New 7

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by rem338win

My my. Laffin, hilarious, lol? Those aren't my words and I wasn't personal. I'm wondering why you've decided you can mock and belittle and act like you can't sink in water. You've stopped discussing the subject entiring to build strawmen so not wasting your time is likely a good start. Shooting might be more your forte.

Read post #50, please!
Jordon Smith tried t act in a civil manner, please return the favor to him.
Cat

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by BackPackHunter

Wouldn't the 195 hold the wind better then a 180?

There a are simple rules of thumb for sure and you have to balance things like flight time vs the BC. So the answer to your question is yes and no, but I think in his scenario that he's likely to say the difference would be moot if it's for punching paper. Time of flight matters too.

I see it like this: Pick a cartridge you want to work with out of these suggestions. Have a balance of recoil, cost to feed and projectile performance (projectile speed with weight.) and if you're looking to balance flight performance with game performance then decide how far is too far and keep impact speeds for expansion, etc in mind. Bergers and Amaxs in my experience seem to expand well down to 1600fps, but I've never shot Amaxs into game. Lots of others have though.

My vote for your .473 bolt face is the .284 with 168's like I said. I think you can do that on a sheep style gun with great performance and it'll be a joy to shoot.

The 7SAUM is fantastic and if you were to stick with that I'd look hard at the 180's.

Make sure when you do finish this setup lots of pics get posted.

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Read post #50, please!
Jordon Smith tried t act in a civil manner, please return the favor to him.
Cat

I did. I didn't name call or mock. I pointed out the inconsistency and even complimented him in the end. Thanks for watching out though.

[BackPackHunter]

In my 300wsm
At 500 yards I could really notice a big difference with 150 Accubonds vs 180 accoubonds ( in a good wind)


The reason for this thread is because I'm having issues with my 300
It stopped shooting so well, see the thread Carbon Fibre barrel
One guy made a post about the piece being always missing and my barrel
just broke in. I tried a lot of stuff, but didn't drop my charge very much
So I'm goin to do a few test to see.
If I can't get it to group , I'm getting it cut back n rechambered for hunting season, then after the season I'll use that action for the new 7
If the new testing works , I'm goin to use the .308 faced bolt for the build
I just can't do both , as I'm on light duty because I just had a major knee surgery ...

[rem338win]

I feel you. I just did the light duty knee surgery thing as well.

Have you aggressively scrubbed the bore with something like Wipeout, Sweets, or Barnes CR2? Maybe JB Boreshine?

IRRC, a good scrubbing and applying ceramic bore coating has helped some. I think Jordan Smith was repping that at one point. I've yet to use it but heard good things.

There is a significant difference in drift when comparing stubby bullets like a 150gr .30 cal and a 180. The 180 AB is very slippery for a hunting bullet.

[Robmcleod82]

Originally Posted by 6.5x47 lapua

there is no advantage to the 195 versus the 180 at all at 900m.during team practice,as the canadian team is constantly testing bullets,etc.,we shot 284,s with 180,s against a saum with 195,s.many many volley fires in healthy conditions concluded there was less than 1/2 ring difference if any difference at all.volley firing repeatedly is as good of real world test there is.im suspecting you would have to drive the living crap out of the 195,s to see any real world difference.

All I can tell you Bob is what I've seen with my own two eyes. Not trying to discount your experience. We fired 162, 180, 195s out of several different 7mm cartridges at a host of different velocities, in a pretty steady 18-20 mph wind and every cartridge the 195 needed a fair bet less adjustment for windage.

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by Robmcleod82

All I can tell you Bob is what I've seen with my own two eyes. Not trying to discount your experience. We fired 162, 180, 195s out of several different 7mm cartridges at a host of different velocities, in a pretty steady 18-20 mph wind and every cartridge the 195 needed a fair bet less adjustment for windage.

the only way for fair testing is volley fire.just looking to see how much windage is on does not give a true enough fair comparison especially in big winds like you were shooting in.you may have pulled the trigger on the front of the wind wave cycle with the heavies and on top of the cycle with the midweight,etc.also adding on any variances with your scope tracking,how well your tall target test was shot and actual spin drift.

[rem338win]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

I see no need to argue with you about who said what, and who's feelers were hurt, but I do want you to know that at no time did I intentionally say anything to belittle or condescend toward anyone in this thread. I'm sorry if you interpreted my comments that way. Whether or not you can say the same, is your business. "Laffin" was sincere And you need to differentiate between my finding your accusation of me having an agenda funny, and me slinging personal attacks your way. At no time did I attack or belittle you, but I did find the agenda comment a little ridiculous and funny.

Now hopefully you can let the drama go, so we can all get back to discussing the rifle, loads, bullet, ballistics, etc.

To heck with that. Gettum back up and force Cat to ban us.

I am going to neck up a 6.5x47 Lapua to 7mm and push 195's just to be more efficient with my powder in the future though........

[Robmcleod82]

Originally Posted by 6.5x47 lapua

the only way for fair testing is volley fire.just looking to see how much windage is on does not give a true enough fair comparison especially in big winds like you were shooting in.you may have pulled the trigger on the front of the wind wave cycle with the heavies and on top of the cycle with the midweight,etc.also adding on any variances with your scope tracking,how well your tall target test was shot and actual spin drift.

In my neck of the woods 18-20mph wind isn't big lol that's just nice. When it's blowing 40 plus things get a bit more tricky

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by 6.5x47 lapua

the only way for fair testing is volley fire.just looking to see how much windage is on does not give a true enough fair comparison especially in big winds like you were shooting in.you may have pulled the trigger on the front of the wind wave cycle with the heavies and on top of the cycle with the midweight,etc.also adding on any variances with your scope tracking,how well your tall target test was shot and actual spin drift.

Even volley fire doesn't give a truly meaningful comparison with significant data, unless we go to great lengths to standardize several variables, from bullet stability and effective BC values, to scope mounting/leveling, reticle/turret calibration, and spin drift, as you mentioned.

A slightly under-stabilized (an SG under 1.5) 195gr Hybrid can lose as much as approximately 15% of its advertised BC value, without being completely unstable (under 1.0). If the twist rate launching the 195 is marginally sufficient, and the barrel launching the 180's is stabilizing them enough to achieve their maximum BC value, then they will appear to perform very similarly.

Additionally, the lower the wind speed, the smaller the advantage of the 195 will seem to be. The superior form factor of the 195 becomes more apparent the worse conditions get. That's probably why Rob and I saw such a disparity when shooting them in 20 mph winds. I've continued to see a difference when shooting in high wind scenarios at out to 1420 meters, when comparing those 3 bullets.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by rem338win

There a are simple rules of thumb for sure and you have to balance things like flight time vs the BC. So the answer to your question is yes and no, but I think in his scenario that he's likely to say the difference would be moot if it's for punching paper. Time of flight matters too.

I see it like this: Pick a cartridge you want to work with out of these suggestions. Have a balance of recoil, cost to feed and projectile performance (projectile speed with weight.) and if you're looking to balance flight performance with game performance then decide how far is too far and keep impact speeds for expansion, etc in mind. Bergers and Amaxs in my experience seem to expand well down to 1600fps, but I've never shot Amaxs into game. Lots of others have though.

My vote for your .473 bolt face is the .284 with 168's like I said. I think you can do that on a sheep style gun with great performance and it'll be a joy to shoot.

The 7SAUM is fantastic and if you were to stick with that I'd look hard at the 180's.

Make sure when you do finish this setup lots of pics get posted.

There is actually a very simple metric that can be used to see the combined effect of balancing BC and flight time/velocity. It's called "form factor", and Bryan Litz has written fairly extensively on it. Here's a summary link for reference:

http://www.bergerbullets.com/form-fa...analysis-tool/

Essentially, the lower the form factor, the higher a bullet's potential external ballistic performance is. So it takes into account how slickery a bullet is, independent of bullet weight, caliber, or velocity. That all means that a low form factor equals a high BC value for a given bullet's caliber and weight. If you check Berger's website, they list the G7 form factors for each bullet. The 195 Hybrid has the lowest form factor out of any bullet they make, except for the 250gr .338 Elite Hunter, and the 300gr .338 Hybrid OTM Tactical (0.892 for the 195, and 0.891 for both .338 bullets).

Not surprisingly, the 168 VLD and 180 VLD have very similar form factors, with the 180 showing a slight advantage. This is seen in field results, as most guys have witnessed the higher launch speed of the 168 nearly offsetting the 180 in wind drift, despite the 180's higher BC, but not quite. The 180 still has a bit of an advantage. The same thing applies to the 180 vs. 195. The 180 has a form factor of 0.925 and the 195's is 0.892. That means that all else being equal (scope, stability, atmospherics, etc), the 195 will outperform the 180 in terms of external ballistics- it'll drift less in the wind, retain velocity better, retain energy better (for what that's worth), momentum, etc.

Your second paragraph is a great way to go about cartridge selection. There are a lot of factors in cartridge selection, even outside of rifle dimensions and specs. Sufficient impact velocity for proper expansion is really the limiting factor in how far game can be successfully shot and ethically killed, assuming the rifleman's skills are up to it. I've seen great things from A-Max bullets on game, and have witnessed excellent expansion with plenty of penetration down to 1730 fps (quite a bit lower on targets and soil, but that's as low as I've seen on game). And of course, ammo/component cost vs. expected performance, recoil, desired external and terminal ballistic performance, etc, all need to be considered.

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

Even volley fire doesn't give a truly meaningful comparison with significant data, unless we go to great lengths to standardize several variables, from bullet stability and effective BC values, to scope mounting/leveling, reticle/turret calibration, and spin drift, as you mentioned.

A slightly under-stabilized (an SG under 1.5) 195gr Hybrid can lose as much as approximately 15% of its advertised BC value, without being completely unstable (under 1.0). If the twist rate launching the 195 is marginally sufficient, and the barrel launching the 180's is stabilizing them enough to achieve their maximum BC value, then they will appear to perform very similarly.

Additionally, the lower the wind speed, the smaller the advantage of the 195 will seem to be. The superior form factor of the 195 becomes more apparent the worse conditions get. That's probably why Rob and I saw such a disparity when shooting them in 20 mph winds. I've continued to see a difference when shooting in high wind scenarios at out to 1420 meters, when comparing those 3 bullets.

if volley fire does not give significant comparison and your way does in 20 mph winds you must be the best wind reader in the world!!! not missing a single pickup or let off?...wow. especially at those incredible distances..again...wow. im completely humbled.you should come down to team practice at the end of the month and coach.im sure we can all learn volumes from you.

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by Robmcleod82

In my neck of the woods 18-20mph wind isn't big lol that's just nice. When it's blowing 40 plus things get a bit more tricky

ive shot many matches with the windage drum maxed out there fella.i shoot in saskatchewan all the time.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by 6.5x47 lapua

if volley fire does not give significant comparison and your way does in 20 mph winds you must be the best wind reader in the world!!! not missing a single pickup or let off?...wow. especially at those incredible distances..again...wow. im completely humbled.you should come down to team practice at the end of the month and coach.im sure we can all learn volumes from you.

I didn't say my observations were any more meaningful than yours. Obviously your observations have value, as do Rob's, and as do mine, but they certainly aren't divinitive nor conclusive without controlling certain variables and using a more scientific approach. I certainly didn't make great efforts to control those variables, either. I simply showed that the theory as laid out by Bryan Litz, who really could coach you, says that the 195 should have a performance advantage over the 180, all else being equal (which would take a lot of effort to ensure), and my observations are congruent with that.

Now drop the sarcasm. We all know you are incapable of being humbled

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

I didn't say my observations were any more meaningful than yours. Obviously your observations have value, as do Rob's, and as do mine, but they certainly aren't divinitive nor conclusive without controlling certain variables and using a more scientific approach. I certainly didn't make great efforts to control those variables, either. I simply showed that the theory as laid out by Bryan Litz, who really could coach you, says that the 195 should have a performance advantage over the 180, all else being equal (which would take a lot of effort to ensure), and my observations are congruent with that.

Now drop the sarcasm. We all know you are incapable of being humbled

Glad you brought up Bryan.most of our team know him personally.i guarantee that team michigan,of which Bryan is a coach,do alot of volley fire testing of projectiles as well as the rest of the teams in the world in preparations for the worlds.unfortunately in the real world all the math and fancy scientific blather get thrown out the window for good old fashioned testing.the closest thing to absolute controlled conditions is volley firing bullets against one another in top wind cycle conditions.any horizontal advantage will be seen instantly.its a simple effective concept.This has to be done with target rifles capable of 1/4 min or better running 1/2 v bull waterline.The only other way is detailed observations from top shooters who are winning with certain projectiles all the time.Funny thing is most everyone has rejected these projectiles in favour of another of which i am not at liberty to say.volley testing has proven an advantage with these projectiles.
as far as Bryan coaching us i guess he could but i know our coaches are better! I also look forward to shooting against Bryan and all the rest of the top shooters at the canadians this year and at the worlds next year individually.
as far as being humbled, every time i pull the trigger in wind conditions i get that.that is why i average 5-7000 projectiles a year practicing.

[Robmcleod82]

So are you running Bartleins now that they are a major team sponsor? What is the cartridge of choice this year? Open gun or TR?

[Jordan Smith]

Well, if you're implying that there's nothing you can learn from Bryan Litz, then carry on! But FYI, there are other people out there, who choose not to participate in F-class for whatever reason, who can shoot, too. Heck, on a decent year 7000 rounds of CF have been sent down range by the middle of February! Just kidding, though I know people, who don't compete in any discipline BTW, for whom that would be a fair statement! But from what I've seen, 5000-7000 of CF is the kind of round count that serious shooters go through in a given year, myself included, so you're not the only one who witnesses the effects of bullets flying through the wind. I will agree with you about the wind being THE great Humbler, though!

I'm not saying volley fire is a bad way to do testing, not at all. What I'm saying, is that in itself is not enough to give empirical comparisons between two bullets. You've got to consider other factors, as well. Unless you're achieving an SG of at least 1.5 with every bullet being fired in each barrel, you're not getting a true representation of what each bullet is really capable of. "Good old fashioned testing"- how do you think Bryan gets his G7 BC and Form Factor values? Yup, by empirical testing, not with simple theoretical calculations. Although, all that "fancy science blather" is what bullet designers and manufacturers use to come up with better projectiles that outperform what we used in the past, and what we're currently using, so I wouldn't be too quick to throw the science out with the trash, in favour of a simple trial-and-error type of approach. Both a theoretical understanding combined with field results and testing, are required for real progress to be made in all this. I'm not saying that you don't have the theoretical understanding- I'm saying that it's valuable.

Just because certain teams select one projectile over another, that doesn't necessarily mean that the bullet they rejected isn't ballistically superior. They may have selected an alternative because it is easier to work with to find accuracy, less seating depth-sensitive, etc. There are several reasons to choose a particular bullet, external ballistics being just one of them. I wouldn't claim that the 195 is the best bullet in the world in all cases and in all categories, but it does currently have the lowest form factor of any sub-.338 bullet on the market, speaking of major manufacturers only (small, custom bullet makers aside). That means that all else equal, it will retain more velocity, and "weather" the wind better, than other 7mm bullets. That's not to say that it's the trump card in the .284" bore size, and doesn't mean it's automatically a better choice for a given application.

[lclund1946]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

Your second paragraph is a great way to go about cartridge selection. There are a lot of factors in cartridge selection, even outside of rifle dimensions and specs. Sufficient impact velocity for proper expansion is really the limiting factor in how far game can be successfully shot and ethically killed, assuming the rifleman's skills are up to it. I've seen great things from A-Max bullets on game, and have witnessed excellent expansion with plenty of penetration down to 1730 fps (quite a bit lower on targets and soil, but that's as low as I've seen on game). And of course, ammo/component cost vs. expected performance, recoil, desired external and terminal ballistic performance, etc, all need to be considered.

You are now saying that impact velocity for proper expansion is the limiting factor in how far game can be successfully shot and ethically killed. I will go out on a limb here and say that terminal( fps) without sufficient terminal energy can get you into a lot of problems. The 162 A Max at 1730 fps, performs well on game, as you witnessed and I suspected, has to be fired at only 2513 fps MV to accomplish that. It will have a terminal energy of 1090 so it would be safe to say that it would be sufficient to kill a moose at 600 yards. A 243m on the other hand drives a 100 Winchester PPP to 3050 leaving a similar velocity of 1629 fps to the 180 PPP in 30-06 at 600 yards. They should have similar expansion, according to your theory, but the 243 only retains 589 ft. lbs. energy compared to 1058 ft.lbs. with the 30-06. I think I will stick to my way of using Terminal energy to help the OP decide which cartridge to select to do the job he outlined.

I stated that a well constructed 30 caliber bullet with about 1040 ft. lbs. energy would do the job and in my experience could be found, "under the hide on the other side", of a dead moose after passing through both lungs. I also stated that a similar 7mm bullet at 1300 ft.lbs energy usually passed right through and you ridiculed me for that. The 162 A-Max that I have had up to 2777fps should easily get to 2600 fps leaving a terminal energy of 1239 ft.lbs. from a 7mm-08 as I showed in the diagram I posted earlier. I have a number of loads that I have used over the years, in my 7mm-08's, that expand sufficiently at 600 yards, as they are all traveling at over 1750 fps, and they all deliver 1100 ft lbs. plus. A well placed shot will defiantly kill a sheep at 600 yards but I prefer to hold shots on moose and elk to 400 Meters as bullets pass right through at those distances. If the OP chooses a bigger cartridge and suspects to kill the sheep a little deader then that is his choice, but not mine.

To the OP: I just looked back over the last few posts, after I posted this, and find the same bunch of so called "competitive shooters" still turning your thread into an ego trip amongst themselves. I live near you , in Rimbey, and would be happy to help you set up a 7mm-08 to shoot sheep to 500-600 yards. For about the last 30 years I have used only Remington and Weatherly SA factory rifles and Remington brass and they have served me, and many others, well. I have a Winchester Model 70, take off barrel, that I had planned on putting on a LA Model 70 Extreme Weather CRF action . Find LA Model 70 and have David Henry install my barrel on it and I will help you develop a load and set you up with a scope to get you to 600 yards. You can sell your Action to one of the "Experts" unless you want to try to punch paper at 1450 yards in a 40 mph "gusty" cross wind. Perhaps one of these guys could tell you how much correction you would need.

[Robmcleod82]

7-08 for 500 yard sheep setup.
Chamber in 7-08sammi
Load 162 amax over RL 17
Kill sheep

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by lclund1946

You are now saying that impact velocity for proper expansion is the limiting factor in how far game can be successfully shot and ethically killed. I will go out on a limb here and say that terminal( fps) without sufficient terminal energy can get you into a lot of problems. The 162 A Max at 1730 fps, performs well on game, as you witnessed and I suspected, has to be fired at only 2513 fps MV to accomplish that. It will have a terminal energy of 1090 so it would be safe to say that it would be sufficient to kill a moose at 600 yards. A 243m on the other hand drives a 100 Winchester PPP to 3050 leaving a similar velocity of 1629 fps to the 180 PPP in 30-06 at 600 yards. They should have similar expansion, according to your theory, but the 243 only retains 589 ft. lbs. energy compared to 1058 ft.lbs. with the 30-06. I think I will stick to my way of using Terminal energy to help the OP decide which cartridge to select to do the job he outlined.

I stated that a well constructed 30 caliber bullet with about 1040 ft. lbs. energy would do the job and in my experience could be found, "under the hide on the other side", of a dead moose after passing through both lungs. I also stated that a similar 7mm bullet at 1300 ft.lbs energy usually passed right through and you ridiculed me for that. The 162 A-Max that I have had up to 2777fps should easily get to 2600 fps leaving a terminal energy of 1239 ft.lbs. from a 7mm-08 as I showed in the diagram I posted earlier. I have a number of loads that I have used over the years, in my 7mm-08's, that expand sufficiently at 600 yards, as they are all traveling at over 1750 fps, and they all deliver 1100 ft lbs. plus. A well placed shot will defiantly kill a sheep at 600 yards but I prefer to hold shots on moose and elk to 400 Meters as bullets pass right through at those distances. If the OP chooses a bigger cartridge and suspects to kill the sheep a little deader then that is his choice, but not mine.

First off, I never intended to ridicule you, so I apologize if you felt that way. I like to be able to cuss and discuss and joke around about these things in good humour, without meaning or taking offense, so again I apologize if it came across like I was ridiculing you.

Now I've always said that bullet expansion is the key to damaging vitals and killing critters, which means sufficient impact velocity. This of course hinges on the bullet having sufficient momentum and structural integrity to break through hard barriers like bone, but terminal energy is nearly irrelevant- momentum, frontal area, and bullet expansion/fragmentation are more meaningful indicators of how deep a bullet will penetrate and how much tissue it will destroy. If a reasonably large bullet (this does not include a 20 cal 35gr bullet shot at a bull moose, for example) with reasonable momentum, hits an animal with enough velocity to expand, it'll kill the critter. If you shoot a moose in the ribs with enough velocity to expand a .243 105gr HPBT or Berger VLD, for instance, I can assure you you'll have a dead moose very quickly, despite having less than the arbitrary 1000 ft-lbs of energy at impact. Another example is the 7-08 launching a 140gr TSX. Although it may drop below 1000 ft-lbs at 480 yards, as long as it expands properly, it'll likely do a fair bit of damage, penetrate, and exit. Alternatively, if I shoot a moose in the ribs with a 100gr Speer HP with a MV of 3300fps from my 7-08, although it impacts at 100 yards with 3140fps and 2185 ft-lbs of energy, it's not necessarily going to penetrate to the offside. The .260 Rem with 130gr VLD is a known killer of large animals to 650 yards and beyond, and it arrives
at 650 with 1710 fps and only 844 ft-lbs of energy. All these numbers are with atmostpherics at one of my usual shooting spots, and are just for illustration. The distance doesn't much matter, impact velocity, lethality, and the associated but fairly irrelevant impact kinetic energy are what I'm trying to show.

How deep a bullet penetrates isn't determined by energy. It's determined by momentum and the frontal area of the expanded bullet. Your method of choosing a well-constructed 7mm bullet that impacts fast enough to expand and with at least 1000 ft-lbs of energy will likely kill whatever you point it at. But my point is that other bullets that don't meet that energy criterion are also capable of providing the same outcome.

At the end of the day, using kinetic energy as a meaningful metric was something done in decades passed because that's the best they had to work with. Some recommended 1000 ft-lbs at impact for deer and 1500 ft-lbs for elk. In reality, as long as a bullet expands and penetrates, it'll kill the animal. Holes in vitals are what kill, not a temporary wound cavity caused by the shock wave of a bullet with immense impact energy.

For the OP's purpose WRT terminal performance, a 7-08 launching nearly any good LR bullet is plenty for killing sheep at 600 yards.

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

Well, if you're implying that there's nothing you can learn from Bryan Litz, then carry on! But FYI, there are other people out there, who choose not to participate in F-class for whatever reason, who can shoot, too. Heck, on a decent year 7000 rounds of CF have been sent down range by the middle of February! Just kidding, though I know people, who don't compete in any discipline BTW, for whom that would be a fair statement! But from what I've seen, 5000-7000 of CF is the kind of round count that serious shooters go through in a given year, myself included, so you're not the only one who witnesses the effects of bullets flying through the wind. I will agree with you about the wind being THE great Humbler, though!

I'm not saying volley fire is a bad way to do testing, not at all. What I'm saying, is that in itself is not enough to give empirical comparisons between two bullets. You've got to consider other factors, as well. Unless you're achieving an SG of at least 1.5 with every bullet being fired in each barrel, you're not getting a true representation of what each bullet is really capable of. "Good old fashioned testing"- how do you think Bryan gets his G7 BC and Form Factor values? Yup, by empirical testing, not with simple theoretical calculations. Although, all that "fancy science blather" is what bullet designers and manufacturers use to come up with better projectiles that outperform what we used in the past, and what we're currently using, so I wouldn't be too quick to throw the science out with the trash, in favour of a simple trial-and-error type of approach. Both a theoretical understanding combined with field results and testing, are required for real progress to be made in all this. I'm not saying that you don't have the theoretical understanding- I'm saying that it's valuable.

Just because certain teams select one projectile over another, that doesn't necessarily mean that the bullet they rejected isn't ballistically superior. They may have selected an alternative because it is easier to work with to find accuracy, less seating depth-sensitive, etc. There are several reasons to choose a particular bullet, external ballistics being just one of them. I wouldn't claim that the 195 is the best bullet in the world in all cases and in all categories, but it does currently have the lowest form factor of any sub-.338 bullet on the market, speaking of major manufacturers only (small, custom bullet makers aside). That means that all else equal, it will retain more velocity, and "weather" the wind better, than other 7mm bullets. That's not to say that it's the trump card in the .284" bore size, and doesn't mean it's automatically a better choice for a given application.

Im sure glad you straightened that out for me.my god what was i thinking? how have i won anything at all? i have bury my nose in books and get all book learned up and i can be like you!spew sg numbers and bc numbers and form factors and hold the keys to the universe.if you would have told me this years ago you could have saved me alot of trouble!! maybe by now i could have sold all my wind flags and held center every time.

[Jordan Smith]

I'm not trying to straighten anything out for you, just trying to have a discussion. Though in my experience, people who don't have a lot of education often feel the need to denigrate and attack those who do. For what reason, I'm not sure, but that's what I've noticed.

BUT, I've never been one to tell a guy he's not allowed to ride his high horse, so gallop on! I'll give Bryan Litz your contact info, in case he has any questions...

[Gboe8]

Very interesting this thread is.

I always get a kick out of guys who have all the knowledge in the world about bull riding telling the guys who actually ride bulls on the rodeo circuit how it is done.

Laughable when you think about it.

I think I will learn from 6.5x47. Something tells me he is a tad more experienced, and therefore credible.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by Gboe8

Very interesting this thread is.

I always get a kick out of guys who have all the knowledge in the world about bull riding telling the guys who actually ride bulls on the rodeo circuit how it is done.

Laughable when you think about it.

I think I will learn from 6.5x47. Something tells me he is a tad more experienced, and therefore credible.

Or you can get out and pop a few primers for yourself, and use your own eyes to learn. Bob doesn't have a monopoly on primers, you know

[tchardy1972]

As far as I can tell, there is only one guy on this thread that knows where he stands with some of the best wind readers in the world. The rest can shoot as many shots as you want but will never know if they are actually any good at doing so. There is only one way to find out and that is shoot with the best out there.

[Jordan Smith]

I thought we were here to discuss chamberings, bullets, and ballistics. I didn't realize this thread was meant to be a ****ing contest to find out who the best shooter is. My bad. It certainly ain't me, so I'll bow out now.

[Deer Hunter]

I can't wait to shoot competitively. I sense such a warm feeling of acceptance...

[lclund1946]

Originally Posted by Jordan Smith

First off, I never intended to ridicule you, so I apologize if you felt that way. I like to be able to cuss and discuss and joke around about these things in good humour, without meaning or taking offense, so again I apologize if it came across like I was ridiculing you.

Now I've always said that bullet expansion is the key to damaging vitals and killing critters, which means sufficient impact velocity. This of course hinges on the bullet having sufficient momentum and structural integrity to break through hard barriers like bone, but terminal energy is nearly irrelevant- momentum, frontal area, and bullet expansion/fragmentation are more meaningful indicators of how deep a bullet will penetrate and how much tissue it will destroy. If a reasonably large bullet (this does not include a 20 cal 35gr bullet shot at a bull moose, for example) with reasonable momentum, hits an animal with enough velocity to expand, it'll kill the critter. If you shoot a moose in the ribs with enough velocity to expand a .243 105gr HPBT or Berger VLD, for instance, I can assure you you'll have a dead moose very quickly, despite having less than the arbitrary 1000 ft-lbs of energy at impact. Another example is the 7-08 launching a 140gr TSX. Although it may drop below 1000 ft-lbs at 480 yards, as long as it expands properly, it'll likely do a fair bit of damage, penetrate, and exit. Alternatively, if I shoot a moose in the ribs with a 100gr Speer HP with a MV of 3300fps from my 7-08, although it impacts at 100 yards with 3140fps and 2185 ft-lbs of energy, it's not necessarily going to penetrate to the offside. The .260 Rem with 130gr VLD is a known killer of large animals to 650 yards and beyond, and it arrives
at 650 with 1710 fps and only 844 ft-lbs of energy. All these numbers are with atmostpherics at one of my usual shooting spots, and are just for illustration. The distance doesn't much matter, impact velocity, lethality, and the associated but fairly irrelevant impact kinetic energy are what I'm trying to show.

How deep a bullet penetrates isn't determined by energy. It's determined by momentum and the frontal area of the expanded bullet. Your method of choosing a well-constructed 7mm bullet that impacts fast enough to expand and with at least 1000 ft-lbs of energy will likely kill whatever you point it at. But my point is that other bullets that don't meet that energy criterion are also capable of providing the same outcome.

At the end of the day, using kinetic energy as a meaningful metric was something done in decades passed because that's the best they had to work with. Some recommended 1000 ft-lbs at impact for deer and 1500 ft-lbs for elk. In reality, as long as a bullet expands and penetrates, it'll kill the animal. Holes in vitals are what kill, not a temporary wound cavity caused by the shock wave of a bullet with immense impact energy.

For the OP's purpose WRT terminal performance, a 7-08 launching nearly any good LR bullet is plenty for killing sheep at 600 yards.

You can spin it any way you want Jordan but the best way to compare terminal performance, of various similar bullets, in different calibers and cartridges is to look at terminal energy. If they have the same terminal energy they will give similar expansion and penetration. Momentum plays a part as it is a product of Mass x Velocity or more commonly Weight x Velocity. And yes I know that bullets of the same mass will have a different weight on the moon than here on earth. In that case the terminal energy would be less due to the lesser pull of gravity but then you would not likely have to aim so high either.

In the case of the 7mm bullets we are on the same page when it comes to the performance of a 7mm-08 but I would not recommend it for 1000 yard shots because the momentum (weight x velocity) may be insufficient if you happen to hit a rib or shoulder blade on the way in.

By the way I completely agree with you in your other post regarding the old manuals showing high pressures due to not having adequate pressure testing. The 175 Sierra BT that I had up to 2815 with The "new RL 22" that supposedly replaced the "old MRP" took 52.5 grains and likely very near the pressures that QuickLoad gave you. Of course they were "Safe in my rifle" like many of the loads talked about in this and many other forums. Of course I recognized this and never used any of those old loads but cut them back as Speer did in subsequent manuals. I only mentioned that load to illustrate that 2650 is likely quite safely achieved with long, pointy bullets up to 168 grains especially if loaded with the bearing surface ahead of the Neck/Shoulder Junction in a longer magazine.

If you look back on some of my previous postings you will see that we totally agree on the subject of pressures. I may be an old hand at the loading game but I defiantly do not live in the past or under my own ego as some seem to.

[Jordan Smith]

Originally Posted by lclund1946

You can spin it any way you want Jordan but the best way to compare terminal performance, of various similar bullets, in different calibers and cartridges is to look at terminal energy. If they have the same terminal energy they will give similar expansion and penetration. Momentum plays a part as it is a product of Mass x Velocity or more commonly Weight x Velocity. And yes I know that bullets of the same mass will have a different weight on the moon than here on earth. In that case the terminal energy would be less due to the lesser pull of gravity but then you would not likely have to aim so high either.

We're on the same page on a lot of things, we just differ on the subject of impact energy being a primary indicator of terminal performance

When it comes to penetration and the volume of the permanent wound channel, energy puts too much emphasis on velocity, being that it's factored with an exponent of 2 in the kinetic energy equation, so momentum is a far better indicator of those results, since it better represents the value of bullet mass.

Fact is, energy doesn't give an apples to apples comparison of how two bullets act when they hit game. I have to disagree with you about bullets having similar penetration and expansion just because they have similar impact energy. A 7mm 140gr TSX impacting at 2700 fps will have a much smaller frontal area and penetrate a fair bit deeper than a 154gr Hornady Interbond hitting at 2580 fps, even though they have the same impact energy. The IB will leave a larger permanent wound channel within the first several inches, shaped like a balloon, and the channel created by the TSX will be longer and narrower in shape, more like a cylinder. Energy is not meaningless, since it does represent bullet velocity and mass in some form, but to pick an arbitrary number and say that any bullet will less energy at impact won't work well, just doesn't work in the real world where metal meets flesh. I've seen a 400gr Speer SP fired from a .45-70 kill very cleanly well beyond 135 yards where it fell below 1000 ft-lbs

[rem338win]

HOLD ON HOLD ON! Boys! Boys!

Good news!

I found a ruler.....