When does my 168 go subsonic? - Page 3 - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


When does my 168 go subsonic?

This is a discussion on When does my 168 go subsonic? within the Bolt Action forums, part of the Gun Forum category; yes, it sure did! HOPE OUR Country does too!...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Bolt Action

24Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old October 29th, 2016, 06:36 PM   #31
Old Salt
 
JEFFJP_N_JJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: California, USA?
Posts: 1,942
yes, it sure did! HOPE OUR Country does too!

JEFFJP_N_JJ is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 29th, 2016, 06:43 PM   #32
Scout Sniper
 
Beavis1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 803
Usually when it drops below Mach 1.

Beavis1971 is offline  
Old October 29th, 2016, 06:48 PM   #33
Old Salt
 
JEFFJP_N_JJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: California, USA?
Posts: 1,942
???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis1971 View Post
Usually when it drops below Mach 1.


761.2 mph, 661.5 knots, or 1116 ft/s?

JEFFJP_N_JJ is offline  
 
Old October 29th, 2016, 07:22 PM   #34
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: South Charleston, WV
Posts: 2,403
I agree that "we" should know that the shooter is the final factor in the formula for accurate shooting, but there are always those at matches that have "paralysis by analysis" syndrome and can quote verbatim the loading manual page by page and yet not produce high scores. My point is simply that if those folks would spend equal or greater amount of time with their rifle actually firing a given load and experiencing how it all works together, their scores would improve, quoting ballistic data will not. Researching such data does have it's benefits in selecting an appropriate bullet weight, design, etc. and there it does help the shooter gain in his quest for accuracy.

Thanks from arcticdog and JEFFJP_N_JJ
Instructor is online now  
Old October 29th, 2016, 09:26 PM   #35
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2336USMC View Post
Yes I do understand.

I give you a piece of wood and 2 rulers. One ruler is calibrated in inches, the other is metric. You measure the same piece of wood with both rulers and get 2 different numbers, one in inches and the other in centimeters. Which number is more correct than the other? Neither, they are exactly the same, just expressed in different units. Because they came from actual measurements, not an estimates.

When Litz says that G1 BCs are less accurate, he referring to manufacturer data that gives only a single G1BC for a bullet, and that number is often an artificial computer estimate, and/or exaggerated for marketing purposes. Simply plugging that number into a single BC software program will give poor results. GIGO, as you said.

It may be true that the G7 BC is more accurate if one wishes to use only a single BC number to describe a bullet. Sierra doesn't use a single BC number, they use 3 or 4 for different velocities. "But the G1 BC is velocity dependent." Yes it is. That's why Sierra uses 3 or 4 numbers, velocity dependent.

When one gets BC numbers by actual test firing of the actual bullet, it doesn't matter whether you state it in G1 or G7, the numbers come from reality, not estimates. As you have pointed out, Litz gets his BC numbers by actual test firing of the bullets. So does Sierra. You seem to be repeating that Sierra's numbers MUST be wrong just because they are expressed as G1. What I am trying to point out is that G1 or not, they come from actual test firing. Reality is reality.

I have had the opportunity to test Sierra's BC numbers and software in the real world, and they are very accurate. A first shot X using elevation and wind charts built on Sierra's published numbers, using their bullets and software, is good enough for me. Xs are reality.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
G1 is for flat based bullets, G7 is better suited for modern boat tail bullets. It isn't two rulers, one is better suited than the other.

Hornady is turning the page on BC's, by not using them, and instead using drag in their software. This is a good thing, and will only further the advancement of more accurate shooting solutions. Might even change how we look at a bullet's flight in the pursuit of accuracy.

JMGlasgow is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 02:21 AM   #36
Lifer
 
2336USMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Road
Posts: 3,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGlasgow View Post
G1 is for flat based bullets, G7 is better suited for modern boat tail bullets. It isn't two rulers, one is better suited than the other.

Hornady is turning the page on BC's, by not using them, and instead using drag in their software. This is a good thing, and will only further the advancement of more accurate shooting solutions. Might even change how we look at a bullet's flight in the pursuit of accuracy.
OK, you win. I give up. Sierra's BC numbers for the 168 SMK are wrong, totally way wrong. Sierra doesn't know how their bullets fly. Their ballistic software, using their own BC numbers, is wrong. Any drop or windage chart built using Sierra's numbers is so far wrong that it is totally unuseable.

Nobody, including the ballisticians at Sierra, knows anything about ballistics except Litz.

If a drop chart or windage chart built using Sierra's numbers just so happens to work in the real world within less than a click on the sights, that's an accident.

I volunteer to call Sierra's chief ballistician on Monday to inform him that he is an idiot that can't use a ruler.

Oh, by the way: Ronald McDonald sells hamburgers. If you ask Ronald McDonald whether the Burger King Whopper is any good, he will tell you that the Whopper is terrible, and you should be eating McDonalds Quarter Pounders.

Enjoy your Quarter Pounder sir.

2336USMC is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 06:32 AM   #37
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 1,485
I'm so glad that your reading comprehension skills are so far advanced that you gathered all that from my last post. You should learn to embrace new technology, and new ways of going about a ballistic solution. It'll probably help you. But, I get it, you're set in your ways, and won't accept change. If hitting an X is all you care about, and G1 works for you, carry on then.

JMGlasgow is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 06:59 AM   #38
Rifleman
 
Gort lives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: united states
Posts: 66
S[QUOTE=Instructor;2166546]I agree that "we" should know that the shooter is the final factor in the formula for accurate shooting, but there are always those at matches that have "paralysis by analysis" syndrome and can quote verbatim the loading manual page by page and yet not produce high scores. My point is simply that if those folks would spend equal or greater amount of time with their rifle actually firing a given load and experiencing how it all works together, their scores would improve, quoting ballistic data will not. Researching such data does have it's benefits in selecting an appropriate bullet weight, design, etc. and there it does help the shooter gain in his quest for accuracy.[/Q


You must become one with the rifle.
Like the ol rednecks with their 80 inch black powder nuzzle loaders making hits out too 1200ft.
Or the samurai with bows and arrows, one shot one kill.
Martial training teaches and perfects technique, in turn produces high score s

Gort lives is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 12:30 PM   #39
Old Salt
 
lysander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEFFJP_N_JJ View Post
I am quite new to all of this but I saw right away with the on-line calulators you needed to 'calculate' the numbers with your 'real world' results on paper!
I guess I, too, am a bit old school when it comes to small arms. To me, a ballistic calculator for small arms only needs to be accurate enough to to find the paper at range.

Artillery and tank guns, well, that's a different matter. One, they have access to a complete weather station, and can get actual temperature, humidity, and pressure, they can also get propellant temperature. Further they have very good estimates on bore wear, so can adjust muzzle velocity (periodically, known velocity ammunition is chronographed out of the gun to baseline the bore wear).

Also, the ability to hold the barrel in the proper orientation, relative to the target is much better that with hand-held weapons.

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
lysander is online now  
Old October 30th, 2016, 06:42 PM   #40
Super Moderator
 
Phil McGrath's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Silverdale, WA.
Posts: 7,632

Awards Showcase

Thumbs up

I'm all in favor of a good debate that gets the creative juices flowing and everyone thinking, but lets all play nice so everyone might learn something new...

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
Phil McGrath is offline  
Old October 30th, 2016, 09:48 PM   #41
Platoon Commander
 
jaholder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Ks
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2336USMC View Post
OK, you win. I give up. Sierra's BC numbers for the 168 SMK are wrong, totally way wrong. Sierra doesn't know how their bullets fly. Their ballistic software, using their own BC numbers, is wrong. Any drop or windage chart built using Sierra's numbers is so far wrong that it is totally unuseable.

Nobody, including the ballisticians at Sierra, knows anything about ballistics except Litz.

If a drop chart or windage chart built using Sierra's numbers just so happens to work in the real world within less than a click on the sights, that's an accident.

I volunteer to call Sierra's chief ballistician on Monday to inform him that he is an idiot that can't use a ruler.

Oh, by the way: Ronald McDonald sells hamburgers. If you ask Ronald McDonald whether the Burger King Whopper is any good, he will tell you that the Whopper is terrible, and you should be eating McDonalds Quarter Pounders.

Enjoy your Quarter Pounder sir.
And Hornady is very good at telling folks that Sierra bullets are garbage, only their newest whiz bang polymer tipped bullets don't melt and other falsehoods.

jaholder is offline  
Old October 31st, 2016, 05:11 AM   #42
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 1,485
Do you have proof that the ELD bullets tips still melt? If not, your "falsehood" statement is strictly opinion. And of course Hornady advertises that their bullets are better than everyone else's, so does every other manufacturer. Hornady, Berger, Barnes, etc. choose to keep improving on their designs, whereas Sierra seems to rest on their past, and keep increasing their prices. The TMK was a response to the market wanting them to produce a polymer tipped bullet, and to try to compete with Hornady, and Nosler.

JMGlasgow is offline  
Old October 31st, 2016, 05:29 AM   #43
Rifleman
 
Gort lives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: united states
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGlasgow View Post
Do you have proof that the ELD bullets tips still melt? If not, your "falsehood" statement is strictly opinion. And of course Hornady advertises that their bullets are better than everyone else's, so does every other manufacturer. Hornady, Berger, Barnes, etc. choose to keep improving on their designs, whereas Sierra seems to rest on their past, and keep increasing their prices. The TMK was a response to the market wanting them to produce a polymer tipped bullet, and to try to compete with Hornady, and Nosler.
I have seen those tips get damaged bouncing off the front of the magazine,
My only complaint.

Gort lives is offline  
Old October 31st, 2016, 05:39 AM   #44
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
danthman114's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yuma, Az
Posts: 5,279
... So when does it slow down enough to wobble again? This thread was never about which program was best.

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
danthman114 is offline  
Old October 31st, 2016, 07:01 AM   #45
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: South Charleston, WV
Posts: 2,403
As for the original question, not scientific at all, but if working the pits and you hear a "boom" instead of a sharp sounding "crack" sound, the bullet went subsonic somewhere between the firing line and the target face. Common to hear at the 1000yd. match. Exactly where it went subsonic, have no idea, but it did. Have a 30 caliber bullet which fell to my feet while in the pits and fell into a puddle of water was sizzling plus put a bunch of sand from sand bag on my hat and I heard the "boom" not the crack from that shot. Now that is scientific as it gets.

Instructor is online now  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Bolt Action

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
168 grain bullets and their ballistic coefficient. TheShooter Ammunition 37 April 3rd, 2016 08:17 PM
M80 pulls in reloading tokiwartooth Ammunition 21 February 21st, 2015 01:27 PM
Another range report 155 VLD vs 168 VLD SteveInOregon Accuracy 6 March 5th, 2014 07:13 PM
anybody have experience loading subsonic? linegrunt Ammunition 2 July 6th, 2013 03:18 PM
Use Hodgdon's H335? arcticdog Ammunition 11 May 24th, 2013 03:34 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List