Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Bullet design. Optimal performance window.

My question relates largely to cup and core bullets but also bonded core rather than partition or homogeneous solids. As bullet manufacturers create and improve bullet designs how specifically can bullets be "fitted" to a particular cartridge? For instance, I have read that there are different 165 grn bullets for 308/06 class cartridges versus 300 magnum class cartridges.

It would seem that the .270 Win would benefit from being the only game in town caliber wise. Bullets could be tailored specifically for the velocity range of that particular cartridge. I know the 270WBY has been around a long time but hasn't been widely popular. Comparatively, the 30 caliber family of bullets has long had to span the range of velocities from 300 Savage to 300 Win Mag.

With all the technology available today would it be possible to create true 300 Savage bullets, 30/06 bullets and 300 RUM bullets? I realize it would not be profitable to do so, but I am curious how complex the technology is. Again, this is for cup and core or bonded core designs.

They have done that in the past, the problem you run into is handloaders taking say a bullet specifically designed for a 300 Savage and running it full bore in a 300 RUM. I remember my Uncle back in the 1960's loading 170 gr 30 gal bullets intended for the 30-30 Winchester, in his 308 Winchester thinking that they would work as well as the usual 180 gr bullets he shot. they were on sale. And he was going moose hunting. Long story short, those bullets did not perform to well. they were perfect for the 2200 fps you get out of a 30-30 and he was running them a good 500 fps faster and well he spent four days looking for the moose he shot. Found it, and killed it, the first bullet hit the shoulder and just stayed there. Found some jacket and nothing else, that moose would have healed up in time. Shot him the second time with a 303 his guide had and some what ever 215 gr bullets. Cup and Core bullets with some exceptions will work fine from 2400 fps to 3000 fps. Its when you go real small cal or you star pushing bullets fast as you can go is were you run into problems some times. The other thing is its expensive to tool up to make bullets in that fashion. Never mind the poor gun shop that has to stock 3 or 4 cartridge specific bullets for each weight. We have is so good now, If you shoot something like a 300 winchester you can load 180 gr Hornaday SP for your deer hunting 180 gr Nosler Partitions or Swift A Frame for Elk and bigger stuff and Something like a Barnes X or something similar when you what more penetration. Oh and A Square did this with there bullets, You had lion load, dead tough and a Solid. They were suppose to shoot to the same point of impact. A Square is not around any more.

Aside from profitability and handloaders who don't grasp the concept, another problem is that ALL bullets lose velocity downrange. At some point a .300 Savage bullet becomes a perfect .300 Weatherby bullet.

Until a cartridge is invented that doesn't lose velocity, then there will be a certain amount of crossover and confusion.

Of course, this discounts the super-wildcat B-29, which did not lose velocity but never sold very well anyway.

That is so so great of a thought, JB. Love it. A 300 Weatherby is a 30-30 at 600 yards.

Still waiting on a copy of the B-29 article... anyone have a copy they can PM me?

It would be easy and simple enough to just change the thickness and design of the jacket and then bond or not bond the cores to accomplish exactly what you're asking about.

As an example Speer has already tried it with the Hot Core and Mag Tip bullets in .30 cal. Nosler approaches the idea with the BT and the Partition. Remington has Corelokts and Ultra Corelokt bonded bullets. So..........

I think the perfect bullets for each of the three .30 cal examples already exist. They just may not be the same brand or design. The technology is already here.

For a mfg. to come out with a "cc" line of bullets in three different configurations that are perfect for each cartridge would be an impossible sale to the public that is already so divided on what the perfect bullet is.

Look here on the fire at the endless debates and differing opinions about what is the best bullet for just one given cartridge.


I'm not a guwriter nor an expert on this.

Did I get it right this time JB?

I realize I should have said that I thought the 270 HAS benefited by being the only popular .277 cartridge for the reasons mentioned. However, your points are well taken. I tend to ignore long range shooting for game because of personal prejudices.

As to the B-29, how many of us are really worthy of a such a marvel? I don't shoot well enough to stretch the capabilities of loafers named Roberts or Swede! My shooting a B-29 would likely be as inappropriate as flying one.

Aletheo,

I'll get you a copy of the B-29 article, I just have been pretty well covered up with work.

I believe the B-29 would have been a star in the fields if a certain hard headed editor would have opened his eyes to merits of the cartridge and accepted further articles on the cartridge. Think. Where would the 270 be today if Keith was Jacks editor.
Bad press, no press, results are the same.....