|
|
|
Discussion Forums
Forum Index
> Rifles general discussion
> Twisted logic
Twisted logic
@ 03:28 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifHornady lists 3 new GMX offerings, in 3 calibers, increasing the weight of previous offerings :1) a 90 grain 6mm, with a BC of .422, improving on the .300 BC of the 80 grain; 2) a 225 grain 338 with a BC of .470, improving on the BC of .420 of the 185 grain; Those I understand. The one that's got me stumped is: 3) a 140 grain 6.5mm with a BC of .350, compared to the .450 BC of the 120 grain offering. Maybe it's a data-entry error on their website, but that's what it says. |
Replies
@ 12:49 pm (GMT) |
Ed SybertRe: Twisted logicBC is about the shape of a bullet, not its weight. So a "blunter" non boat tail bullet that is heavier, may easily have a lower BC. Just an example. -Ed |
@ 01:22 pm (GMT) |
Luis VazquezRe: Twisted logicHi Scott:As Ed mentioned the 140gr is a flat base bullet design and not a boat tail. Also if you plan om using a mono go with the light weight ones. Mono's nees to be pushed fast in order to force expansion upon impact and are not reliable at longer ranges at lower speeds. Hope this helps and best regards Luis |
|
@ 06:48 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Twisted logicI didn't notice the flat base on the 140 grain 6.5mm. I see it in the picture, now that you mention it. It seemed odd to me that, in a design that requires velocity retension, they would come out with a new, heavier bullet that would lose velocity quicker than the existing offering. Market demand must be driving these new offerings. Heavier is better, penetration-wise, I suppose. |
@ 07:39 pm (GMT) |
Magnus VassbotnRe: Twisted logicHi.In Scandinavia (and perhaps other europeian countries), minimum legal bullet weight for deer sized game is 9 grams/ 139 grains. At the same time, in many countries, lead bans are in the air. Quite likely, this is the reason for the production of this 6,5 bullet, and many others from other brands. Very counter productive. Twisted logic, indeed. With a lead ban, it would of course be natural to change the regulations regarding bullet weights (drop down a size or two i bullet weight), but that may take a while, if ever. I really hope a ban never becomes reality.. |
|
@ 08:56 pm (GMT) |
Luis VazquezRe: Twisted logicScott, yes heavier is better on a cup and core bullet, but on a mono it's counter productive. Again these bullets must be driven fast and a boat tail would help but a lighter can still go faster. Heavier driven slower can result in the bullet not expanding even if bone or hard muscle is hit and just pencil through causing a slow death or worst a lost and wounded animal.Magnus, lets hope it doesn't happen like in Commifornia but I think eventually we will all get there. Now lets say this bullet was made to met those set legal requirements of 139gr or more, why take the boat tail off and make the bullet slower? Just makes no sense and Hornady should know this or does but for some reason ignored it. Or am I missing something? |
|
@ 10:09 pm (GMT) |
Magnus VassbotnRe: Twisted logicI think a 140 grain 6,5 monolithic with a boat tail wouldn't stabilize in any normal twist rate barrels at normal velocities. One would probably need a 1:7- 1:7,5 twist or so, making the bullet more or less un-sellable. All 6,5/ 140 monos I have seen are of more or less flat base/ short ogive design, to keep length down, and adapt bullets to existing rifles, rather than the other way around. The heaviest mono of high bc design I have come across is the Barnes LRX 127, but that one is again too heavy for 6,5x55 and such cartridges to make any real use of the bc. I guess if one stepped up to a 6,5-06 or 6,5-284 it would make sense. Haven't looked closely at it. If a ban comes (and still 139 grain minimum), the 6,5x55 won't cut it, and thousands of hunters will have to swap rifles or re-chamber to a more potent 6,5 cartrigde, unless they want to stay inside 100 meters. I'll just keep the 6,5x55 for small game, and use 30 cal for deer and up. |
|
@ 11:39 pm (GMT) |
Magnus VassbotnRe: Twisted logicA non lead bullet that could be very interesting, is a tipped copper bullet with the front half filled with tungsten of different sized fragments, much like the DRT. This could make high sectional density, high form factor, good stability and good wounding possible at long ranges. But I'm sure most mono bullet manufacturers have looked at it, so if it works, it'll probably come one day. |
@ 11:55 pm (GMT) |
bryan longRe: Twisted logicThe European Commission is certainly going to ban lead ammo. It’s made that decision and then asked it’s chemical agency to give it some reasons to justify the decision.In future you’ll find a lot of EU hunters hoarding Lead ammo. In 2065 kids will say I got the ELD-M’s from my grandad in his will 😉 |
@ 01:41 pm (GMT) |
Warwick MarflittRe: Twisted logicWe're a minority group. What we say and do won't win or loose enough votes for the decision maker's to have to worry about us......stock up on your best lead projectiles. load and use. Buy and carry a box of monos to show the enforcers if they stop you. Yeah it's wrong and it is right...... Clean precise killing of food is more important to me that some vegetables ideals. You can recover the bullet and recycle them ; ) |
|
@ 02:36 pm (GMT) |
Luis VazquezRe: Twisted logicI know a couple of hunters got caught with lead ammo in California, got a fine and hunting license suspended. Had lead free ammo with them to show they were following the law but also had some lead ammo and that was enough to lose their hunting privileges.We are not at risk of having to use lead free bulleta for hunting here in Arzona ( knock on wood so I dont jinx it) but you never know. When it does happen, even though the ethical thing is to use lead core bullets I would not risk my hunting priviledges, it is what it is and better be safe than sorry. Although I would love to tick off them liberals when I pull the trigger and send those lead bullet flying Lol. |
|
@ 06:03 pm (GMT) |
Scott StruifRe: Twisted logicWow! My question was answered, and then some! The Scadinavian 139 grain minimum is interesting. I wonder if that was deemed the minimum humane bullet weight for moose with the 6,5 Swede? There's no bullet weight minimum here in Oregon, just a 22cal minimum for deer and a 24cal minimum for elk. Both seem kinda minimal, until you consider they let you shoot either species with arrows, and deer with buckshot (cringe). Rest assured the politicians will spend more time and resources debating the deleterious effects of lead on wildlife than on whether climate change contributed to the Aussie wildfires. |
|
@ 09:27 pm (GMT) |
Magnus VassbotnRe: Twisted logicYes, your ammo regulations sounds very minimal indeed. But then again, a lot is possible with ideal loads, shotplacement etc. I must say, I really like countries/ states where it's more up to the hunter to decide.I don't know the full history of our ammo requirements, but it's all linked to the Swedish mauser and the Norwegian Krag former service rifles/ every mans hunting rifles, both chambered in 6,5x55 at different pressures. First a 160 grain RN bullet, then later a 139 or 140. Nathan has a great article about the 6,5x55 and the rifles if you're interested in more details. Anyway, this is probably the reason for 139 minimum. It works well enough, although many consider it very low for moose. I haven't shot moose, so can't say. Long story short, after a bit back and forth, the requirements for reindeer and up are: Bullets of 9 grams/ 139 graims - 2700 joule @ 100 meters. Bullets of 10 grams/ 154 grains or more - 2200 joule @ 100 meters (2000 joules in sweden). If you start dialing weight, bc and actual/ measured velocity into a ballistic calculator, you'll quickly realise that no 140 grain factory ammo will cut it from a 22/ 24 inch barrel. Which is why most factory ammo here is 154-160 grains. With handloads it's no problem to get 2700 joule @ 100 meters from a typical 22" barrel and good bc 140 bullets. But no 140 grain mono bullet that I am aware of has the bc required to achieve this. So what this really means, is that if the 6,5x55 is to be viable after a ban, they would also have to lower the energy requirements @ 100 meters for 9 gram bullets. A 120 grain/ 2200 joule limit would be fine. A good 120 mono at 2900 fps + is not bad. This may have drifted a bit from the original topic, but i think it helps in showing more of the whole picture, and why there are beeing made seemingly pointless 140 monos. Again, I belive tungsten fragments, perhaps held together by a mallable bio-plastic substance, might be the future. M |
Please wait
ABOUT USWe are a small, family run business, based out of Taranaki, New Zealand, who specialize in cartridge research and testing, and rifle accurizing.
|
KNOWLEDGEBASE |
KNOWLEDGEBASE |