullet to retain velocity and shoot flatter. In doing so (retaining velocity) they also retain more energy.


There you go again, telling me why I choose my bullets and getting it wrong, once again. That's not why I want a bullet with a high BC. As I said in my previous post velocity and flat trajectory are not all that important with a good repeatable scope that can be dialed for elevation. If velocity and energy were important to me I wouldn't be shooting cartridges based on the .308 case.

The reason I want a high BC is to buck the wind. Bullet drop is easy to compensate for because you have good numbers for all the variables needed to peg it--muzzle velocity, BC, range, and altitude (actually barometric pressure but altitude can substitute). Wind drift is much harder to compensate for because it requires an accurate estimate of the wind all along the bullet's path which is very difficult especially in tricky terrain where wind speed (and direction) will vary along the path. Estimation of wind speed is a huge source of error and a high BC minimizes wind drift making the error less significant. So minimizing wind drift is important and minimizing bullet drop is not.

I want a high BC bullet to minimize wind drift.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
In your .260, for example, you specified a 123g Scenar, chosen for its accuracy and "decent B.C.". Given the caliber and shape, the B.C. is inextricably tied to bullet mass.


No, you're wrong. BC is not inextricably tied to mass. You can have two bullets shaped identically, with the same BC, but with different mass. One way to do that is to make the bullets out of something lighter than lead like the Nosler E-tip. The other way is to have a big cavity in the nose of the bullet, like Berger bullets and Scenars do, which increases BC but not mass.


A bullet's B.C. is a ratio of its Sectional Density (S.D) to its coefficient of form (i), so B.C.=S.D./i. Coefficient of form (i) is dependent on a bullet's shape but is a constant for a given diameter and shape. Sectional Density is the ratio of a bullet's mass (m) to its diameter (d) squared, or S.D. = m/(d*d). In other words:

B.C. = S.D./i = (m/d*d)/i = m/(d*d*i)

You might notice that mass (m) is in the equation. As a result, while you can have different bullets of the same diameter (d) and same coefficient of form (i), but if their mass (m) is different they will have different B.C. values.

Compare a 3" styrofoam ball with a 3" lead ball. Same coefficient of form (i), same diameter (d), same shape, different mass (m) and very different B.C. values as a result.

So no, you cannot have two identically shaped bullets (including diameter, as in .264") with different mass that have the same B.C.



Quote

Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
Now, why do you want a high B.C.? High B.C. values allow a bullet to retain velocity and shoot flatter. In doing so (retaining velocity) they also retain more energy.


There you go again, telling me why I choose my bullets and getting it wrong, once again. That's not why I want a bullet with a high BC. As I said in my previous post velocity and flat trajectory are not all that important with a good repeatable scope that can be dialed for elevation. If velocity and energy were important to me I wouldn't be shooting cartridges based on the .308 case.

The reason I want a high BC is to buck the wind. Bullet drop is easy to compensate for because you have good numbers for all the variables needed to peg it--muzzle velocity, BC, range, and altitude (actually barometric pressure but altitude can substitute). Wind drift is much harder to compensate for because it requires an accurate estimate of the wind all along the bullet's path which is very difficult especially in tricky terrain where wind speed (and direction) will vary along the path. Estimation of wind speed is a huge source of error and a high BC minimizes wind drift making the error less significant. So minimizing wind drift is important and minimizing bullet drop is not.

I want a high BC bullet to minimize wind drift.


Again you duck and dodge. A bullet that shoots flatter because of its B.C. also has less wind drift. But that difference only comes into play at longer ranges - B.C. is pretty irrelevant at close range. As I showed above, B.C is directly tied to a bullet's mass. Velocity is important to you else you could reduce recoil by shooting all your bullets at 100fps. They wouldn't be very effective, but they would have very low recoil.

As soon as you specify a caliber, B.C. and velocity you are also specifying a specific energy. Transforming the equation "B.C.=m/(d*d*i)" from above yields this:
B.C.*d*d*i = m

And we already know energy (E), mass (m) and velocity(v) are related as follows:

E=1/2*m*v*v

Therefore:
E=1/2*(B.C.*d*d*i)*v*v

As a generally reasonable person I expect you would not take a shot if the range is such that velocity falls below the range where, in your judgement, your bullet will be effective. For purposes of discussion let's assume 1800fps for the 123g .264" Scenar. (Feel free to pick a different number.) It is also safe to assume there is an upper limit to the velocity at which your rifle can launch such a bullet, say 3000fps? If those conditions are true, velocity does matter to you and we have a reasonable working range of velocities at which you would use that bullet. We also have a range of energy values at which you expect the bullet to be effective.

So while you may not think of it in terms of energy, if you specify a bullet by diameter and B.C. and there is in fact a minimum velocity below which you would not take a shot, there is also an easily defined minimum energy level at which you deem that bullet's performance to be unreliable.

As I stated early on in this thread, energy is an imperfect tool but a useful one nevertheless. People use it as a rough gauge because energy determines the maximum work (destruction) a bullet can do. The actual work (destruction) a bullet will do depends, as I've repeatedly stated, on a variety of factors including bullet construction and types and amounts of target material encountered.

In any case, it is certainly better than using velocity alone. Or B.C. alone. Or mass alone. Or S.D. alone. Or momentum alone.








Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 09/15/17. Reason: spelnig

Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by HuntnShoot

I'm not going to bite. It is obvious who has read the physics here, and who understands the equations, which are all theoretical, and who has pulled things out of their ass. Keep posting what bullets at the speed of light behave like.


It is apparent you either haven't read about physics or didn't understand much of what you read.

Keep posting nonsense like "force applied is the definition of work" - I enjoy a good laugh.

Last edited by Coyote_Hunter; 09/14/17.

Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,720
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
Again you duck and dodge. A bullet that shoots flatter because of its B.C. also has less wind drift. But that difference only comes into play at longer ranges - B.C. is pretty irrelevant at close range. As I showed above, B.C is directly tied to a bullet's mass. Velocity is important to you else you could reduce recoil by shooting all your bullets at 100fps. They wouldn't be very effective, but they would have very low recoil.




Damn you're dense. I gave you a straight-up honest answer to your question on how I choose my bullets. You just can't understand it because you don't have the ability to understand anything but your own narrow perspective. For the third time, high velocity and flat trajectory are not very important to me which is the reason I like cases based on the .308 cartridge. If velocity was important to me, I wouldn't use those cartridges.

Apparently you don't understand the relationship between case capacity and velocity. Look it up, it's in all the latest ballistics tables.

I won't be stopping in for that beer. Apparently there's something in it that makes people stupid when they drink it. And causes people to talk about things like shooting a bullet at 100 fps. Hell,I wouldn't shoot an arrow at 100 fps.

And although you're correct on the formula for BC, it's 100% irrelevant to the topic of why I choose the bullets I shoot, and it's just one more example of a book-related tangent you introduced that unnecessarily complicates the discussion but gives you the opportunity to wax eloquent on meaningless bullsh**. My mistake was in citing practical examples of how bullet manufacturers increase BC without adding mass instead of googling formulas that are irrelevant to the topic. If bullet manufacturers can change the BC without changing the mass (they can) then the two are not "inextricably linked." Apropos of nothing and totally irrelevant to how and why I choose my bullets.

Bullets with higher BC have higher mass but I don't use them because of their higher mass, I use them in spite of it. I don't like recoil, remember? If you don't think recoil and bullet mass are related google the formula for recoil. That should be worth another 10 pages.



A wise man is frequently humbled.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,179
J
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
J
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 28,179
This thread has become laughable, and embarrassing.


It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,651
Originally Posted by smokepole
Originally Posted by Coyote_Hunter
Again you duck and dodge. A bullet that shoots flatter because of its B.C. also has less wind drift. But that difference only comes into play at longer ranges - B.C. is pretty irrelevant at close range. As I showed above, B.C is directly tied to a bullet's mass. Velocity is important to you else you could reduce recoil by shooting all your bullets at 100fps. They wouldn't be very effective, but they would have very low recoil.




Damn you're dense. I gave you a straight-up honest answer to your question on how I choose my bullets. You just can't understand it because you don't have the ability to understand anything but your own narrow perspective. For the third time, high velocity and flat trajectory are not very important to me which is the reason I like cases based on the .308 cartridge. If velocity was important to me, I wouldn't use those cartridges.
...


If velocity was not important to you, you would have no objections to shooting bullets at 100fps.

The fact is that velocity DOES matter to you as there are velocities that are too low for you to consider useful - by your own admission.


Tomorrow my wife and I are going fishing for a few days. When I fling a bait toward the weed line I won't know or care what energy value I need to impart to the bait to get it to just the right spot. But I will be calculating how to give it just the right fling to get it exactly where I want it. In other words, I'll be calculating and doing my best to give it just the right amount of velocity and direction and (because it has mass) energy it needs to get there, even though my brain won't be using a B.C. or ft-lbs or even fps in the calculations - none of which I will know.

When you talk about specific velocity and B.C. and caliber you are also defining a specific amount of energy. You may not and apparently don't think about it in terms of ft-lbs any more than I will for the baits. I get that. But you are, as I will be, defining an environment with a very specific energy or range. Define a minimum acceptable velocity for a specific bullet and you also define the minimum acceptable energy, just from another perspective.

If 100fps is too low (and I agree) for your 123g Scenar then, then 3 ft-lbs is also too low. If 500fps is too low, so is 68 ft-lbs. If 1000fps is too low, so is 273 ft-lbs. If 2000fps is the minimum velocity at which you think the Scenar would perform as desired, you just defined 1093fpe as the minimum acceptable energy level for your purposes. And so on. Pick a minimum velocity (and you've already rejected 100fps) and you also pick a minimum energy.


Coyote Hunter - NRA Patriot Life, NRA Whittington Center Life, GOA, DAD - and I VOTE!

No, I'm not a Ruger bigot - just an unabashed fan of their revolvers, M77's and #1's.

A good .30-06 is a 99% solution.
Page 14 of 16 1 2 12 13 14 15 16

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
682 members (12344mag, 12308300, 16Racing, 1234, 163bc, 06hunter59, 73 invisible), 2,674 guests, and 1,251 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,615
Posts18,398,454
Members73,817
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.141s Queries: 15 (0.006s) Memory: 0.9372 MB (Peak: 1.1531 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 14:26:31 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS