Low Drag Hunting Trend?

[westernrover]

That would be pretty far on the extreme end for hunting bullets but the Hornady ELDX, Nosler accubond LR, Barnes LRX, and Berger VLD Hunting can be bought with G1's in the .6's and even .7's

AccuBond® Long Range Bullets

AccuBond Long Range bullets were developed in response to the escalating demand from long-range hunters who were asking for a hunting bullet that could keep up with today’s level of high-grade optics and ultra-high velocity cartridges in order to stretch practical shooting yardages past 1,000 yards.

www.nosler.com

ELD-X® (Extremely Low Drag - eXpanding) - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc

The ELD-X^® bullet is a technologically advanced, match accurate, all-range hunting bullet featuring highest-in-class ballistic coefficients and consistent, controlled expansion at all practical hunting distances.

www.hornady.com

LRX - Barnes Bullets

www.barnesbullets.com

VLD Hunting Bullets

Berger VLD hunting bullets are produced with one very important feature in mind: Performance. The Berger VLD bullets have a boat tail and secant ogive.

bergerbullets.com

I just used those numbers since they were the examples you used, but even looking at more traditional hunting bullets there is a big difference between a .350 bc and a .550 bc when we are talking about shooting at the ranges you mentioned and farther. Especially when you get to shooting 500+ yards either at game or targets. That's why people winning in PRS are using fairly modest cartridges like 6mm dasher with very high BC bullets. I'm not comparing hunting to PRS competitions but you get my point. I do take your point that today everyone thinks they are Kyle the sniper but the reality is very few people are shooting deer past 200 yards. There are people that do though and their is legitimate benefit to modern equipment and modern bullets that can't be replaced by just going faster.

That's good to know. I use Barnes, so I had looked up the LRX for 6.5 Creedmoor (which I've used myself). It didn't occur to me that the sleeker LRX bullets aren't made for Creedmoor or 6.5 PRC. I haven't looked at them all, but they have a .705 G1 BC LRX in .308" -- I wondered what cartridge would use that. It looks like 300 PRC, 300 Norma, 300 RUM, but also 300 Win Mag. It just needs a 1:8 twist. For the most part, the LRX are under .500 G1 BC. There are a couple of other .308" that are just over .5, one 7mm, three .338" and one .277" but the really high BC's are only that one in .308, a .338 at .667

 

[someguy2800]

Do you think the Ruger American Gen 2 will be in more than one length?

The old one was made in 3 lengths so probably.

 

[InTheSwamp]

Low drag doesn't just affect trajectory. If you load one of the very high BC 180 hunting bullets in a 30-06 @ 2800 fps and compare it to a 180 gr RN in a 300 WM @ 3000 fps the high BC bullet from the 30-06 will surpass the 180 gr RN fired from the 300 WM at only 75 yards. At any range greater than 75 yards the 30-06 load will hit with more velocity and energy even though it started 200 fps slower. And 75 yards isn't exactly long range. And there are several options for high BC bullets designed as HUNTING bullets. Not just match bullets.

That same high BC bullet loaded in a 308 @ 2600 fps will catch and surpass the RN bullet fired from a 300 WM at 175 yards. If we look at trajectory, the 300WM load will still shoot flatter than the 30-06 or 308 even with the round nose bullets out to any reasonable hunting range.

I realize this is an extreme example. But even with a more realistic example comparing a high BC bullet to a comparable weight Nosler Partition, the high BC bullet will eventually hit with more velocity, it just takes it a little longer to catch up.

Maybe a better example; comparing the 6.5CM to the old school 270. The 270 will shoot 130 or 140 gr bullets about 150-200 fps faster at the muzzle. But by the time each bullet has traveled 200 yards the more aerodynamic 6.5 bullet has caught up and will hit with the same speed. The 270 is 3/10's of a millimeter larger in diameter. Anything a 270 will do, a 6.5CM will do.

The 270 BTW still shoots slightly flatter. But with modern optics it is easy enough to compensate for trajectory. MPBR just isn't important anymore.

Being able to shoot a smaller, lighter recoiling rifle and still get the same downrange results is appealing to a lot of people. Why lug around a heavy 300 WM or 270 when I can get basically the same results from a 308 or 6.5CM with significantly less recoil and usually better accuracy.



For a lot of hunters this is true. But the number of hunters has sharply declined in recent years while the number of shooters has expanded. Hunters needs are no longer the driving force behind which rifles and cartridges are being made.

Spot on - Physics matters. The laws governing the flight of a bullet are the same laws governing the flight of an airplane; and they don't make 'em with a square nose!
From the moment the bullet exits the muzzle, BC makes a difference. Old style bullets are not obsolete, it's just that you can do the same (usually, more) with a cartridge sporting a high BC bullet, with less recoil.

 

[mshootnit]

I’m on this trend.

Low drag? Not needed in my corner of the world.

2 of these cartridges came out in the last year.

View attachment 1185312

is the middle one 350 L

 

[mshootnit]

Spot on - Physics matters. The laws governing the flight of a bullet are the same laws governing the flight of an airplane; and they don't make 'em with a square nose!
From the moment the bullet exits the muzzle, BC makes a difference. Old style bullets are not obsolete, it's just that you can do the same (usually, more) with a cartridge sporting a high BC bullet, with less recoil.

In my experience, for hunting, all the new bullets and tight twist barrels are a marketing ploy. I hunt mule deer in some very open ground and have dropped bucks at 375, 300, 204, 250 yards. Those are about the longest shots I have had to take. I have been served very well by regular spire point lead tipped bullets, normal twist barrels and velocities from 3150 muzzle to 3300. I am a point blank hunter and I stretch that to around 400 if I can. I shoot off sticks, no clunky tripods or gopro wielding "sherpas". 257 cal to 277. They want to convince me I need a 264 with a muzzle at or below my 270 , for what? They want me shooting at 500-600 yards? I would not be a very good hunter if I needed that.

 

[InTheSwamp]

In my experience, for hunting, all the new bullets and tight twist barrels are a marketing ploy.

Read again. One more time...

"The laws governing the flight of a bullet are the same laws governing the flight of an airplane"

Whether you need it or not, it doesn't change that fact. Hence the trend. You can hunt with a bow and arrow as well.

 

[Gun-Reck]

Spot on - Physics matters. The laws governing the flight of a bullet are the same laws governing the flight of an airplane; and they don't make 'em with a square nose!
From the moment the bullet exits the muzzle, BC makes a difference. Old style bullets are not obsolete, it's just that you can do the same (usually, more) with a cartridge sporting a high BC bullet, with less recoil.

But not necessarily how you are embracing it.

A 150 gr. spitzer bullet from a .270 Winchester, with a 2800 fps muzzle velocity and sighted in at 200 yards, will have a practical trajectory for 100/200/250/300/350/400/450/500 yards of +2/-0-/-3/-8/-14/-23/-33/-46, with a 10 mph wind drift at 400/500 of 12/20

A high BC 140 gr. 6.5mm of similar construction and the same muzzle velocity will have +2/-0-/-3/-8/-14/-22/-32/-44, with a 10 mph wind drift at 400/500 of 12/19

Are you shooting from field positions, or firing from a stabilized position, when you think about game past even 300 yards?

The .270 was chosen because it is a threshold caliber, where it will still perform in the field like a larger caliber bullet, not might perform like a larger caliber bullet, as will the 6.5 under most circumstances.

But what is 2" of drop and 1" of drift going to get you, at 500 yards, from field positions?

 

[InTheSwamp]

But not necessarily how you are embracing it.

A 150 gr. spitzer bullet from a .270 Winchester, with a 2800 fps muzzle velocity and sighted in at 200 yards, will have a practical trajectory for 100/200/250/300/350/400/450/500 yards of +2/-0-/-3/-8/-15/-24/-36/-48, with a 10 mph wind drift at 400/500 of 12/20

A high BC 140 gr. 6.5mm of similar construction and the same muzzle velocity will have +2/-0-/-3/-8/-14/-22/-32/-44, with a 10 mph wind drift at 400/500 of 12/19

Are you shooting from field positions, or firing from a stabilized position, when you think about game past even 300 yards?

The .270 was chosen because it is a threshold caliber, where it will still perform in the field like a larger caliber bullet, not might perform like a larger caliber bullet, as will the 6.5 under most circumstances.

But what is 4" of drop and 1" of drift going to get you, at 500 yards, from field positions?

I'm embracing it how they are. As factual.

 

[Gun-Reck]

I'm embracing it how they are. As factual.

It's a fantasy that only exists at very long ranges, past the field potential of the bullet, requiring artificial stability, wind and ballistic gadgetry, and game that doesn't move, even after several poor shots.

Long Range Firing.

 

[InTheSwamp]

It's a fantasy that only exists at very long ranges, past the field potential of the bullet, requiring artificial stability, wind and ballistic gadgetry, and game that doesn't move, even after several poor shots.

Long Range Firing.

It works from the muzzle on. Same laws.

 

[Gun-Reck]

It works from the muzzle on. Same laws.

Academics v. applied physics.

How accurate are you with a hunting rifle, from field positions, with a high-power scope?

At what range do bullets lose their ability to reliably take game?

What is the time of flight past 500 yards, which is to say, how much time does game have to move after even an accurate shot?

 

[InTheSwamp]

Academics v. applied physics.

One is about exact solutions, the other about approximations. Both governed by the same laws.
All else equal, BC makes the difference. All else different, BC still makes a difference.

Too bad you went with the Academics approach. In practice, shooters tend to pick what works "better", and there's no surprise cartridges that allow the use of high BC bullets have taken over.

 

[westernrover]

Spot on - Physics matters. The laws governing the flight of a bullet are the same laws governing the flight of an airplane; and they don't make 'em with a square nose!
From the moment the bullet exits the muzzle, BC makes a difference. Old style bullets are not obsolete, it's just that you can do the same (usually, more) with a cartridge sporting a high BC bullet, with less recoil.

I agree with the significance of the higher BC's, but I think there is a disconnect between high BC's that are in the .400's and that are compatible with virtually all the traditional cartridges, and BC's that are nearly twice that and require the 21st century cartridges.

There's no question that there is some advantage to a .463 270 bullet compared to a .374 in the same weight. I'm not so convinced that a lighter, faster, flatter bullet isn't better under 300 yards, but there is no question that low drag is better than high drag all things else being equal. It's also demonstratable that as the range stretches out, BC matters more than velocity. But all this pertains to traditional cartridges: 30-30, 30-06, 270, 308, 260 etc.

Where the 21st century cartridges (the Creedmoors, PRCs, Western etc.) come in is with BC's much higher still. These are the cartridges whose existence is justified because the traditional cartridges and their traditional twist rates would not work with higher BC bullets. We see pushed-back shoulders and longer necks to hold bullets with extremely long ogives in a standard action length cartridge. If these cartridges can shoot higher BC match bullets that the traditional cartridges can't shoot, fair enough. But I don't see them doing that with hunting bullets.

A higher BC adds to hunting, but the novel high BC cartridges do not seem to add much. This isn't just more Creedmoor bashing. I have a 6.5 Creedmoor hunting rifle and it's great, but I don't see it unlocking anything for me that the 20th century cartridges didn't offer. The twist is faster than a 260 or 264 (only the Swedes will differ), and that helps stabilize those .450+ G1 BC bullets, but I'm not convinced that I'm not better off with the lighter bullets that are still heavy enough to completely penetrate a mule deer past 300 yards.

I would still buy Creedmoor again because it's a "right size" cartridge and it's what makers are chambering, but I question whether there wasn't a better way for the market trend to go than to repurpose a match cartridge for hunting.

 

[InTheSwamp]

A higher BC adds to hunting, but the novel high BC cartridges do not seem to add much.

Scratching my head...

 

[Chuck R.]

One is about exact solutions, the other about approximations. Both governed by the same laws.
All else equal, BC makes the difference. All else different, BC still makes a difference.

Too bad you went with the Academics approach. In practice, shooters tend to pick what works "better", and there's no surprise cartridges that allow the use of high BC bullets have taken over.

Maybe it's a shooters VS. hunters thing..

I don't think anybody argued that there's no difference.. just that for the normal hunting situation the delta in trajectory and wind drift is moot to the outcome. In my case 95% of my big game is shot within 200yds a .600 BC VS a .240BC isn't going to make a bit of difference in those shots on the kill zone for a whitetail.

For the average hunter at normal distances the lower BC bullets are perfectly suited. I think this pretty much sums it up:

Your style of hunting, the habitat and terrain, and the species itself might dictate the type of bullet best suited for the job. For the deer hunter who spends the majority of their time in the woods—where shots rarely exceed 200 yards—a flat-nose or round-nose bullet will pose no handicap, as more often than not a hunter will use a 200-yard zero. If you spend more time on the prairie in pursuit of mule deer, pronghorn antelope, prairie dogs or coyotes, the longer shots in the open terrain and generally windy conditions make a bullet with a higher BC value a smart choice.

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Ballistic Coefficient: Why It Matters for Hunting

A detailed look at ballistic coefficient and how it applies to the choice of projectile for hunting purposes.

www.americanhunter.org

Now for my LR rifles hunting and target, I want the highest BCs I can get, But for hanging out in my stand out back, still hunts, drives, and hunting my neighbor's place. The high BC VS. low BC just doesn't have an effect on the outcome.

 

[Hookeye]

The best cartridge, ammo and rifle doesn't mean much if ya don't see any critters.

IMHO if it works it works. Some stuff may indeed be "better" but maybe such benefits wont be seen or even needed.

Some guys harp the technical, but never really test it LOL

For me, standard stuff works pretty well. Not against performance upgrades.

Know from yrs of hunting, I'm the weakest link in the freezer filling equation. Discipline, effort, hunting is mostly a head game played against myself.
Like today, didn't sleep for crap. So skipped heading out w MZ.

Full bore projectile, side hammer......an inline 3 peller magnum w scope and sabot w higher BC bullet is no doubt superior.
But it doesn't mean much if its sittin in the safe LOL

 

[Gun-Reck]

One is about exact solutions, the other about approximations. Both governed by the same laws.
All else equal, BC makes the difference. All else different, BC still makes a difference.

Too bad you went with the Academics approach. In practice, shooters tend to pick what works "better", and there's no surprise cartridges that allow the use of high BC bullets have taken over.

Actually, Marketing Hype has convinced low skill, inexperienced, and new hunters that, like a new set of golf clubs, their hunting game will improve with their "new and improved" technology.

Hunters, on the other hand, understand that stalking skills and marksmanship, and a good game bullet, put meat in the freezer.

Real world.

 

[Anchorite]

Actually, Marketing Hype has convinced low skill, inexperienced, and new hunters that, like a new set of golf clubs, their hunting game will improve with their "new and improved" technology.

Hunters, on the other hand, understand that stalking skills and marksmanship, and a good game bullet, put meat in the freezer.

Real world.

Hopefully new-to-hunting hunters will take the time required to perfect the skill set to actually be a successful hunter. I can foresee many just buying the hype that the 6.5 is the laser-to-800-yards and take unethical shots at game.

 

[earlthegoat2]

is the middle one 350 L

Actually, 400 L.

I bought the ammo before I got a gun.

I have a 350 L but I couldn’t find my ammo when I took that picture otherwise I would have included it.

 

[InTheSwamp]

Actually, Marketing Hype has convinced low skill, inexperienced, and new hunters that, like a new set of golf clubs, their hunting game will improve with their "new and improved" technology.

Hunters, on the other hand, understand that stalking skills and marksmanship, and a good game bullet, put meat in the freezer.

Real world.

Irrelevant babbling to a technical discussion about the advantages of BC.

 

[Nature Boy]

I find long, high BC hunting bullets will often not fit magazines without seating them deep into the case, which effects accuracy and negates any long range performance.

 

[horsemen61]

I find long, high BC hunting bullets will often not fit magazines without seating them deep into the case, which effects accuracy and negates any long range performance.

That’s the benefit of the Newer Cartridges with a shorter head height you can stick more bullet out of the case and still be inside of mag length such as the 6.5 Creedmoor 6.5 Prc 300 prc
7 Prc to name a few

 

[InTheSwamp]

I find long, high BC hunting bullets will often not fit magazines without seating them deep into the case, which effects accuracy and negates any long range performance.

Modern barrels will fit them. New shooters will choose those.

 

[JumboJVT]

Irrelevant babbling to a technical discussion about the advantages of BC.

Actually, no. The discussion is about real world advantages of ultra-high BC bullets in hunting situations at typical hunting ranges. You insist that a very slight advantage on paper is meaningful: it isn't. And you're talking to a bunch of us old enough to know this. A $1001 is more than $1000, but the difference won't buy cup of coffee.

 

[InTheSwamp]

Actually, no. The discussion is about real world advantages of ultra-high BC bullets in hunting situations at typical hunting ranges. You insist that a very slight advantage on paper is meaningful: it isn't. And you're talking to a bunch of us old enough to know this. A $1001 is more than $1000, but the difference won't buy cup of coffee.

The advantage is not on paper. It's in the real world, but feel free to bang your head against it.