|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Jan 21, 2009 18:18:55 GMT -5
Shooting flat is a combination of speed and BC...nothing else.
What I'm saying is that if your pac-nor .45 shoots a sabotless 250 SST at 2,600 fps, my saboted 250 SST, shot from my .50 at 2,700 fps will be flatter. Same bullet, same BC....just shot faster from the .50.
It has been reported that some bullets in the 200 gr range are being shot in excess of 3,000 fps. This is very nice and apparently doable. However, BC's of these bullets are no higher then of bullets we shoot from 50's.
So....how much flatter is a 200 gr SST (.40)shot at 3000 fps then a 250 SST(.451) shot at ,2,600 fps. If they both have a BC value of .21.
200 gr load sighted dead on at 200 yds @ 3,000 fps:
50 -
100 - +1.9"
150 - +2.3"
200 - Zero
250 - minus 4"
300 - minus 9.6"
400 - -30.3"
250 gr load sighted dead on at 200 yds @ 2,600 fps:
50
100 - +2.9"
150 - +3.1"
200 - zero
250 - minus 6"
300 - minus13.6
400 - minus 42.8
For deer hunting, not much difference. I wouldn't switch to a .45 or .40 in order to gain substantial benefits in trajectory over a .50 under 300 yds. For longer distances where all the other variables such as wind, mirage and rest come into play...this higher velocity will help a little.....if the accuracy is sufficient.
|
|
|
|
Post by edge on Jan 21, 2009 19:12:37 GMT -5
Personally the difference is not enough for me to switch, BUT  If it were me I would use the same MPBR. So assuming a 200 yard zero for the 250, that would equate to a 230 yard zero with the 200 grain bullet. As an extra, the 200 grain bullet gets to 300 with almost 1900 ft/lbs and the 25 gets there with just over 1300. Certainly no deal breakers, but then again sabotless might be in your future too edge [glow=red,2,300]PS It was brought to my attention that I used the manufacturers BC and not what wilmsmeyer had in his post. The energy of the two at 300 yards would be within 100FT/Lbs of each other using his BC's[/glow] |
|
|
|
Post by sw on Jan 21, 2009 19:36:53 GMT -5
Shooting flat is a combination of speed and BC . It has been reported that some bullets in the 200 gr range are being shot in excess of 3,000 fps. This is very nice However, BC's of these bullets are no higher then of bullets we shoot from 50's. So....how much flatter is a 200 gr SST (.40)shot at 3000 fps then a 250 SST(.451) shot at ,2,600 fps. If they both have a BC value of .21. :)Everything here is correct except "the BC", IMO. Yes, they can easily be shoot at >3000'/sec. I plan for 3000'/sec as my regular load, if it turns out accurate, which I think it will. Possibly, my acrylic tipped 195 barnes will be the final bullet though. I disagree about the BCs though. Both experience at the range and just looking at the bullets indicate the BCs are different. The 200 and 250 SST are exactly the same length: same BC? The 200SST looks much sleeker. The 195 Barnes is longer yet. Same BC? I've found that backing in .27 for the 200SST into the formula gives me fairly accurate predictions. So , .27 at 3000'/sec certainly is flatter than .21-.22@ 2600'/sec. The Barnes is a practical bullet to use at this speed. I have shot deer relatively close with the 200SST(2700+'/sec) in the H/L area and only had a 40 cal entrance and a DRT deer. I'm not trying to be blunt nor argumentative, it's just that I think the 40cal bullets are sleeker than the 250g 45 cal bullets. I even think the 200SST might have a slightly higher BC than even the 300SST;, but if not, I'm not planning to shoot the 300SST even near 3000'/sec. I have shot it to 2550(H-322) a few times but had concerns for my scope/etc. The 50 and 45 are still both great choices. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Champion on Jan 21, 2009 19:47:19 GMT -5
Hornady's web site lists the BC's as follows:
200gr: .265
250gr: .210
300gr: .250
|
|
|
|
Post by screwbolts on Jan 21, 2009 19:59:17 GMT -5
And to Think all this time I thought "Shooting flat is a combination of speed and Gravity...nothing else." :-)
Ken
Central NY
|
|
|
|
Post by ET on Jan 21, 2009 21:11:54 GMT -5
When this topic or discussion pops up I swear I hear dueling banjos playing in the background. ;D Kidding aside the only thing interesting I find here for me is the possible range of usable accuracy. As much as I enjoy shooting at a range it can’t quite compete or compare with being out in the field on a hunt. For now I have imposed a 200yd limitation for my shots with my 50 because at the range I have already proven to myself what my 10ML-II and I can do at this distance with one load and hope to find a few others soon. No negativity for this post was intended and look forward to seeing accuracy results achieved with some of the velocity/bullet flight path data posted here that extends beyond my current playground. The knowledge acquired will be useful one day for me or others that want to safely follow in these pioneering footsteps. Ed |
|
|
|
Post by rbinar on Jan 21, 2009 22:45:34 GMT -5
Shooting flat is a combination of speed and BC...nothing else. What I'm saying is that if your pac-nor .45 shoots a sabotless 250 SST at 2,600 fps, my saboted 250 SST, shot from my .50 at 2,700 fps will be flatter. Same bullet, same BC....just shot faster from the .50. I am impressed and I wouldn't try to change one word to make my point to Wilmsmeyer. However to the rest of you he should also state he's essentially recoil immune, you're not. The rub of the numbers is so much wheat waving in the wind. The bottom line is do you need it and can you get it? If you hunt with the expectation of making a shot at range then you hunt with the idea you can make the shot. We move to ideas which can realistically make our expectations into realities. There is no greater obstacle to range shooting than recoil. Now if you are making all the shots you'd ever like with the recoil presently made you have no need to change. If not there is a 100% chance you can do at least marginally better with less recoil. Hey it would even work for wilms. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2009 23:05:18 GMT -5
I once thought I was immune to recoil but after getting kissed by a Valdada during a very rushed shot last nov the blood running down my nose told me otherwise.If my 50 shot to suit me it still wouldnt matter I would keep using it, but less recoil from the 45 will be welcome...Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by DBinNY on Jan 21, 2009 23:22:55 GMT -5
I too noticed that Wilms didn't mention recoil in his post. I was also thinking that since he wears a cape and presumably also has X-Ray vision he could probably get by with iron sights and avoid scope-bite all together. I can handle recoil but it's not something that I necessarily seek or enjoy. If I can accomplish the same thing without it why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Jan 22, 2009 5:57:37 GMT -5
Point taken on the recoil.  I made this post because it appears from some recent posts that a few folks have stated a .45 is flatter. I only am seeking to make the point that "flatness" is only defined by speed and BC and is not caliber specific. I completely agree that at the same recoil levels you can probably shoot a .45 flatter. I will still say that the usefulness of the slight, statistical gain will be un-noticed to a deer hunter until extremely long range is encountered. Mainly because there are no stand-out bullets in the .45 that we already do not shoot in the .50. Now if you are a chipmunck hunter, this becomes HUGE. Recoil is a great reason to switch if recoil bothers you. I could have mentioned that but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bigmoose on Jan 22, 2009 9:42:27 GMT -5
I don't think anyone enjoy's recoil, Some fighters say they like being punched in the head till they walk around on their heels IMO recoil limits a range session, if you are bench shooting, I know it does for me,
As a shooter, I would never push my limit, it may take only 2 or 3 shoots over your limit to develope a flinch.
I don't consider myself recoil senitive, As a young man, shooting 50 to 80 rounds out of my 300WM was all in a days fun, I liked big bore blasting. with 470, and the hardest kicker I ever used 458 lott, but I know when to stop.
MY favorite story on recoil, one day, a gent showed up at Markham Park Range, with a brand new 300 WM, he had nothing but the rifle and a box of ammo, since he was next to me, we got to talking till the line was ready, I offered him a shot bag front and rear, he said he didn't need them, but yes, it was the first time he fired a big game rifle, I smiled and said its a kicker, the range went hot he sit down, a fired a shot, my some miracle the scope didn't bite him, but he dropped the rifle, looked at it, picked it up and left the range, leaving behind the box of ammo. I think in safe to say, he got rid of that rifle as soon as possible. that my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadeye on Jan 22, 2009 9:43:51 GMT -5
Point taken on the recoil. I made this post because it appears from some recent posts that a few folks have stated a .45 is flatter. I only am seeking to make the point that "flatness" is only defined by speed and BC and is not caliber specific. I completely agree that at the same recoil levels you can probably shoot a .45 flatter. I will still say that the usefulness of the the usefulness of the slight, statistical gain will be un-noticed to a deer hunter until extremely long range is encountered. Mainly because there are no stand-out bullets in the .45 that we already do not shoot in the .50. Now if you are a chipmunck hunter, this becomes HUGE. Recoil is a great reason to switch if recoil bothers you. I could have mentioned that but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. ;D statistical gain will be un-noticed to a deer hunter until extremely long range is encountered........ please elaborate more on this for accuracy sake ONLY@extreme long range say 325yds to 400yds, lets remove the deer hunter from the equasion for now. the reason im very interested in this // in near perfect conditions(no or litttle wind) will .45 sabotless get for those of us who want to play @ 325yds-400yds 2.0moa or less?? MY POINT,I THINK SOME ARE CONTEMPLATING ON TRYING SABOTLESS BUT WANT THIS INFO BEFORE LETTING LOOSE THOSE DOLLARS, I HAVE BEEN PLAYING W/ML2-.50SABOTED @375yds & KNOW THE EFFECTS OF WIND,BUT THAT PLASTIC SABOT'S DIFFERENCE IS REARING ITS HEAD ALSO,SORRY TO HI-JACK,TIA! |
|
|
|
Post by sw on Jan 22, 2009 14:44:35 GMT -5
Mainly because there are no stand-out bullets in the .45 that we already do not shoot in the .50. Now if you are a chipmunck hunter, this becomes HUGE. . ;D Seriously, I think the 200SST and especially the 175/195 Barnes are "stand-out" bullets. We can shoot them out of 45s but rarely with success out of a 50. |
|
|
|
Post by rexxer on Jan 22, 2009 16:44:10 GMT -5
Some of the main reasons I went with the .45 Pacnor is I could shoot alot less recoil, probably gain accuracy,and still shoot flatter than my current.50 deer load. Seems like my .50 likes three hundred grain bullets that beat me to death. So if I say my new .45 shooting 195-200 grain bullets should shoot flatter than my current deer load is a true statement.
I'm not sure why alot of guys want to shoot these super heavy bullets at high speed when they are just deer hunting.Everybody has their own deal but recoil is not one of mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave d. on Jan 22, 2009 17:01:01 GMT -5
:)wilms i've shot alot of 200sst's,175 and 195bx's like steve but i come up with a bc closer to yours.it's probably because i live closer to sea level.i like to shoot light weight bullets so the .45 was a no brainer.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilmsmeyer on Jan 22, 2009 20:03:29 GMT -5
There are really no stand out bullets. Yes the 200 gr .40 may be the same length as a 250 .45 bullet...BUT...it's 50 grains lighter.
Either way the BC shakes out on these bullets, they are all in the same basic class...poor compared to CF bullets. > then .20 and < .30.
|
|
