|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,984 Likes: 4
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,984 Likes: 4 |
The Hornady data came from their tech services folks - I also think they were being conservative at 2000fps but when the SST bullets were first released the recommended minimum velocity was 2200fps. So at least Hornady didn't over-optimize performance. It's surprising to me how many shoot at extreme ranges with bullets that don't have the terminal ballistics to perform properly at the low impact velocities remaining at ranges beyond. I highly recommend the Terminal Ballistics Research website at www.ballisticstudies.com - they draw their conclusions from actual kill data involving various live animals mostly taken in game herd control hunts as compared to testing in ballistics gel or recovering bullets from previously killed cow carcasses. It's damned difficult to produce a bullet that will perform at impact velocities from 2800fps down to 1100fps on any kind of game. Someone made the comment about partitions mushrooming at about any speed but that's really an overgeneralization - each separate bullet weight of each caliber produced has differing impact physics due to the variables of bullet construction, impact velocity, and target mass & medium. When I first started referring to the website, I was surprised that in 6.5 caliber partitions, the125gr out performs 140gr in just about all hunting applications from small to large game because in most non-magnum 6.5 calibers there's not enough velocity at impact to deform the 140's front section enough to create good expansion. Until I read that, I just assumed that the heavier bullet was better in my 6.5x55 because I normally hunted where the range never exceeded 250 yards or so. My point is that just because we have a super-aerodynamic bullet that can consistently hit game at longer ranges doesn't necessarily mean that it will kill it. Someone pull my power-plug - it's past my bed time and I'm beginning to ramble . . .
Last edited by Offshoreman; 06/03/21.
AKA The P-Man If you cherish your memories with kids, be a good role model . . . . so the RIGHT memories of you mean something to them.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,127 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,127 Likes: 4 |
The Hornady data came from their tech services folks - I also think they were being conservative at 2000fps but when the SST bullets were first released the recommended minimum velocity was 2200fps. So at least Hornady didn't over-optimize performance. It's surprising to me how many shoot at extreme ranges with bullets that don't have the terminal ballistics to perform properly at the low impact velocities remaining at ranges beyond. I highly recommend the Terminal Ballistics Research website at www.ballisticstudies.com - they draw their conclusions from actual kill data involving various live animals mostly taken in game herd control hunts as compared to testing in ballistics gel or recovering bullets from previously killed cow carcasses. It's damned difficult to produce a bullet that will perform at impact velocities from 2800fps down to 1100fps on any kind of game. Someone made the comment about partitions mushrooming at about any speed but that's really an overgeneralization - each separate bullet weight of each caliber produced has differing impact physics due to the variables of bullet construction, impact velocity, and target mass & medium. When I first started referring to the website, I was surprised that in 6.5 caliber partitions, the125gr out performs 140gr in just about all hunting applications from small to large game because in most non-magnum 6.5 calibers there's not enough velocity at impact to deform the 140's front section enough to create good expansion. Until I read that, I just assumed that the heavier bullet was better in my 6.5x55 because I normally hunted where the range never exceeded 250 yards or so. My point is that just because we have a super-aerodynamic bullet that can consistently hit game at longer ranges doesn't necessarily mean that it will kill it. Someone pull my power-plug - it's past my bed time and I'm beginning to ramble . . . That source seemingly has a different opinion of the 139 Scenar than the many members here who have used it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,592 Likes: 11
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,592 Likes: 11 |
My point is that just because we have a super-aerodynamic bullet that can consistently hit game at longer ranges doesn't necessarily mean that it will kill it. First, I wouldn’t put too much faith in that website. Second, a “super-aerodynamic bullet” not only is easier to hit with at longer ranges, but also retains velocity better which results in higher impact velocities and a better chance of proper expansion at longer ranges.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,984 Likes: 4
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,984 Likes: 4 |
Jordan,
I'm speaking strictly of impact performance - the point is with extended ranges of today we're asking our bullets to do perform at a wider spread of impact velocity than we did 20 years ago. Of course you're free to form your own opinion of the website but the folks there have collected more impact data on rifle bullets than any other organization that I'm aware of.
AKA The P-Man If you cherish your memories with kids, be a good role model . . . . so the RIGHT memories of you mean something to them.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,592 Likes: 11
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,592 Likes: 11 |
Jordan,
I'm speaking strictly of impact performance - the point is with extended ranges of today we're asking our bullets to do perform at a wider spread of impact velocity than we did 20 years ago. Of course you're free to form your own opinion of the website but the folks there have collected more impact data on rifle bullets than any other organization that I'm aware of.
You're definitely right about demanding more from bullets than we did 20 years ago. It's not the quantity of data that I'm skeptical of, but rather their interpretation and understanding of the underlying mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,947
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,947 |
Went to the range yesterday and got some good results:
- 2667 fps with 45g Hunter and 127LRX (max load per book). - Started testing with the 130 Accubond; got only 2518 fps with 43g Hunter (very accurate), but 2650 fps with 42g RL 17.
So for velocity, it seems the 127 LRX likes RL17 and the 130 Accubond likes Hunter in my rifle; all groups were sub-moa. I do wonder why the Barnes data seems low for RL 17 (40.8 max), when most other source show 43-44g max for other 130g bullets.
The truth angers those whom it does not convince
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 119
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 119 |
for true slow: hornady 160-grain round nose ...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,984 Likes: 4
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,984 Likes: 4 |
Hey Paul, that's what my my old 96 shoots best - the only thing like it is the Woodleigh Wellcore 160gr, though I certainly wouldn't call either a long-range bullet
AKA The P-Man If you cherish your memories with kids, be a good role model . . . . so the RIGHT memories of you mean something to them.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,278
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,278 |
Have used the ABLR out of my .260 on at least 4 Mule deer and a couple of whitetail.
Its a pretty soft bullet and opens easily but being bonded cup and core stay together.
Pretty deadly bullet every thing pretty much died right there.
Lefty
|
|
|
|
501 members (12344mag, 06hunter59, 117LBS, 10gaugeman, 10gaugemag, 160user, 44 invisible),
2,696
guests, and
1,211
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,790
Posts18,536,330
Members74,041
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|