As counterpoint to what sounds like a rather damning anecdote here:
Paper is actually the easiest way to detect bullet failures - when one bullet makes multiple holes, it’s pretty obvious.
There ARE a handful of varmint bullets out there which will fail over 225-250krpm, especially in cut rifled barrels, but the slower speeds common to 16” carbine barrels, especially chrome lined and/or hammer forged barrels, and the FMJ’s most of their owners are shooting don’t typically present any issues. Most 50-55grn bullets do make it out of 16” 1:7” twist barrels with no complaints. I can’t imagine how many millions of rounds of 55grn M193 clone ammo has been fired from 1:7” entry level 16” carbines without any issue at all.
I'm not talking about performance on paper, I'm talking about performance on animals. You do understand the difference in reaction of a given bullet striking flesh and bone based on how fast it's spinning, don't you?
Also FWIW, if this anecdote was anything more than a handful of years ago, which I expect is a fair assumption, and remaining quite likely today, those Service Rifle barrels were most likely 20”, picking up 175-200fps over the 16” Carbines the OP is discussing, spinning bullets in a 1:9” twist around 16,000rpm faster than attainable in the shorter carbine.
Equally, the Hornady 75 BTHP which can be loaded to AR mag length for use in all stages of SR competition - as the 75 A-Max/ELDm cannot - is a stubby little bullet which is more easily stabilized than other bullets in its weight class. The Hornady 75 BTHP is only .981”, while the ELDm, as an example, is 1.120”, the Lapua Scenar 77 is 1.043, Berger 75 VLD is 1.063”.
Consequently, the BC on the Hornady 75 BTHP is relatively abysmal, at only .395G1. Comparatively, the 75 ELDm is .467G1, Berger 75 VLD is .424G1.
So the recurring anecdote of the Hornady 75 BTHP (or 77 Sierra MatchKing) stabilizing in 20-24” 1:9” barrels really doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s a short bullet which requires much less spin to stabilize and which offers considerably worse ballistics than others in its weight class. It shouldn’t be surprising that a bullet designed for use in a Service Rifle application actually works in a Service Rifle application… but we also have to acknowledge the pitfalls it brings with it BECAUSE of its design basis.
Hypothesis. And I'm sure you sport a chub while quoting BC's, but they have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Watching competitors shoot on my 600 yd. range and commenting on the
observed results is hardly anecdotal. Sitting at your electronic device (ALL DAY, it would appear) with calipers measuring bullets, "connecting" with shooters (aka trolling forums), and belittling people provides no real "information".
A year ago I picked up an el cheapo Savage Axis II in .223 to keep in the laundry room gun rack for coyotes prowling around the house looking for a chicken dinner. I set about lapping the 1-9" twist (remember that) barrel with a Tubb's Kit consisting of 50 ea. Sierra 77 gr. Matchkings (.994" in length, am I right??), the same bullets Sierra tells us
require a minimum 1 x 8" twist (Their words, not mine). I found an ancient metal can of BL-C(2) behind the other powders on my shelf, set up a powder measure to drop a less-than-minimum charge of 22.0 grs., the goal being just to get the bullets out of the barrel, primed and charged 50 cases, seated 50 bullets and headed to my bench with the first five, fully expecting patterns at best. I had no need to chronograph the loads but my guess is they were running less than 2500 fps, probably much less. And yet-
I guess that information is anecdotal to you as well?
Sorry if this doesn't go along with your calipers, your calculator, and your hypothesis, but it is what it is. Sometimes actually shooting tells the whole story much more succinctly than just talking about it on forums.
35W