|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 13, 2009 15:49:01 GMT -5
I read alot of posts where guys are shooting 260 - 300 grain bullets and I can't figure out why? The velocity is less, trajectory drops quicker, and it has to jar your fillings when shooting a heavier projectile. (I only use 90 gr Noslers in my .243 and they dump deer pretty good).
I've been shooting a 180 grain polymer tipped sabot from PR Bullet with 100 grains of FFF Triple 7 for about 7-8 years. The last 3 deer shot were at 40 yards, 90 yards, and 150 yards and none of them went past 30 yards after being hit. These register close to 2100 fps on the chrono and are easy on the shoulder.
So what are the advantages of shooting such heavy bullets in a muzzleloader? I must be missing out on something here but I just can't figure out what? Thanks for any enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Apr 13, 2009 16:48:56 GMT -5
300 grains is not heavy in a .50 bore. The longer bearing surface usually helps with accuracy. The weight of a heavier bullet increases the SD (sectional density) which ensure adequate penetration.
Is 250-300 grains "needed"? No, you've proved that. However, this weight range is a desired range for more then one reason. Also as speeds increase, the lighter stubbier bullets become bombs terminally.
A 300 gr bullet at 2100 fps isn't that bad on the average shoulder.
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 13, 2009 21:25:41 GMT -5
How many grains of powder do you need to move a 300 grain bullet 2100 fps?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2009 21:49:33 GMT -5
tp..... Here's some info that might help. I ran some numbers on a ballistics program between your 180gn bullet and and a 300gn bullet. 180gn bullet: 2075fps/ 1721# energy @ muzzle 1712fps/ 1172# energy @ 100yds 1552fps/ 963# energy @ 150yds 1407fps/ 791# energy @ 200yds 1281fps/ 656# energy @ 250yds
300gn bullet: 1800fps/ 2158# energy @ muzzle 1601fps/ 1708# energy @ 100yds 1510fps/ 1519# energy @ 150yds 1424fps/ 1351# energy @ 200yds 1346fps/ 1207# energy @ 250yds
If you sight them both in to zero at 150yds: 180gn: 100yds/ +2.31 150yds/ 0 200yds/ -5.93 250yds/ -16.28
300gn: 100yds/ +2.79 150yds/ 0 200yds/ -6.61 250yds/-17.52
As you can see the difference in impact between the two is not much, but the difference in energy is a whole lot. This is why I use a 300gn bullet. Maybe some others will have some more reasons. Good luck, Zen
|
|
|
Post by Chris Champion on Apr 13, 2009 22:52:28 GMT -5
tp,
120g (by volume) of Blackhorn 209 will get you around 2040 fps with a 300g bullet. In a smokeless powder muzzleloader such as the Savage 10ML-II, 2100 fps is easily reached with a 42g (by weight) of VV N110 or IMR SR4759. The Savage can safely reach 2500 fps with a 300g bullet and slower burning smokeless powders. But these loads are not for the average shoulder.
I think Panhandle hit the nail on the head. Energy on target is why most shoot 250-300g bullets out of a muzzleloader because most muzzleloaders are only shooting 1600-2000 fps. At these relatively slow speeds the added weight is needed for adequate terminal energy. Most of the bullets being shot at these velocities are .451 or .452 pistol bullets and their terminal performance is good out to 200 yds on deer size game.
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 14, 2009 9:00:14 GMT -5
Nice specs panhandle but does your program know the difference between a muzzleloader shooting sabots and a rifle using cartridges? Does the program distinquish whether the projectile has a polymer spire point or a blunt hollow point nose - seems like these two would fly differently. Here is a link that shows test results from shooting various bullets and weights through the same muzzleloader - these heavier bullets seem to have more drop than your program suggests. I have some of these 195gr Duplex sabots and plan to see how they shoot this summer. From a physics point of view I have trouble understanding the similarities in trajectory from your program. www.prbullet.com/drop.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2009 18:15:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 14, 2009 19:15:17 GMT -5
Nice program with some great features. However, I still have trouble believing your stats if we're using the same powder charge for both the 180 and 300 grain projectiles that downrange the 300 gr bullet has a higher fps than the 180 grain - that just seems to go against physics.
I haven't seen a polymer tipped spire point in a 300 gr bullet but I assume someone makes them. Normally these are some type of hp, round nose, or flat point and if you compare that type of nose on the 300 gr versus a spire point on the 180, the BC stands out pretty significant in favor of the 180. A hundred grain powder charge will move the 180 faster than the 300, they'll hit the ground at the same time, the 180 will just be further downrange when they do.
Of course, then again I could be all wet but if the bullets aren't of the same exact design - your comparisons are really invalid from what I can see. If you check what bench shooters are using I don't think you'll find too many chubby blunt nose projectiles. Not finding fault but I don't think your illustration was comparing apples to apples in my estimation.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Champion on Apr 14, 2009 20:52:36 GMT -5
tp... What caliber is this 180g bullet are you referring to? If the 180g and 300g bullet are the same caliber (.452 for example)then the 300g will have a much higher BC, will travel farther, and will retain a higher percentage of its initial velocity even though it has a slower muzzle velocity. If you are comparing two bullets of very different calibers (say .308 vs .452) then you are correct that the 180g bullet will travel farther, have less drop, and retain more of its speed because it has a higher BC. As far as PR Bullets are concerned it is common knowledge that the BC's they report for their bullets are grossly overstated and are nothing more than marketing fluff used sell their bullets. I'm not saying they don't make a good product, just saying that the BC's are exagerated. There are many tipped 300g muzzleloader bullets out there. The Hornady 300g SST is one of the most popular: www.hornady.com/shop/?ps_session=f7d8f5b9a55138ed11b6582e85d2a590&page=shop%2Fbrowse&category_id=fb73b4b3a3f422cdff2546992d2a2166
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2009 21:19:56 GMT -5
tp.... I have shot at least a hundred rounds through my Triumph with 110gn of Blackhorn and a 300gn .458 Remington @ 1800fps at the muzzle, sighted in to zero at 150yds. The figures posted in regard to trajectories have been proven at the range to be very close to the figures I posted from the ballistic tables. The best thing you can do is shoot for yourself and see if the listed trajectories posted by PR are indeed accurate. Remember what Chris has stated earlier about being exagerated figures. Another thing is those figures were established at a 100yd zero point. If your satisfied with the PR bullets by all means use them. Confidence in a combination of powder, bullet and sabot is very important for all hunters. Good luck...Zen
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 15, 2009 8:27:22 GMT -5
Yes I saw a post once where someone bashed PR for over stated BCs on his new 195 Duplex listing of a .400 BC - don't know if the guy knew what he was talking about or just had an ax to grind. I do know the PR bullets fly flat and group extremely well and I'm really fussy with my ML.
However, if I use pandhandle's program to find the BC using PR's new .353 cal 195 gr bullet, it lists it at .366 as a spire point, .436 as a boat tail. This 195 gr has both a spire point and a boat tail and Cecil Epps lists them as having a .400 BC - looks ok to me and I don't care if they're overstated or not if they fly well.
I realize the heavier bullet has more energy downrange and if you want to shoot at shoulders, that should work just fine. I prefer to take out lungs and prefer something fast and flat to do the job - it doesn't take 300 grains to do that. Everyone has their preferred and favorite way to do things - it must be that freedom of choice we Americans enjoy so well. Thanks for the nice program though.
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 15, 2009 10:43:09 GMT -5
Chris - the ballistics reference for that 300 gr SST (part #67263) wouldn't popup so I called Hornady about that bullet. The guy said the BC was .250. In looking at some of the available .45 bullets they all seem to be the traditional chubby style like I used to shoot long ago. I'm sure some people are in love with these, I just prefer something a bit more aerodynamic for my hunting. Thanks for the link though.
|
|
|
Post by dans on Apr 15, 2009 12:33:43 GMT -5
For my hunting in the real world my deer just don't always present me with the perfect angle for a killing shot and I like the idea of being able to successfully take an animal with a raking shot if necessary. I don't get many opportunities to shoot something and must take advantage of the chances I get. I like Barnes bullets for this reason and I shoot which ever one is the most accurate. A long time ago I helped another hunter bring to bag a trophy buck that had a front leg nearly shot off at the body line and in that situation any shot presentation is a good one. We were using Brenneke slugs and had to take a severe raking shot (read rear end) to successfully finish this buck. I will take penetration over expansion any day.
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 15, 2009 15:05:05 GMT -5
Well, I wouldn't want to shoot their legs off just to get a deer - I'd rather pass if I can't get the shot I want. However, I would consider a head shot at 100 yards if I have a decent rest. Some of the posts I've seen with people who upload photos of their "tite groups" at 100 yards shouldn't have any problem either if that's how their really shooting. The base of of the neck is a big enough target and seems like it would be visable for all 360 degrees - all you need is the confidence your ML is going to hit where you point it. Otherwise, I guess you should just shoot them in the ass!
|
|
|
Post by mshm99 on Apr 15, 2009 22:18:52 GMT -5
Is everybody over loooking hydrostatic shock. HS is why the 90 grain bullet in the .243 kills a deer. Otherwise a big hole,that causes massive blood loss is what kills them.(The Jeff Cooper principle)
Since HS starts at around 2100 fps, it is playing a part in those 180 grain kills,at 40 and 90 yards.
Where's the goat?
mshm
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 16, 2009 8:17:29 GMT -5
I subscride to the CL theory - collapsed lung. I've seen shoulder hit, bleeding like a stuck hog deer run forever. My step-son likes to shoot at the shoulders - he never recovered the last two he's shot and one was a dandy - he'll learn some day
It's why archery shot deer in the lungs are so effective. Once the lung cavity above the diaframe is breached by a bullet/broadhead, the difference in atmosheric pressure (inside versus outside) causes the lungs to "collapse" - the deer runs out of oxygen and keels over.
Years ago in Montana I shot an elk at 40 yards with a bow and he started to turn away from the string sound when I shot. I caught both lungs quartering away and he went about 50 yards and piled up. As the guide and I walked up, the elk had a gapping hole on his side. He was breathing in through the mouth but exhaling through the hole in his side. A measily 125 gr Thunderhead without alot of shock energy put a 700 pound animal on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Apr 16, 2009 9:42:07 GMT -5
Nice program with some great features. However, I still have trouble believing your stats if we're using the same powder charge for both the 180 and 300 grain projectiles that downrange the 300 gr bullet has a higher fps than the 180 grain - that just seems to go against physics. I don't want to interrupt your post I'm certainly no one to ask about black powder loads but I would say that a heavier bullet keeping speed at range does not go against any law of physics. In fact it confirms Newton's law of motion that says in part once an object is in motion it tends to stay in motion. A bullet is subject to aerodynamics. that is to say it slows according to speed AND momentum. A heavier bullet can have more momentum than a faster moving lighter weight bullet. The momentum is proportional to bullet energy (if both bullets are the same caliber) as well as speed. If the above happens to be the case and the two bullets have similar frontal areas it goes without saying the heavier bullet will change speeds slower than the lighter weight bullet. Again Newton's law would say that the greater the mass of a moving object the greater the force needed to move it or stop it while moving. So if a lower momentum bullet is launched at a higher speed than a heavier bullet it is entirely possible that the rate of deceleration for the faster bullet will be more than a slower heavier bullet. Since one bullet can slow faster than another at some point the original slow bullet will be the speed of the original faster bullet, in fact at some point it will catch and pass the original fast bullet.
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 16, 2009 11:04:45 GMT -5
If the heavier bullet maintains speed better than a lighter one, then the trajectory for the heavier bullet should be better than the lighter one. However, in all of the ballistic charts I've seen, the heavier bullet has more trajectory drop than the lighter bullet.
How can a heavier bullet (with the same powder charge) drop quicker but still go faster than a lighter bullet?
|
|
|
Post by younghunter86 on Apr 16, 2009 14:47:16 GMT -5
How can a heavier bullet (with the same powder charge) drop quicker but still go faster than a lighter bullet? By faster you mean initial velocity? I think the key word here is ballistic coefficient.
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 16, 2009 16:44:03 GMT -5
I think too many people armed with a keyboard all of a sudden become experts.
|
|
|
Post by yankee on Apr 16, 2009 18:54:21 GMT -5
If the heavier bullet maintains speed better than a lighter one, then the trajectory for the heavier bullet should be better than the lighter one. However, in all of the ballistic charts I've seen, the heavier bullet has more trajectory drop than the lighter bullet. How can a heavier bullet (with the same powder charge) drop quicker but still go faster than a lighter bullet? i'll bud in on this 1, im 1 of those 300gr xtp slug fans, heres an experiment for ya, grab a baseball and throw it as level and as hard as you can, then do the same with a tennisball, report back with the results, i shoot 110gr triple 7 from mmp black sabot and 300 grain hornady xtp mag, 10yrs now this slug has never failed me, and i have 22 kills to show for em, anywhere from 35yds to 165yds,, and most took a dirt nap at bullet impact, matter of fact this deer went exactly 5 of my steps and fell dead, even the U.S. military is considering going with a 6.8mm combat rifle cause they are learning that the little 5.56 55gr aint getting the job done, this deer below went 180 dressed, and he went 5 steps from point of impact.... proof for me is not on chronographs or in ballistics programs, proof is success with a slug in the field
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 16, 2009 19:38:59 GMT -5
yankee - I understand foot pounds of energy and it's affect downrange but somehow I think my point was missed. Using the same powder charge, the 180 grain bullet will have more muzzle velocity-mid velocity-end velocity than your 300 grain bullet, and thus a flatter trajectory. I don't care to take Texas heart shots but wouldn't hesitate if I had to. Your baseball/tennis ball doesn't relate to what I'm referring to.
Do this, take an automatic skeet thrower and see how far it will throw a skeet. Take the same machine and put a 5 pound barbell weight on it and see how far it will throw that puppy.
I'm sure you can put in enough powder to get the same velocity to make your 300 grain bullet have the same velocity as my 180 grain bullet driven by 100 grains of FFF Triple 7. And Triple 7 is supposedly 10%-15% hotter than regular powders so I'm probably using the equivelant of nearly 115 grains. To move the 300 grain bullet that same velocity is going to be one butt kicker of a load that I don't care to shoot. Part of the reason my ML shoots well is because I'm not worried about the scope kissing my forehead when I pull the trigger.
I'm not trying to find fault with anyone and realize everyone has their own preference. Mine is lightweight flat shooting that I know will hit where and when I want it to. And yes the 300 grain has more knockdown powder than my lightweight but I put a higher value on shot placement rather than relying on hoping a cannon ball will hit the deer somewhere with enough force to knock it off it's feet.
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Apr 16, 2009 21:16:44 GMT -5
If the heavier bullet maintains speed better than a lighter one, then the trajectory for the heavier bullet should be better than the lighter one. However, in all of the ballistic charts I've seen, the heavier bullet has more trajectory drop than the lighter bullet. How can a heavier bullet (with the same powder charge) drop quicker but still go faster than a lighter bullet? Ok I will try one more time. I'm not trying to tell you something you don't want to hear but: a heavy bullet does not drop faster than a light weight bullet. All similar shaped objects fall at the same rate. A man named Galileo discovered that nearly 400 years ago. I'm not sure what trajectory chart you are using but I have Point Blank up in front of me right now. Comparing a 180 bullet shot at 2200fps to a 300 grain bullet at 2000fps it tells me this: The 180 grain bullet if zeroed at 175 yards will reach a maximum height of 3.43 inches. The 300 grain bullet zeroed at the same 175 yard would reach a maximum height of 3.64". So in the zeroed range the 180 grain bullet drops .21 inch less. That may seem to support you but go out to a greater distance. At 300 yards the 180 grain bullet has dropped to 27.27 inches below zero. At the same distance the 300 grain bullet is only 25.88 inches below zero. So over the entire distance the 300 grain bullet is actually 1.18 inches flatter shooting than the 180 grain bullet. If you go to 400 yards the 180 grain bullet is 8 inches below the heavier bullet. So your opinion may hold true for some distance(s) but it will be a minor advantage that will be given up quickly if you attempt any shooting at range. When I chose the bullets for my drop table I gave a fair BC for the 180 grain bullet of .17 and .25 for the 300 grain bullet.
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 17, 2009 7:56:47 GMT -5
I understand they fall the same. In fact if someone drops a bullet next to you at the same time you fire your rifle (held at horizntal) both hit the gound at the same time. My issue is when using the same powder charge, the heavier bullet cannot be push out the barrel at the same velocity as a lighter bullet - therefore it cannot match the trajectory. When you talk BC, how finite is your program distinquishing all the factors that make up BC? A swaged lead bullet is supposedly the most aerodynamic followed by a jacketed bullet, I forgot the third one on the list. If the program is on the generic side, it might not distinquish between streamlined and stubby. From the looks of things, my lighter bullets have a better Form Factor (FF) that reduces drag I think better than your 300 grain SST - I could be wrong. But my bullets range somewhere between Ogive 3 and Ogive 4 on the chart below, plus it has a boat tail which also increases it's BC - wharever it is. Pull up the FF chart below and you should be able to lay your bullet over the appropriate nose (probably the 45 listing) and tell me which ogive the 300 SST matches. If it's that great I might switch (250 max though). www.uslink.net/~tom1/calcbc/coxe-bugless.htm
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Apr 17, 2009 16:48:32 GMT -5
I understand they fall the same. In fact if someone drops a bullet next to you at the same time you fire your rifle (held at horizntal) both hit the gound at the same time. My issue is when using the same powder charge, the heavier bullet cannot be push out the barrel at the same velocity as a lighter bullet - therefore it cannot match the trajectory. When you talk BC, how finite is your program distinquishing all the factors that make up BC? A swaged lead bullet is supposedly the most aerodynamic followed by a jacketed bullet, I forgot the third one on the list. If the program is on the generic side, it might not distinquish between streamlined and stubby. From the looks of things, my lighter bullets have a better Form Factor (FF) that reduces drag I think better than your 300 grain SST - I could be wrong. But my bullets range somewhere between Ogive 3 and Ogive 4 on the chart below, plus it has a boat tail which also increases it's BC - wharever it is. Pull up the FF chart below and you should be able to lay your bullet over the appropriate nose (probably the 45 listing) and tell me which ogive the 300 SST matches. If it's that great I might switch (250 max though). www.uslink.net/~tom1/calcbc/coxe-bugless.htm First let me agree with what I can agree with. You are absolutely right about the heavier bullet not being able to go as fast as the lighter bullet. I thought you would see that in my example the 300 grain bullet was launched a full 200fps slower than the 180 grain bullet. Besides that I'm sorry I have to say the assumption you are asserting here is simply pure bunk. It makes no sense at all. The notion that an objects initial speed guarantees flatter flight is pure fantasy it makes no account that the flight is affected not only by initial speed but also by the rate of deceleration. It all boils down to time to target. If a bullet gets to the target quicker it has less fall at that range no matter the initial velocity. That's a fact and you or no one else can reason around it. Also I'd have to say you've ignored a easily seen principle. The mass (weight) of the bullet does make a difference in down range bullet speed. Almost any long range target shooter will pick a relatively heavy bullet for the caliber for a long range shot. All the common target loads ignore light weight bullets in a preference for heavier bullets. If you don't believe me check the ballistic table in any load data manual. You will find that if you compare two similar bullets they will show a preference at range for the heavy bullet. For instance look at the 150 and 180 grain chart for a 30-06. Make both bullets have similar shape (no boat tail versus flat based comparison). In the load data it will tell you the 180 grain bullet was launched as much as 200fps SLOWER than the 150 grain bullet. It will also show that at range (greater than 300 yards) the 180 grain bullet has LESS drop than the 150 grain bullet. Every trajectory chart in the world will show this principle. I won't even comment on your words about BC (I don't want to insult) but needless to say the trajectory charts and ballistic programs don't assign BC they only use it. As long as the BC is a fair representation of the bullet (and the ones I chose were very fair in fact favoring the 180 grain bullet) they will work. I stated in my past post you are partially correct in the 180 grain bullet will be slightly flatter shooting at near ranges. You may never shoot past those ranges and there is no need to plan past that. But thinking range shots are best served by a bullet that has the BC of a brick is as wrong as saying the earth is flat.
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Apr 17, 2009 21:17:10 GMT -5
Yup...Yup...Yup! It's math...nothing more and nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 17, 2009 21:33:21 GMT -5
If I ever come across some of the 300 grain SST bullets on sale I'll give them a try but I think Ill be wasting my money. I'm not trying to shoot 300 yards with a muzzleloader, I just want the least amount of drop at 150 yards so I don't have to aim lower at shorter ranges or higher at longer ranges.
Hmmm, when I switched to Easton's carbon ACC for archery they sure seemed to go alot faster and shoot flatter. Actually, I had to change from 4 pins down to 2 pins because I couldn't get my sight pins close enough anymore. Maybe I should go back to the heavier aluminum arrows, they might all of a sudden start shooting flatter. Maybe they didn't know they were suppose to before.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Champion on Apr 18, 2009 0:09:02 GMT -5
If I ever come across some of the 300 grain SST bullets on sale I'll give them a try but I think Ill be wasting my money. I'm not trying to shoot 300 yards with a muzzleloader, I just want the least amount of drop at 150 yards so I don't have to aim lower at shorter ranges or higher at longer ranges. If flat trajectory out to 150yds is your goal then you probably have no reason to switch... Instead of the 300g SST, you might want to consider its little brother the 250g SST. At 2000 fps it gives you a 2" MPBR of 160 yds. With a 140 yd zero its roughly +2" at 100 yds and -2" @ 160 yds. At 160 yds it still retains 1200 ft/lbs of energy and is still traveling at 1475 fps. You can now buy these, (and the 300g too), in bulk packs of 50, (bullets only), for about $25. That's nice because you can choose whichever sabot gives you the best fit in your gun. If you decide to give these a try please report back and let us know your results.
|
|
|
Post by carlv on Apr 18, 2009 6:41:03 GMT -5
Hmmm, when I switched to Easton's carbon ACC for archery they sure seemed to go alot faster and shoot flatter. Actually, I had to change from 4 pins down to 2 pins because I couldn't get my sight pins close enough anymore. Maybe I should go back to the heavier aluminum arrows, they might all of a sudden start shooting flatter. Maybe they didn't know they were suppose to before. Comparing apples to oranges. I'd be more than happy to debate you on archery principles as you're wrong again since you cannot seem to grasp what momentum is. This is the wrong forum to debate archery principles though, come on over to Archery Tech Talk and debate away. Your arrogance over there will instantly be jumped on severely. These guys are simply being nice to a know-it-all.
|
|
|
Post by tpcollins on Apr 18, 2009 7:25:14 GMT -5
Nice.
|
|