Home Forums Hunting & Shooting BPCR Postell Bullets?

As a novice to the BPCR (so much the rookie I don't even own a Sharps or Roller yet! ) I have heard mention of different bullet designs and nose shapes and don't understand what the different shapes are and why one might be more useful than another.

Ranch13 mentioned in another thread about "original Postell bullet shapes" but I don't know what that means.

Is there a reference source anyone can point me to that might have the different bullet shapes and their advantages and/or disadvantages?

Thanks,

Ed

I don't know of a good general treatise on the various bullet shapes and designs. It is a widely discussed topic in BPCR circles, so a search could be helpful.

The Postell is a traditional bullet that seems to work well in a variety of rifles. It is fairly streamlined, not terribly different from the BACO money bullet I posted a pic of. Maybe not as good as some other designs for long range competition, but unless you plan to play at that game, you really don't need to get that involved with such fine points. A Postell wouldn't be a bad choice for a bullet for most any BPCR.

I don't hunt with BPCRs, but in general a bullet that is blunter and softer than a Postell works better for hunting.

You could probably find a pic of a Postell as well as the .45 Govt. (457125?) on Lyman's site or catalog. I have a couple of Postell moulds, but I don't shoot that bullet any more, so I don't think I have one to take a pic of.

Paul

Thank you, Paul. I figured that I could Google the terms and come up with the shape(s) but I was being lazy and thought there may be a reference work out there that covered it.

Ed

Ed, I just took a look at my Midway catalog, and on p. 448 they list the Lyman moulds with bullet pics. The .40 Postell is the #410663 round nose, and the .45 Govt. is #457125, also listed as a round nose but a very different, blunter shape.

Most mould makers offer a Postell of some sort. I have the Lyman .40 mould, and a .45 from Steve Brooks. Lyman doesn't appear to offer a .45 Postell.

Paul

The current Lyman postell bears little resemblance to the original postel. Current lyman postel has a much more pointed nose. The original postel bears great resemblance to the Paul Jones etal,, Creedmoor bullet in nose shape.
Takes for ever to load but if you look here at the 451xxx and 446xxx bullets they are more of the original postel design.
http://www.three-peaks.net/bullet_molds.htm

Ranch13,
so, the 446187 and the 451113 are the ones that are closest to the original Postell design?

Ed

Paul,

I have seen the term "money bullet" used in a couple of posts. What does that mean? Does it refer to a competetion-style bullet?

Ed

Ed the 446187 is the closest to the original postel.
Altho Lyman still calls the 457132 the postel,the one they offer now is a good bit more areodynamic .

I don't know the exact history, but the designers were competitors looking for a ballistic advantage and that design was supposed to put them "in the money" at matches. At least that's what I understand about the history.

I posted pics of my BACO paper patch money bullets awhile back. It is currently a very popular long range bullet having excellent BC, etc. It is available in both paper patch and grease groove form, and also a version with mini-grooves.

Paul

Thank you, sir! I still have a LOT to learn!

Ed

These are original bullets from Sharps and Ballard. They don't look much like Postells

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/PPB/Bullets/Sharps%20and%20Ballard%20Cartridges%20from%20Grant.pdf

Thank you, Paul.

Now I have questions for an exterior ballistics expert...PP, typical BP grease groove design, or mini-grooves...is there really enough difference in the different profiles to make a measurable difference in retained energy at long range to pick one over the other?

Questions. More and more questions. The more I learn, the more I understand how little I know.

Ed

When a grease groove and a patched bullet of relatively the same length and nose design are fired from the same rifle, generally the patched bullet will require several minutes less elevation than the grooved, and will also use about half the windage as a greaser.

Well, I'm hardly a ballistics expert, but this topic has been discussed at some length on the Shiloh forum, and those who have done a lot of long range shooting and testing claim that there is a difference. Long range match shooters are mostly concerned with accuracy, and that includes reducing errors due to the effects of wind. They claim that bullets like the Money and of course Brent's PP prolate are less sensitive to wind and require less wind correction and are therefore less susceptible to error. Intuitively, the absence of grease grooves would produce less wind resistance, all other things being equal.

How much practical difference does that make? Hard to say. Serious competitors tend to leave no stone unturned in their quest for greater accuracy and match points. There hasn't been a wholesale switch to paper patching, although it is coming on strong.

Funny story. At a silhouette match this past weekend, one shooter thought Brent's wads were blowing apart, when he saw the shredded paper patches exiting the muzzle like confetti. Couldn't believe a silhouette shooter would be shooting paper patched bullets.

Paul

EXcept when it does not.

For instance, a grease groove bullet with a reasonable BC of .50 takes on about 130" of wind in a 10 mph cross wind at 1000 yds and 1350 fps. A paper patch bullet with the same nose shape would have to have a BC WELL IN EXCESS OF DOUBLE that 0.5 value to have even sorta-maybe close to 1/2 the wind-induced drift. And believe me, they don't. Not even close.

Regardless of all the internet expert mantra out there, PPBs and groovers will shoot, for all practical purposes, just about exactly the same wind drift for a given nose shape and bullet weight and launch speed.

Counterintuitive?

Paul

Quite a selection of bullet shapes there, Brent!
Quite a few have flat points, while a few have an almost 1R profile, and others closer to the "money bullet" mentioned earlier.

Evidently, from the reading I've been doing, there are differences between the first "Postell" style bullets as cast in Ideal molds versus modern Lyman "Postell" style bullets.

There are a few more books I need to lay my hands on, one being the Single Shot Rifles book you have referenced.

Thanks again!

Ed

It might be counterintuitive. I do not like to trust to intuition on much of anything because it is so often wrong. But be that as it may, I am certain that the difference between grooved and ungrooved bullets is just about zero so far as wind is concerned. I am certain there is a SMALL difference, but so small as to be not measurable by even fairly sophisticated shooters.

Certainly, there is a large imaginary difference that has been claimed, but when you ask for the REAL numbers, you don't get anything you can take to the bank.

The certainty of shooting paper patched is that you will look better doing it, have more fun, experience less lead in the barrel, and attract a lot of attention on the line. I need to make up a few dummy rounds just for show and tell and to pass around. Everyone wants to check them out.

To clarify, you're saying that there's not much (if any) difference in exterior ballistics between the styles, all other things remaining constant? Or is there a definite, yet slight advantage to the PPB due to the more aerodynamic shape?

Is it just a Chevy vs. Ford thing?

Ed

I was typing (slowly) when you posted and answered my question.

Ed, the differences between nose shapes can be dramatic in some instances. But not so much in the Paper patch vs. groove thing. The paper will just look MUCH better and they will make you much happier, but they won't shoot a ton better.

It IS important to look good!

I'm a function over form kind of guy, myself. The "art" side of my brain was the side I was dropped on as an infant.

I am sufficiently intrigued by PPB's and their capabilities that I will go that direction WHEN I get my BPCR. (Hear that E.T.? )

Something about using 100+ year old technology to equal or better most modern technology just stirs my imagination.

Thanks again,

Ed

Ed having experience with both patched and grease bullets, I can say what I said earlier, the patched bullets will take less
windage and elevation than a similar shaped grease groove.
A prime example is a couple years back my rifle went on the fritz, so I finished up the match with my wifes rifle. She shot the relay ahead of me. Our bullets were the same weight and the same velocity. For my patched loads at 435 yds I had to come down 17 minutes from her sight setting and went from 15 minutes of windage to a bit over 5.
You don't have to take my word for it, but you can check with other folks that do shoot both types of bullets, Kenny Wasserburger probably being the best resource, and of course Dan Theodore has written about it extensively.
I do urge folks just starting out in bpcr to start with a grease groove bullet, they are easier to come up with a good accurate load. Then move on to working with the patched bullets,as finding a load to match the greaser accuracy in a standard chamber can be quite a task at times.With all the variances in bullet diameter, paper weight and composition, wad stacks, wiping routine etc, that goes into making an excellent patche load.

Of course the wind and everything else changed. Just doesn't happen any other way. Because there just isn't any possibility that a paper patched bullet takes 1/3! the windage of a groover. Doesn't happen.

To the best of my knowledge Brent you've never shot any matches at Alliance,and you certainly were not at that one. But the minute the relay Carol was in got up, I sat down, adjusted the sticks and there was probably less than 5 minutes time elapsed from her last shot to my first one.
The last time I shot a match with Dick Savage when he was still shooting greasers, he needed 26 minutes of wind at 800, I needed 14 with my patched loads.I don't believe he's shot a greased bullet in a match since then.
Kenny has wrote a good bit on how much less wind and elevation he has to use, so I realize you don't want to take my word for it, but his word surely has the stuff behind it to back it up. Just for kicks and giggles you might want to work up a grease bullet load for one of your rifles then, go shoot the two side by side and let us know what you found out.

Ed if your sincerely set on shooting patched bullets, I suggest when you order a Shiloh , you talk with Kirk about that and pay the extra to have him cut a chamber for patched, and have the rifle made in 45 caliber. The selection of moulds is vast and tested where as the number of other calibers with prooven bullet diameters etc is a lot slimmer with the others.

Tell me where the physics for this 67 reduction in wind effects comes from then. If it were true, EVERY SINGLE LONG RANGE AND BPCR SHOOTER would be using paper patches. And they don't. Not even 10% use them. Out of 23 shooters last weekend, I was the only one using them - you think they wouldn't give their left nuts for bullet that is as great as you claim?

All of these stories are just stories that have no experimental controls, no data behind them, no known aerodynamic theory known to man to support them, but you can say anything you want on the internet.

The side-by-side issue has been done, with my old PPBs that were swaged and the well known NEI 349C. Both were designed by Dick Gunn had near identical BCs and near identical winddrifts, and it proved once more - you are wrong - about this too.

BTW, you might ask Kenny about how he used to love to go on about how nice it was to see paper patch shooters on the line at matches he was shooting in, because he knew he had them beat before he even started shooting.

My how things change.

As I recall the last match the two of you shot at the same match you both shot paper patched, and you got what about 2/3rds the score Kenny got? I suppose it's possible to go bring the scores over here and let folks see them....

Ranch13,

Thank you for your input. Yes, I am very interested in shooting PPB's.
I have shot greasers with smokeless powder for many years and have a supply of .45 Cal greasers sitting on my loading bench right now, waiting for me to decide whether to load some BP under them and try them in my .458WM. I also have a .45-70 Marlin 1895 LTDIII that might get some exercise with BP.
I'm not sure of the lube on these greasers as I did not cast nor lube them. I'm guessing the lube might be a bit stiffer than I would like for BP, but I won't know until I shoot them.

In conversations with Evil Twin, he has mentioned the PP specific chamber, so I'm taken to believe that it would be worth my time to have a Shiloh built with that design.
Is it the jump across the leade of a greaser chamber that causes a PPB to misalign and result in less precision or is there another reason?

Ed

Sure thing. Go for it. Pull up last summers Nationals at Raton while you are at it. Be good to see the comparison. Then let's see, where were your scores at Byers last month? Oh yeah, bring those too. They are still up.

Come on. Let's see 'em!

Ed,
Are you looking for a target rifle or a hunting rifle? It matters a lot with respect to chamber.

It's the lead angle that promotes the better patched bullet shooting. The gentler lead eases the bullet into the rifling and lets the patch do it's thing. In the 45 degree lead angles you have to seat way out, and then paper rings can and will still plaque you unless you go up to shooting groove diameter bullets, and that can be a whole nuther world..
I don't believe shooting black in your 458 will be much of anything other than making noise. The twist is way to fast for anything much under 600 grs at bp velocity.

Yeh I had a good time at Byers.Learned a bunch, and reconfirmed that without a spotter you know, things can be a bit dicey (heard tell of some guy won recently but he had 3 spotters?). Shooting at a range you've never fired a shot at is always a good learning curve.
But long story short shot fairly decent on the 800, then not knowing the full routine and not taking the time to thoroughly clean my gun it sat in the case for a bit over 2 hours in the heat. Well don't you know the fouling set up severe. So going without sight settings at 900 and 1000 with a fouled out barrel, brought about all manner of leading. Didn't expect much for a score to begin with as my rifle and load had never been printed on paper beyond 300 yds.. Also had miscommunication with the spotter on direction of the bullet strike and ended up throwing in about 10 minutes windage going the wrong way on the 900... Might not of had that problem with a spotter I knew and had met prior to being paired with him.
But I'll take that score and I'll be proud of it.
So there you have it. If you got guts enough you can bring the scores from all those matches and post them here, man up and let others be the judge.

Let there be no misunderstanding either. Steve the guy that I got paired with at Byers is a hell of a nice guy, and I'ld be happy to shoot with him anywhere at any time.

Ah yes, the never shot at range would apply to me in PHX too, eh? Or are you the only one that get's to use those excuses?

So, let's see that leaves Raton if you want to compare just me and Kenny shooting on a range that we know equally. Come on, let's see you put them up. I bet you won't. That does not bode well for you.

Put 'em up. You made the threat. Be man enough to follow through. I don't think you will.

And then tell us all how that will prove your point of a 67% wind drift reduction by paper patching. I bet even Kenny won't stand behind that claim. Nor will you if you have to put money on it.

A target rifle that I can hunt with.

My competition days are probably behind me, but I do love to compete against myself and would welcome the opportunity to shoot in BPCR matches, not for the awards, but to learn more, and I would like to hunt with the rifle.

Something along the lines of a Shiloh 1874 Sporter #3 is what I have in mind.

I am open to input!

Ed

No as I recall you shot sillouettes at Phoenix, plus had how many days of practice and then how many days of match shooting.
There were no shots fired at Byers until the called the line hot at the beginning of the match...
Eron runs a tough match.
You know full well Kenny has said over and over and over again that he uses 20 minutes less elevation and less than half the windage with his patched loads.
Grab you some grease groove bullets and put some experience to work..

I understand the gentler handling of the shallow leade angle.

As to shooting BP in my .458, I have a couple of smokeless loads in the 1200-1300fps range with 350gr greaser that are quite accurate. Will BP not do that?

Ed

bp should do that fast and then some, you'll be shooting the same as a 45-90 or nearly so with the capacity of that case, altho I'ld about bet that the case head web is thicker on that .458.
Give it a try, the worst that could happen is you'll have bullets sprayed all over creation and alot of lead to dig out of the gun, after you get everything else taken care of.
The only other guy I know that tried bp in a 458 ended up calling it a day and figured the freebore in his rifle along with the fast twist was making things not work so good.

This one is an Iver Henriksen custom Mauser with a Buhmiller barrel. I have NO idea what the leade looks like and haven't measured the twist. Yet.

I DO know that the bore is the smoothest I have ever seen/felt in a big bore rifle.

As to spraying bullets all over Creation, it wouldn't be the first time one my experiments did that.

Ed

well go geterdone, lets hear the results.
Fella never learns anything if you don't have a major screw up once in awhile.

As you should know, silhouette and creedmoor are not shot on the same ranges in PHX. But be that as it may, while Kenny beat me with his 25 lb Scoped rifle while I used my silhouette legal, iron sights, lets go back to ranges I have shot before.

In 2011, while Kenny used the same scoped, heavy class rifle and I used the same silhouette legal rifle with irons, I beat him by... 63 points and 21 places

Coulda been a fluke. Let's look at 2010, while i had to use a crappy barrel on that same Sharps of mine while he used his scoped super-heavy again. Looks like I shot pretty crappy and hmmm... or darn, I only beat him by just 134 points.

Darn, sure looks like Kenny whips up on my a bunch.

Now, let's talk about YOUR shooting. I haven't seen you place above the fold in any thing. In fact, the quickest way to find your scores is to start at the bottom. Yup. There you are. On the bottom - whenever you dare actually shoot a match.

If Kenny uses half the windage with paper pathes - he is is full of it. Don't be such a clown. The crap you spew isn't fit to pile with your cows' manure. You put out more completely wrong BS than anyone on this board, though maybe Swampy is going to give you a run for your money.

Ed, a #3 isn't bad for what you are considering then. I'd keep the chambering down to a .45-70 to make the recoil a bit more manageable with lighter, hunting-weight rifle, and the long drop of the #3 stock. I have used my #3 for silhouette, though it is far better as a hunting rifle. I'd also consider a stock Shiloh chamber.

Don't expect a paper patch bullet to have magical ballistics in comparison to groove bullets. They don't. Not even close. If they did, everyone would shoot paper patches. In fact, if they did as well as Don was idiotically claiming, they would be out shooting .308 Matchkings by a HUGE margin. And they don't.

Well Brent there's a hell of alot you dont know, and trying to judge someone you've never met by the scores posted from a shoot is, ignorant at best.
What you don't know dickhead could fill a 5 gallon bucket, and one of those things you don't know is why my scores usually show up pretty low... Mostly because I use the gong matches for load developement and testing.I may just as well run 6 or 8 different loads in a match most of which never get fired prior to the match starting....
I'm secure enough with myself and who I am I don't need to be at the top of a score sheet to feel good about myself, and I don't need to be a dickhead to others to make myself feel good....
Now I wonder why you never bad mouth Kenny other places the way you do here? You do know he's registered member here dont you?
If you had any experience with grease groove bullets you'ld know there is a ton of difference between the sight setting needed for them and paper patch, but you don't , so the best you can come up with is to make a bunch of bullshit accusations about someone who you have met, and pretty sure bet you don't have guts enough to talk to in person the way you do on the net...

That's kinda funny Don, because I just did the same thing last weekend at the Long Range Match. Finally got my PJ Money Bullet and wanted to try it, but was too busy to load develop, so I just went with my last powder charge, added another .030 HDPE wad to the mix because this bullet sits out farther and called it good. On a lark, I had a bunch of shells loaded with my Brooks "money" bullet, so I pulled them, added a .030 Fiber wad and called it good, although they were about .010 shorter than what I thought would be optimim. They were going to be my sight in loads.

Sighting in, everything looked real good with the practice loads. After a 2 out of 10 on the 800 and 1000 with my "good" loads, I promptly switched to my practice round and got 8 of 10 on the 900.

I started this match to have fun and learn more about long range shooting, and I have, but I'm still not as secure in myself as you. After two targets I was ready to throw my gun in the creek.

Have fun, too many people treat this game way too seriously.
Brian

So, you judge me on one match in PHX this spring but I can't judge you based on the scores that have been posted over the last several years? Are you special?

You are a creepy person Don, you think you're special, and you think you know a lot about things you don't have a clue. You can't develop a load OR shoot for beans. But mostly, you don't know squat about shooting paper patched bullets or how they actually work. You hand out bad advice - TERRIBLE advise to folks that are about to invest thousands of dollars in rifles that will leave them sorely disappointed.

If you applied the same standards you inflict on everyone else, you would crawl under a rock and cry for the rest of your life.

We shoot grooves and paper patches together all the time. Perhaps you would like to explain to those that I shoot with how their spotting has to be adjusted by 300% when spotting for groove bullets vs. paper patches. Try telling this to Paul's son Pete - you know him. He was spotting for both this weekend, and I don't think he gave the differences in bullets a moment's thought.

Because the difference is trivial at best.

Get over it, you are wrong

AGAIN.

Show up in Raton and I'll talk to you just like this. You are a fraud.

Brian looking forward to seeing you at Forsyth. Yessir it can get awfully frustrating at times, but you always have to keep in mind that the final score at a shoot won't get you any more or any less flying jobs. And if and when doing this stuff ceases to not be fun then it's time to quit and go look for something else to do.

Brent no I'm not judging you from the looser finish you always have at Phoenix and Raton. I'm judging you by the bullshit personal attacks you take on me and other people on the internet.
I do know Pete, I've watched him shoot since he was about 10 years old, and have always admired his capability as a natural born rifleman.
As to Raton , I do plan to be there for the entire bptr championship in August. If I win great, if I come in last place that's fine too. I do this because I enjoy it. I'm 4 time broken leg, a broken neck still have bone spurs that sometimes lock my neck up, once struck by lightning and a heart attack past the age of being at the top of my game in the shooting world. So you'll just have to learn how to deal with it, because when I go to a shoot it's to shoot at something different under different conditions than what I have here at the house....And I could really care less what a miserable [bleep] you portray yourself to be thinks...

You better check with Pete. Or anyone else that spots for both paper and groovers. You are too stupid to figure this out on your own. I have no problem defending myself from your insults and attacks. You are just another loudmouth that hasn't got squat to show for all the verbiage you have spewed. You haven't done anything, you haven't figured anything out on your own, and you have no credibility among folks that actually shoot.

You will be last at Raton. Good to get all your excuses in now. You will be needing them - and more.

Poor Brent he just doesn't get it. 50 year went by and I had never ever heard of the miserable wretch, he can disappear today, and my world goes on without even a bit of a twinge....
He has nothing but a lot of internet bluster to try and disrupt a conversation , guess he just needs the attention...
He may be a little pissed because the other day he pronounced that Badger barrels would never be available for bpcr again, and then someone that knew better posted a link that proofed without doubt , he was wrong....

Still handing out even more bad advice. Keep it up, and you will cost others a few more thousands.

Let us know when you actually hit a target.

What the hell are you talking about costing people thousands?

I broke my neck once, back in '67, and once was enough. Wasn't nearly as much fun as folks said it would be...

AS to the bad advice that makes me grin. Had a phone call from one of those bpcr types that according to you apparently think I don't have any credibility.
The caller asked " did you notice, since you posted that part about people would have better luck running a lighter bullet in the 45-70, and for all the flack they gave you on the forum, Danielson is now blowing about how he did just that and won the Lodi shoot?"

Mike what really creeps me out is once in a while that spur will get to draggin in there and every time I turn my head it sounds like a toyota corolla bouncing along a gravel road..

Well the Shiloh I'm thinking about is over $2,000 plus all the stuff to go with it and I'll probably have $4,000 easy when all is said and done. Pick the wrong caliber and/or rifle for what one wants to do and it could be real costly.

Ranch, My neck seems to find a notch and then I've got to "unlock" it before I can turn my head. It finds that notch most easily when I'm driving on a fairly long trip and my pick-up vibrates just right, helping it find the spot when I'm getting tired. In my neck C-3, 4, % 5 are all fused together and that means my other neck bones are a bit looser although I still have limited range of motion. And this neck problem sometimes gets an added thrill from heavy recoil. That usually shows up as a headache, somewhat instantly.

Ed, I am still several rungs below novice but here goes.

I shot the Postell and Creedmore grease groove bullets in my 45-120, and they did very well with 2 and 3 FG Swiss powder, after my day of knowledge with Sharpsguy [Bill] I have learned that for a hunting bullet the flat nose is the way to go, if your rifle likes it.

Mine does, it's the Jerry Dean 500 gn grease groove FNSP bullet, Sharpsguy and i have managed to cut the velocities back to a more civil 1400+ fps.

Cant wait to try it out on something this fall.

Good luck to you, and when time allows, after you and i finish that steak your more than welcome to come out to the farm and shoot my rifle, and I'll be glad to share the info i have learned about these great and fun rifles.

Gunner

Well best I know to tell you is if you can't afford to play the game , find something else to do.
There's no guarantee's in life and the "wrong caliber and or rifle" is what fuels the used gun market...

Mike sometimes I can't shoot from the prone position because it just flat hurts to much to bend my head back that far. I do have to watch the recoil pretty close because it doesn't take much to get that mild concussion headache and muscle spasms and then the eyes go flaky..

Thank you. sir! It will be much sooner than later!

Ed

I just answered your question nothing more or nothing less.

I try to rely on the info from BPCR websites reconizing everything has to be taken with a grain of salt. All Brent was saying is that the info given should be as accurate as possible.

[quote=derby_dudeI just answered your question nothing more or nothing less.

I try to rely on the info from BPCR websites reconizing everything has to be taken with a grain of salt. All Brent was saying is that the info given should be as accurate as possible. [/quote]

Derby dude you did not answer the question, and it was not directed at you in any event. The Danielson boy is the one that is throwing ignorant accusations around.
Now as for you there sir. I have not cost you one red cent. And I won't cost you one red cent.
If and when you can come up with proof that anything I put into these forums, that does not come from my actual experience , and is wrong you feel free to let me know. But I will guarantee you one thing buddy, I will never intentionally put one thing out that I do not know to be the truth, and IF I am not real sure about the answer or it comes on second hand info I will state that as the case.
Now either you and that bedraggled college professor with the chip on his shoulder and the monkey on his back either come forward and offer up hard proof to your claims that I have cost anybody other than myself money, or you shut your fat pie hole.
I still say if you can't afford to get into something then stay the hell out of it. Walmart sells 22 rifles for less than a hundred bucks and 22 shells in boxes of 550 for under 20, that may be the best route for you to go as the 22 is the first successful blackpowder cartridge.

I'm a bit late to the thread, but FWIW my Shiloh 45-70 has a POI at 400 yards that is 14 inches higher with paper patched bullets than with greasers using the same sight setting. The bullets weigh the same, have the same nose shape, and both bullets have muzzle velocities in the mid 1240s.

Those greasy grooves do catch a lot of air dont they SG.

Gunner

Thank you, sir.

Would you mind sharing the bullet specifics for me? I have pretty much decided on .45 caliber, probably .45-2.1" for my eventual BPCR.

Ed

Derby dude you did not answer the question, and it was not directed at you in any event. The Danielson boy is the one that is throwing ignorant accusations around.
Now as for you there sir. I have not cost you one red cent. And I won't cost you one red cent.
If and when you can come up with proof that anything I put into these forums, that does not come from my actual experience , and is wrong you feel free to let me know. But I will guarantee you one thing buddy, I will never intentionally put one thing out that I do not know to be the truth, and IF I am not real sure about the answer or it comes on second hand info I will state that as the case.
Now either you and that bedraggled college professor with the chip on his shoulder and the monkey on his back either come forward and offer up hard proof to your claims that I have cost anybody other than myself money, or you shut your fat pie hole.
I still say if you can't afford to get into something then stay the hell out of it. Walmart sells 22 rifles for less than a hundred bucks and 22 shells in boxes of 550 for under 20, that may be the best route for you to go as the 22 is the first successful blackpowder cartridge.[/quote]

My apologies for putting myself into your pizzing match with Brent. I was out of line. It won't happen again. Again my apologies.

More BS has been added to the dung pile I see, and another bloviator has joined in.

And a few lies are added on top of the just plain wrong advice and explanation.

Let's see, what would it take for a ballistic improvement for a bullet to gain 14" of elevation of a 400 yd target when launched at 1240 fps?

Now, anyone can do this at home so no reason to simply accept what I say as fact. Check it out on your own. I find the JBM ballistic program to be among the best. You can find it free to use right HERE.

Lets start with that grease groove bullet having a Ballistic Coefficient (BC) of 0.5. That is ballpark for a good target bullet. Let's pick our at 400 yds and then see how much we have to change the BC to get a bullet that is launched at the same speed and angle to hit 14" higher.

That would be a BC of 1.37. Now let's think about that for a moment. This BC is 270% of the original BC - just from stripping off the grooves. Does that sound reasonable to anyone? This BC is SO HIGH that the program prints a warning that the BC is simply wrong. And, of course, no human has measured a .45 caliber bullet with a BC fired from a shoulder weapon (or likely any weapon) because they flat don't exist.

So, Ed, when you ask for the specifics of that bullet, be sure that it doesn't actually exist in reality. It cannot exist. Or else be happy that you will not get the benefits of such super aerodynamics.

As for why a 14" higher point of impact, the fact is that bore diameter bullets will shoot slower than grease groove bullets of the same weight, from the same gun, with the same powder charge and all else being equal. This is easy to prove with a chronograph and I did exactly this 15 yrs ago. Bill and Don just forget these things.

And as most folks know, the slower the bullet, the longer it is in the barrel, the steeper the barrel is when the bullet exits the muzzle and the higher it hits on the paper. This is not news. It is the principle behind which gun makers have been regulating double guns for years. Hence, no surprise that The Bill found a higher impact. This is all well described in books on double guns (among other places) by well regarded authors like Ellis Brown (a gunmaker) and Graeme Wright.

Now as to the 1/2 to 2/3rds reduction in wind effects claimed by an ignorant keyboard "expert" (now I guess I should take off the quotes as he really is a KEYBOARD expert), you can run the same experiments using your favorite software patch like the one above. And what will you find? Well it will take a similar 200% increase in BC for a bullet to drop its wind effects to the degree Don claims. The fact is, that is simply not possible in the real world. There are no such bullets that are that superior to grease grooves. GIVE IT UP!

So, what is the BC of a top-drawer paper patched bullet in a .45? The best I have measured over 100 yds is about 0.55. That is it. For a 550 gr bullet. Maybe someone can make a bullet that will push up to 0.6 - I doubt it, I would bet against it, but maybe. A bullet with a BC of 1.37. BULLSHITT. Does not exist on Planet Earth with a shoulder fired .45.

By the by, the bullet I use at Lodi and at long range is almost always 537 grs. BC is right about 0.5 as I recall. Maybe 0.53 but I don't have my notes handy. That is not "light". In fact, it is probably slightly heavier than average among the shooters that actually compete in these games.

So, before you order up that magic $200 mould or lay down $2-3k rifle with especially fancy custom chamber and bore specifications that you heard about from these turkeys, be sure you verify what you are doing and that you can afford to throw away those dollars, because you aren't going to get what is claimed. You don't have to believe me, just do your homework on your own and you will find the same thing. Don't except on-line BS from anyone, especially these guys.

I've been shooting paper patches (almost)exclusively for just under 20 yrs now. Learned a little - enough to know bullshitt when I see it. I see a lot of it here, and knowing a little about the off-line records of the windbags producing it, it comes as no real surprise.

Brent

PS. If paper patched bullets were as good as Don claims, you can load up your BPCR and sign up for F-Class Nationals. You would clean their clocks. Please let me know when you attempt this as I want to lay money on the other guys.

Brent, I didn't say that the loads were identical, or that they use the same powder charge. I said that the bullets weighed the same and had the same nose shape and had velocities in the mid 1240s.

I frankly don't care whether you believe it or not, but the fact remains that the paper patched bullet hits 14 inches above the greaser on my 410 yard gong using the same sight setting. Maybe you need to use a little less theory and a little more applied trigger time and emperical testing. Hell, maybe you should be shooting my bullet.

I'd be interested in seeing what the change in sight settings from 328yds to 1000yds for both greased and patched bullets. I'd do it myself, but I don't shoot PPB.

These are all shot with the same load.

Sight settings:

pigs (328yds) - 0.52
turkeys (421yds) - 0.66
rams (547yds) - 0.88
800yd - 1.42
900yd - 1.61
1000yd - 1.82

mtn here's a sample from my notebook. Same basic shaped bullet same rifle , same velocity, same range same targets
Greasers Patched
800 1.62 1.50
600 1.2 1.12
530 .95 .9
As the range gets shorter the difference get's to be a bit smaller, but as the range gets longer we're back up to nearer 15 minutes difference in elevation.
Get ahold of some patched bullets roughly the same length and nose style as your greaser give them a work out. It is rather enlightening.Plus experience is never a bad thing..

Can you tell me, how do you guys like your greasers, hard, medium or soft?

I was thinking the same thing. that would be the real test.
Plus one would have to shoot them alternately in good steady wind conditions to see which is drifting off the target the furthest.

303 I use 20-1 for most everything,unless I've got some good wheelweight alloy.

20-1 for greasers, 16-1 for paper patched.

Paul

Thanks, I'll try to get some alloy that is in your ballpark. I had thought the paper patched bullets should be softer. Such thoughts make good reasons for asking...

Mike the alloy in paper patched bullets will depend largely on the nose shape and intended use. The now wildly popular "money" nose is a sharp pointy thing that really look like it would be more at home swaddled in a J4 jacket, so the need for hard alloy to keep it from nose slumping. More traditional bullet shapes can run from pure lead to what ever you feel like, altho if you get to hard of an alloy there may be some problems with good engraving of the rifling.

There's a lot of imponderables in the discussion here and while I don't have answers or specific insight into Gun "A" or bullet "B" there are several observations I'll pass along for whatever they might be worth.

Bullet drag cannot be viewed properly or solely in context of form and SD. There are a host of variables not on the table in the preceding discussion/arguments/personal assassinations etc. Among them are atmospheric factors, gyroscopic stability factor, velocity, bullet quality, density, barrel time and harmonics to name a few.

Form is pertinent certainly. Meplat diameter is a large factor in regulation of nose drag, that being the lions share of benefit provided by multiple caliber ogive radius. Multiples of ogive radius generally present smaller meplat diameters in inverse ratio. My readings of exterior ballistic publications indicate nose form accounts for as much as 80% of drag or perhaps more, dependent upon the aforementioned variables.

Shank drag, or that portion attributed to parasitic drag is a small component of drag, perhaps in the range of 2-3%. Base drag accounts for the remaining balance. Nose and base drag are induced drag issues.

Vaughn or McCoy, I forget which, discussed the influence of shank drag and possible effects of rifling engraving on drag contribution as insignificant due to their lying within boundary layer flow. Such aberrations are typically in the range of .004"-.006" in measure. It is not clear to me that grease groove contribution to increased drag is so limited. A reason for the thought is found in some but not all GG bullet forms that presents as a small increase of diameter at the break point of ogive and shank which is common to such bullets. I have one such bullet that minimizes this, probably as much as possible, yet the small change in diameter is still there. Aerodynamically it presents as a slightly larger cross sectional area and probably adds somewhat to vortex generation over the shank of the bullet. Small influence to be sure, but an influence none the less.



The bullets above are .403" diameter and weight ~350 grains when cast in pure lead. They behave as if they have a BC in the general range of .28 to .3 at an elevation of about 5,000' and MV of about 1,100 fps. They would probably do better as paper patch forms, but I would not speculate on degree.

If one were able to build a pair of bullets, one a PP form and the other a GG design with all other form features and weight equal I'd think there might be a valid basis for comparison. It can be done, closely, but by addition of the grease grooves, it is not possible to make them otherwise identical. Moot discussion as far as I'm concerned.

When one observes substantial vertical variation in POI in comparison with the different but similar bullets, there is no doubt it occurs as represented, but the question boils down to why. Drag? Yes, but how much? We do not have the answer and lacking sophisticated test equipment we will not find out definitively, and perhaps not even with such gear. The train load of variables involved put a lot of fog in the analysis picture. Barrel time/harmonics? Perhaps, but I don't know how that can be precisely measured.

Another point that grates on me a fair bit comes from illustrations of BC in these discussions. Not because the number cannot be identified as an average value, or specifically measured at a time and point in space, but because the value is so profoundly vulnerable to manipulation and measure. It is even more suspect when discussing bullets used in the velocity range common to BPCR bullets. They leave the barrel deep in the transonic velocity range, that being around .7-1.3 Mach or perhaps .8-1.2 Mach, depending on which guru one kneels to. Regardless, BPCR bullets do better in BC calculation as subsonic velocity than out of the muzzle. Roughly presented, the transonic velocity range is 850-1400 fps, +/-. So when the argument starts premised on a BC value which is illustrative, measured or guessed at, I need to ask what the parameters are for that value. Otherwise the discussion is without merit. An easy illustration of that is the variation in the value of a given gun/bullet/charge from ISA standard conditions at 5000' MSL and sea level.

My .02 cents on the topic and that's the last of my change.

Dan
I think you are trying to make this too complicated. All you need are two bullets with identical length and nose profile. that is what the argument is all about. Alloy could be identical or whatever shoots best for each bullet.
That's all.

Obviously the weight and dia would be slightly different.

Now which shoots with less windage and elevation change.
I'd sure like to know because it seems we have people with lots of experience on both side of the argument.
Brian

One other thing for consideration, a typical bore diameter patched bullet used in 45 caliber rifles will have a diameter of say .444, while the same length and style of grooved bullet in 45 caliber will begin life at .458. That difference in velocity alone will change the SD, the BC and the flight characteristics..And yes the slick will obturate up in diameter, but it will still be restricted to being smaller in final diameter than the grooved due to the paper shrouding it's ride down the barrel.

Brian, it's not just less windage and elevation - but rather how much less. The mega-dramatic claims being made here, don't need particularly sophisticated experiments to be shown to be false. Such ridiculous claims require monsterous differences in aerodynamics that are simply not possible.

From Dan's essay above, he gives shank drag a contribution of 2-3%. There is no way you can make a 2-3% change (the maximum one has to play with in comparing PPBs to GGBs), produced windage differences of 3 fold. Can't happen because 3% is two orders of magnitude less than 300%.

These claims don't even get to the sniff-test stage, much less past it.

PPBs benefits are going to be - AT MOST - in the range of 10%, and more likely less than 5%.

I do my own testing of BCs so they are empirical, not theoretical measures. They are not magic, nor even single constants. But as we all know, they are quite useful, particularly as comparative measures. They also seem to be quite appropriate for these types of cartridges and velocities. I have used them with the JBM website spreadsheets noted above, to produce estimated sight settings at 1000 yds using only a measured muzzle velocity, and BC and a 200 yd sight setting. The software came within 2 points (0.02") of being right on the money.

Brent

Bore bump up does not affect BC if BCs are measured at the range rather than simply estimated from initial bullet shape, prior to firing. And that is why I point out these are empirical BCs, not some estimate from a drawing of a bullet profile.

This is not rocket science.

Brian, I'm really not trying to do anything other than post some facts relative to the discussion. Exterior Ballistics IS a very complex subject. Not my fault. Comments made since my last post all have merit, as do your own. The end results are what counts.

I'm mostly in the "close is good" side of the discussion. Minute variations are just that, but when taken in sum measure they can add up. Long range tends to illustrate these variation profoundly, but in context of shorter distance I don't think they amount to much. Defining "long range" is a slippery slope in its own right and I won't bother with that. When the range gets long enough that performance doesn't match needs, it's time to find a solution.

I do think that PP bullets have benefit over GG in several regards, but also think those advantages are less obvious and profound than most assume. In a no wind situation with all other variables as closely regulated at practical, I don't think there is an intrinsic advantage to either style as measured by precision. Add some wind to the equation and I give small advantage to paper patch. I think shooter skill in doping wind is far more important.

Dan,.....REALLY enjoyed your 'Complicated' post.

Well done, Se�or !

GTC

Ranch, what you say is true, but I think the question is how much difference it makes. We're talking a small difference of diameter. In using your numbers. Compression of the patch during obturation will make it less, so for sake of discussion, call it a .008" diameter difference at muzzle exit. Given a base reference of a .458" groove, full obturation and a 500 grain bullet, we are talking a difference in sectional density of .340 (GG) and .352 (PP). For a given form and diameter, BC is proportional to SD. I see some small gain in the BC for the PP bullet, but it is not profound. A somewhat crude BC calculator I use on occasion puts the respective BC's at .340 and .353. As indicated earlier, I note the comparison but don't put a lot of stock in what it means. Actual shooting, recording and measuring is the way to do that.

Where it gets a little more murky perhaps is how this influences long range changes in POI. Certainly to some degree, but I'd not try to quantify that without more info on the table.

I don't recall the forum where I saw this, but just recently I read something by KW regarding difference in POI between two bullets essentially the same save for form. Both were paper patch if I understood correctly, so the variables were much reduced. I also believe the range where these differences were observed to be one mile. I recall the measure as over 120". May have the numbers screwed up, but don't think I'm far off. Anyway, the point is that small differences can have large effect at long range. I think the definition of 'small' and 'large' is application driven here and not an absolute measure. Put another way, "elk small" and "prairie dog small" are two different things.

That's mostly the message I have on this, but since I specialize on slaughtering hogs at ~10 yards with wee .22 CB Short RF bullets, I don't care if the Devil hisself says it can't be done, he's wrong.

Furthermore, if one believes they can or can't, they're probably right in both instances. Last year out in Cody I had occasion to take my first shot with a new rifle at 200 yards using the bullet style above in the pic. KW was watching the German Ring target thru a spotting scope at the adjacent bench. First round went thru the x-ring, this in a crosswind of about 15 mph. I swear to two things about that: 1) I shoulda stopped right then and there. 2) I'd give a framed Franklin to have had a picture of KW when he turned to look at me after the shot. It was sort of a perfect blend of "poker" and "caution" cut with a little "speculation". I'd hang it on the wall if I had it, I swear I would.

Hows about a round of beer?

Even a blind hog........

Thanks

Dan it would have to be one of the great priviledges in life to sit and have a beer with you, anywhere anytime...

+1!

Ed

curious...thinking about these bullets versus rifle bullets intended for supersonic use, like say a Matchking or VLD's.

Do these BPCR bullets have rounded noses to reduce drag, once the bullet drops into subsonic ranges? Or is there some other reason why the noses are not sharp pointed?