Originally posted by Bigfoot
View Post
THIS Is the Dedicated 65G Bullet I Want, Part 2
Collapse
X
-
I don't understand why the AR10 6.5mm calibers would touch a 90gr bullet. I'd suspect they'd be pushing these at 3200+fps, which gets into barrel burning velocities. (Or am I completely off there???) They'd be shortening the life of their barrel for what exactly?"Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by cory View PostI don't understand why the AR10 6.5mm calibers would touch a 90gr bullet. I'd suspect they'd be pushing these at 3200+fps, which gets into barrel burning velocities. (Or am I completely off there???) They'd be shortening the life of their barrel for what exactly?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Variable View PostDitto. My thoughts as well. John is pitching exactly what I want.
1. A 0.400-plus BC seems like a challenge at 100gr projectile weight. Can it actually be achieved in a practical 90gr bullet?
2. Other than possibly Barnes, who can realistically be expected to produce such a design?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by cory View PostI don't understand why the AR10 6.5mm calibers would touch a 90gr bullet. I'd suspect they'd be pushing these at 3200+fps, which gets into barrel burning velocities. (Or am I completely off there???) They'd be shortening the life of their barrel for what exactly?
Comment
-
-
I seem to recall some in depth discussion about the ideal Grendel "Green" Mil bullet in the Mil section here, sometime back. I thought we came to the general conclusion that the ideal lead free bullet would be in the 105gr to 115gr range.
I don't understand the push for the sub 100gr bullet. We're giving up BC for velocity that may very well be able to be made up. If the heavier bullet is designed with sufficient bearing surface to allow for slower powders, which we know to give the best velocities in the Grendel.
If I can get 2700 fps from a 16" barrel with a bullet that'll open up reliably at sub 1800 fps, the only thing I need at this point is BC."Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin
Comment
-
-
I think we're overlooking something.
We want to open this bullet up with an enlarged tip that'll allow expansion at sub 1700 fps. And we've made the point that most shots on medium game are taken within 200 yards.
I don't know that it's feasible to expect this type of bullet to hold together, when impacting at 2800+ fps. Even with a solid copper bullet, at some velocity threshold this thing is going to fragment on impact."Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by cory View PostI seem to recall some in depth discussion about the ideal Grendel "Green" Mil bullet in the Mil section here, sometime back. I thought we came to the general conclusion that the ideal lead free bullet would be in the 105gr to 115gr range.
I don't understand the push for the sub 100gr bullet. We're giving up BC for velocity that may very well be able to be made up. If the heavier bullet is designed with sufficient bearing surface to allow for slower powders, which we know to give the best velocities in the Grendel.Last edited by stanc; 10-24-2014, 05:27 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by stanc View Post1. A 0.400-plus BC seems like a challenge at 100gr projectile weight. Can it actually be achieved in a practical 90gr bullet?
Originally posted by stanc View Post2. Other than possibly Barnes, who can realistically be expected to produce such a design?:: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets
:: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by cory View PostI don't understand the push for the sub 100gr bullet.
With a lead bullet, you'll lose some weight at impact.
Let's say we get a 105 Nosler ABLR lead core, and that after impact its recovered weight is 90 grains.
Let's say we get a 90 H2LX monometal. After impact its recovered weight is 90 grains. Performance on par with the heavier lead core. But we were able to launch it with greater muzzle velocity because of its lighter weight.:: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets
:: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::
Comment
-
-
KOriginally posted by HANKA View PostThe push is to fill a niche of bullets purpose-designed for the 65G. There are already a ton of other 6.5 bullets to choose from, including the heavier monometals from Barnes, Hornady, and GS Custom.
With a lead bullet, you'll lose some weight at impact.
Let's say we get a 105 Nosler ABLR lead core, and that after impact its recovered weight is 90 grains.
Let's say we get a 90 H2LX monometal. After impact its recovered weight is 90 grains. Performance on par with the heavier lead core. But we were able to launch it with greater muzzle velocity because of its lighter weight.
I understand the TACTICAL idea of a light monometal that opens well, since it will decrease the risk of pass throughs in close quarters. I use the Hornady 95 grain VMax for that purpose now. The Lehighs look like possibly an even better option, because I have always had concerns about the VMax blowing up if it hit something on the intruders clothing or in a pocket.
I do suspect, though, that the brass bullets may just "poof" when they hit something, instead of acting like the copper bullets do and maintaining weight.
Comment
-
-
I should note that I'd only be interested in copper or copper alloy from Lehigh, and not brass. If I remember their website, they indicated a willingness to work with other than brass.
And I'd have to run some options in a ballistics program, but the goal would be to have the 90 hybrid VLD be a laser out to 500 yards — and expand nicely when it gets there!:: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets
:: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by cory View PostI think we're overlooking something.
We want to open this bullet up with an enlarged tip that'll allow expansion at sub 1700 fps. And we've made the point that most shots on medium game are taken within 200 yards.
I don't know that it's feasible to expect this type of bullet to hold together, when impacting at 2800+ fps. Even with a solid copper bullet, at some velocity threshold this thing is going to fragment on impact.
This 6.5 90 will have a SD of .184.
Originally posted by bwaites View PostBut that bullets BC will be significantly less. Up close it doesn't matter, but up close I would make the argument that getting hit with a 123 going 2300 FPS vs a 90 going 3000 FPS will make little difference!
The extended range is why it would sell to the midcapacity (260 etc.) crowd over the 100 TTSX.
I'd take a light mono at 3000 over a lead core bullet at 2300 every hunting day of the year. Faster kills (deer organ soup) even from extreme angles and less meat damage, plus no lead in your steaks.
Originally posted by HANKA View PostAnd I'd have to run some options in a ballistics program, but the goal would be to have the 90 hybrid VLD be a laser out to 500 yards — and expand nicely when it gets there!
Edit: With a .400 BC and launched at 2900 it reaches 1500 at 700 yards. With a .450 BC it's good till 790 yds.
Yes I'm a bullet geek. Bullet construction trumps caliber and often velocity.Last edited by Bigfoot; 10-25-2014, 03:03 AM. Reason: HANKAs proposals min. expansion is 1500, not 1700.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Bigfoot View PostBarnes makes two TTSXs in .257 caliber, an 80 gr (SD .173) and a 100 gr (SD .216) the 80 gr is launched from the 25-06 faster than our 90 will go in the midcalibers (260 etc) and it doesn't fragment, might lose some petals but at those extreme velocities the pressure off the meplat does plenty of damage. Go to GS Customs site and read, theirs are designed to lose the petals. Both Barnes and GS are solid copper, the gilding metal of the GMX is tougher, petal loss is possible but I've never read of an instance.
This 6.5 90 will have a SD of .184..."Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin
Comment
-
Comment