ChristopherG
Member
In this thread from a few months ago--
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2265
--Sven asked an interesting question about why bullet weights are what they are--e.g., for 9mm, 115, 124, & 147 grains. Turns out the answer is related to metrics (makes sense; they're in gram & half-gram increments).
My question is related but different, and will hopefully get responses that I'm barely able to understand from you aerodynamic whizzes out there:
Is there a particular range of sectional densities that have greater inherent accuracy within a given range of velocities (such as the normal range of handgun ballistics)? That is, all other things being equal, should a 158 gr. .38 and a 147 gr. 9mm and a 230 gr. 45 all be more or less accurate, in theory, than their lighter or heavier counterparts? Thanks for your answers, you ballistics brainiacs.
cg
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2265
--Sven asked an interesting question about why bullet weights are what they are--e.g., for 9mm, 115, 124, & 147 grains. Turns out the answer is related to metrics (makes sense; they're in gram & half-gram increments).
My question is related but different, and will hopefully get responses that I'm barely able to understand from you aerodynamic whizzes out there:
Is there a particular range of sectional densities that have greater inherent accuracy within a given range of velocities (such as the normal range of handgun ballistics)? That is, all other things being equal, should a 158 gr. .38 and a 147 gr. 9mm and a 230 gr. 45 all be more or less accurate, in theory, than their lighter or heavier counterparts? Thanks for your answers, you ballistics brainiacs.
cg