THIS Is the Dedicated 65G Bullet I Want

[stanc]

Yup this was the bullet I was thinking about, When Hanka said similar to the 5.45X39 round I was on board. Evil minds think alike

I'm pretty sure that Hanka used "similar to the 5.45X39 round" only in reference to the Wolf 100gr FMJ load, not to the proposed plastic-tipped, copper bullet.

[stanc]

Isn't this Hanka's baby? Why isn't he down for any bullets? I'd think he'd be down for 1000+.

Nah, 5000 for sure.

[stanc]

Just remember to filter the Sneaky-Speak to first remove the interesting adjectives and superlatives, then look at his suggestions and insights.

We then find that he too is simply offering an alternative point of view.

I like Sneaky, but he was doing more than that. He was opposing what Hanka and Variable want.

My own point of view is that Grendel popularity will be helped most by bullets that produce point blank ranges similar to those enjoyed by 100 gr loads in the 243 Win and 130 gr loads in the 270 Win. This would take us to a bullet like the one John proposes but shortened to get the weight down to around 85 gr.

An 85 gr all-copper hunting bullet is good for deer and other game weighing up to around 330 lb. The 100 gr all-copper would give more margin for deer and get the cartridge on the edge of elk.

The 100 gr bullet is therefore an excellent choice for the dedicated Grendelier who automatically shifts into long-range shooting techniques for anything further out than a tad over 200 yards.

The 85 gr bullet would appeal to the vastly more numerous hunters who are happy to be able to aim at the center of the vital zone and expect a lethal hit at ranges out to about 275 or possibly 300 yards.

So, we could argue that both classes of bullet weight are good for the Grendel.

As Variable noted, Sneaky is only shortening and lightening existing designs. That approach cannot result in lowering the expansion threshold velocity. In contrast, Hanka's concept should be able to achieve that goal, as well as increasing the BC.

Barnes already offers a 100gr TTSX. No doubt there are hunters who would find an 85gr version to their liking. But, an 85gr TTSX would not do what Hanka and Variable desire.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Sneaky is a good friend and his work with his lathe prototyping and actually hunting with lighter weight solids is absolutely invaluable. I've got no problem being challenged and I know he meant no disrespect to any of us. If we were sitting in the living room watching a football game and I said Fran Tarkenton was the greatest QB ever and he said, no way, it was Joe Montana, it'd just be some friendly BSing, nothing to be taken out of context.

Let's hear all sides of the discussion. There's always something to learn. Just as we in the Grendel world argue it's not muzzle velocity, but impact velocity that matters (and Stan had a great quip that muzzle velocity alone only matters if you're having a gunfight in a phone booth!).

In the same way, it's not initial sectional density that matters, but retained sectional density. Used to be you wanted a long 6.5 lead-core bullet so you'd get plenty of penetration even as some lead was shed at impact. But mono metal solids change that. Could be that the retained SD of Joe's 85gr is the equivalent of the retained SD of, what — 120 grains? — in a lead core. Retained sectional density, balanced by desired BC, is another aspect of the discussion.

[BluntForceTrauma]

And speaking of technical issues: I'm still favoring the big tip for lower expansion. I can see that a small tip can be made to have good expansion IF you have high velocity. And that means either lots of powder or lightweight bullets. More powder is not an option in the 65G case, right? That leaves lightweight bullets. But at that point you're compromising both sectional density (SD) and ballistic coefficient (BC). It then becomes a judgment call as to where one arbitrarily wants to draw the line.

Let's say the decision is between 85 grains and 100 in the same style of bullet. Nose shape is the same, basically the only change is less weight via less bearing surface or shank. Would both penetrate a deer broadside? Probably. But what about hitting bone, where more SD is good? What about angled shots, where more SD is good? What about angled shots hitting bone? And, again, SD is related to BC in that more bullet weight at a given velocity gives momentum that helps a bullet push through the air. Sort of like how it's harder to stop a freight train with 20 cars than one with 5.

Point is, there's plenty to think through and discuss.

[stanc]

And speaking of technical issues: I'm still favoring the big tip for lower expansion. I can see that a small tip can be made to have good expansion IF you have high velocity. And that means either lots of powder or lightweight bullets. More powder is not an option in the 65G case, right? That leaves lightweight bullets. But at that point you're compromising both sectional density (SD) and ballistic coefficient (BC). It then becomes a judgment call as to where one arbitrarily wants to draw the line.

Let's say the decision is between 85 grains and 100 in the same style of bullet. Nose shape is the same, basically the only change is less weight via less bearing surface or shank. Would both penetrate a deer broadside? Probably. But what about hitting bone, where more SD is good? What about angled shots, where more SD is good? What about angled shots hitting bone? And, again, SD is related to BC in that more bullet weight at a given velocity gives momentum that helps a bullet push through the air.

Point is, there's plenty to think through and discuss.

John, I think you're overthinking the issue.

If your goal is to have a monometal bullet with the lowest feasible expansion threshold and the highest feasible BC, then it seems to me the only thing to consider and discuss is how to achieve that end.

It should be clear that Sneaky's approach cannot create such a bullet. IMO, that leaves two options:

a. Convince Barnes and/or Hornady to develop the bullet, solely on the basis of your PDF proposal.

b. Attempt to do the basic development yourself (as I described in post #155), so as to have test data to present to Barnes and/or Hornady.

[rickOshay]

Gel Results for the LRX and GMX Sneakys

Here are the results for the 105 gr LRX and GMX pills cut down by Sneaky.

I took the photo with the pills laying on p49 of the Handbook Vol 2 next to the results for the 100 gr TTSX:


The 105 LRX is on the left - hit the gel at about 1770 fps. Opened up to .410 cal

The 105 GMX is on the right - hit at about 1820 fps and opened to .309 cal

As you can see, both opened up at much lower velocities than the TSX.

From the top, you can see that even though the LRX is opening to greater diameter, a larger section of the GMX cavity is exposed.


Hope this helps keep the discussion moving forward.

[stanc]

Here are the results for the 105 gr LRX and GMX pills cut down by Sneaky.

The 105 LRX is on the left - hit the gel at about 1770 fps. Opened up to .410 cal
The 105 GMX is on the right - hit at about 1820 fps and opened to .309 cal

Great job! IMO, the work done by you and Sneaky really merits a thread of its own.

As you can see, both opened up at much lower velocities than the TSX.

IIRC, LRRPF52 said that Perma-Gel was used for the expansion tests in the book. If so, and if you used ordnance gelatin, that could account for the different expansion velocities.

Hope this helps keep the discussion moving forward.

Unfortunately, I don't see how it can. It doesn't tell us how Hanka's concept bullet would perform.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Of course it moves forward. Data is data. You learn something one way or another. Didn't Edison try 10,000 filaments before he got one he liked?

Thanks, Greg, really appreciate you going through the hassle of messing around with gel. Very good work.

[rickOshay]

Stanc - I was the one who shot the gels for the Handbook

I used an AMAX as a "control" and confirmed the gels gave the same results as last year. But I will repeat with a TTSX

Hanka - data is a good thing.

[Drifter]

I thought the LRX was designed to expand at slower speeds than the standard TTSX, but I could be mistaken.

[sneaky one]

Drifter, I read that also.,, we'll find out.

Wow, I put a fuse under Vari- I never thought he would light it tho ! Sorry dude- chill.

Yes, this thread was started by Hanka, then soon after- he asked me if I could make him some solid pills up- with a longer tip. I replied, maybe- you check the legalities of solids first. Then I asked him to find copper rod, and tips.

Then I found out that ROS was to post soon, and over reacted a bit. Ever done that before, anyone? OOps.

I found the tips today, corbins.com has them. If it's legal, I think this will work !

So, yes I blab too much some times- I am on a many projects on here. I will always be trying to further this round, and get more people in the mix.

That's why I agreed to be involved in the production side - and provide some of my load data - for a comparison- on the upcoming posts, & data from ROS's gel tests.

RoS & JASmith, pitched an idea this winter to me, I thought why not?

We should move this to a new thread?

[stanc]

Of course it moves forward. Data is data. You learn something one way or another.

John, it's always possible that I've overlooked something. Enlighten me, please. How do these gel tests tell us anything about the performance of your proposed bullet?

[stanc]

Stanc - I was the one who shot the gels for the Handbook.

I didn't know that. In that case, kindly disregard my previous comment about the difference in expansion velocities.

[stanc]

Yes, this thread was started by Hanka, then soon after- he asked me if I could make him some solid pills up- with a longer tip. I replied, maybe- you check the legalities of solids first. Then I asked him to find copper rod, and tips. I found the tips today, corbins.com has them. If it's legal, I think this will work !

Holy crap! Are you talking about these??? http://www.corbins.com/highbc.htm

RoS & JASmith, pitched an idea this winter to me, I thought why not? We should move this to a new thread?

IMNSHO, it'd be a good idea to have a separate thread devoted to the bullets you guys are developing and testing, since the bullet types are significantly different than that of John's concept.