I immediately thought of Tubb's nosering when I saw the title. Did you guys explore drag variability reduction in other areas of the bullet besides the meplat and boattail? Give the decision maker who decided to move to production before the patent was approved a pat on the back for us. Awesome innovation. Jayden ought to be in the running for a Nobel prize after the large sample size stuff and drag variability this year.
Catching up on the podcast this is a wow. Having the intuition that something was persistently intermittently wrong and following the trail with great science and engineering was a great job.
Great podcast guys! FWIW, bullets made on a CNC lathe fired using sabots (no partof the flight projectile touching the barrel during launch) exhibit about a 1.0-1.5% drag variation in the spark range where the zero yaw drag can be determined to within 0.1%. Push that envelope, it doesn’t know how tp push back!
Awesome surprise today! These deeper dive episodes are my favorite. Not that the others are bad but these ones iv usually watch a few times and then also while I reload.
Innovation never seems to stop at Hornady. Makes me wonder, what's next. Great podcast, fellas! However, I'm still waiting for a 50 BMG podcast. History of the cartridge, target and long range usage, 750 gr Hornady A-Max ammo...
I think it's great that you guys are doing so much testing and science and willing to share it with the public. I get you had to get a patent on it first as Hornady is a business, but you are still here talking about your findings. I wish other ammo manufacturers would do the same to move the "sport" along. Honestly, if I buy match ammo, mostly I reload, I always buy Hornady, Berger or Sierra bullets. I've heard and seen good things from Lapua scenars but I've never used them.
Very nice discussion guys, I am excited to see this technology spread into all the calibers options you have. My only rifle is a 6.5 Grendel AR for both hunting and home defense. She needs some ELDM I think.
I am trying to remember the fuses we used on our howitzers. I seem to remember they were mostly rounded with the exception of the Fuze VT, which was a fuze that would go off at a predetermined height above the target. It had a flat tip on it. I don't recall there being a significant difference in accuracy, but we rarely shot it. It was more expensive. With 10,000 meter plus trajectories, there was plenty of time for the air to interact with the bullet shape. One thing that I am curious about is the impact on overall drag. To me, it's a type of form or shape drag. There's some minimum drag for every cross section and then variations in efficiency in drag based on shape/contour. I wonder if there's a correlation to say, a radius or gyration about the centroidal axis of the bullet. In other words, the bullets aren't spinning perfectly around the centroidal axis. The tip is wobbling a bit. When one shot wobbles too much it causes the variability. The flat tip keeps that from affecting the trajectory by keeping the radius of gyration inside the flat. That's what my pea brain is thinking.
I appreciate the work you guys are doing. I have been testing your 208 eldm for f-class. Over have of the bullets in a given box will have a slightly deformed tip. It's hard to see, but if you run a fingernail down the tip, I find a slight mushroom. Usually not going all the way around the tip. I have run a few thru a tipping die to uniform the tip, but haven't tested them yet.
Very well done. I would like to see a podcast on BC G1 vs G7. I have read that G1 is based on a specific velocity. But G7 is not based on velocity. I read that in the front end of the Barnes reload manual. The Barnes bullets do not have the BC of the Hornady bullets but the front end book education was much better. Ave tried some Speer soft points that give be a 1 hole group (5). Don’t understand that but just live it. I do more shooting when working up loads then any other time.
I've really enjoyed your discussions on sample size and variability. You cited the ATips today, one of the things I always thought made them better is that you get 100 consecutive projectiles off the assembly line. My thought is that this reduces the variation in the rounds as a result of tooling wear, vs a random sample of 100 made out of 1000+s of rounds in a production run. I was wondering if you have ever compared 100 consecutive ELD-Ms to 100 ATips? If so, what are the differences?
I bet that old rancher had that custom rifle made after he missed a few coyotes in a row. that’s how my grandpa got his target 10-22 Ruger, kept missing a gopher that was living in grandma’s asparagus patch lol
Great podcast. Is there any chance of you quantifying how much your groups shrunk by? i.e would you have a 50 shot group say 1 - 1.2 moa now say .8 - 1 moa? or MR went from say .7 to .6 for 50 shots - something like that? Keep up the innovation. thanks.
@@johnseptien3138 whatever - what was the difference that they saw be it pure vertical dispersion or something else - as a measurement before and after. they could even quantify it as a % improvement for them and their equipment.
Great podcast as usual and thanks for all the work you guys do collecting data. I bet you don’t go home and complain to your wife about having to shoot a rifle all day. Smart guys with dream jobs . Congratulations! And let the haters keep hating. They will get on the Red Train one day
It's been known for a long time that flat nosed bullets track straighter and deeper than round nose bullets of the same weight and velocity. Oh, nevermind that was with heavy slow moving cast or solid bullets on game animals........lol
That's an "It depends". Most of the time, no. The formation of the meplat is not uniform enough and you see significantly more drag variability in BTHP/OTM style bullets, but a few lots of a few types of bullets do very well if the meplat closes up exceptionally uniformly.
Great video. It would be interesting to.know what the drag on the A-tips would be like if it was maximized. The BC on those things is through the roof even after being comprimized to minimize the drag variability....
CONGRATS Boys! But now, with a flat meplat you will have to Doppler test all these new flat meplat Hornady bullets because they WILL have more drag with different trajectories than the old, pointed Hornady cartridges. No?
It was a relatively small change (usually less than 3% net drag) but we have recently updated all of the 4DoF bullet files to reflect the new technology.
Ratio of tip to caliber. Shape of bullet. So how does the 'length' of the bullet figure in? Does shape dictate the ratio of bullet's caliber to tip diameter to 'length' of bullet???
The craziest thing to me is that you needed the head of the company to be out of town to justify getting a doppler radar for a ballistics company in the first place. Surely an accurate measuring tool would be the first thing he would want for his engineering department.
At that time, the size of the company vs. the cost of the technology had to be hugely considered. Looking back, I’m sure Steve & Jason say that we should have pulled the trigger years prior… What a great investment it’s been for the company and the industry as a whole!
Can that be done? Sure. Next thing you have to do is standardize the test so all bullet makers can report their numbers & the user can make a valid comparison. Will the other billet makers sign up for that if it makes their bullets look inferior? Doubtful.
So, does this explain "flyers" that are the random increase in velocity? I just completed a two day reloading class. We measured charge weights (meaning triple checking) on 3 different brand scales, one of them Hornady. I built 7 rounds at each half grain increment, 5 for the group and two spares, with 178 ELD Match, Fed. Gold medal LRM primers, brand new Peterson brass, Accurate Mag Pro, in a climate controlled environment; using the Hornady manual for 300 WinMag, from 65.5 to 76.5; I had to use at least one spare for each 5 shot string, to get below 20 ES and single digit SD. Some shots were lower velocity, and some were higher. Same method between shots, single feeding, cooling time, bolt open, yata yata yata. At some charge weights, it took both spares to get a consistent velocity. BTW, I was using brand new equipment, that came with the price of the class, not the most expensive, but has a long standing reputation for quality. What happened?
The technology discussed above would not effect muzzle velocity or groups at 100-200 yards. Your "flyers" unfortunately, can be caused by many variables including your gun may not like the projectile/powder combination. If you brass was virgin and your chamber is on the bigger size you could be seeing higher than normal ES. Measure your fired brass to a virgin brass with a headspace comparator gauge and that will give you an indication of your chamber size. Try your load again with once fired brass and see if your SD's drop. Try a different bullet. Try different powder. Down the rabbit hole you go.
@@Bierjager Yes Sir, that's exactly what I did. There is a.005 difference between the virgin brass I used, vs after firing and the Mag Pro powder is probably not the best choice, but I wanted to test it. I had a few rounds loaded to 77gr with H1000 and the same projectiles and they were a lot better. 5 rounds were below 20 ES and below 10 SD. I got rained out at the range so I couldn't finish the Mag Pro work up; so maybe when I go back and get into the higher charge weights, the Mag Pro will do better. Thanks for your suggestions ‼️🤙
@@MrCclimeGo Singe digit SD's are excellent for any gun and very impressive for a case as big as a 300WM. I am not familiar with Mag pro but if you plan on hunting with that gun I would make sure that powder is not temperature sensitive. H1000 is excellent. Welcome to reloading and good luck.
@@Bierjager Yes Sir, I am a Ultra Green ( like fluorescent) Green Horn to reloading. I took a class, and chose the Mag Pro at the behest of the instructor. The cases loaded with H-1000 were done by my best friend who is an experienced reloader. I began gathering various supplies of powder and primers just within the past 3 months. I don't even have a press yet. The price of the class included a 3 die set of Lee Precision dies (just the basics of course) and 100 Fed match grade primers and powder of my choice. I've read about the favorites that most people use and wanted to try something different. I'm still very much in learning mode but I'm taking good notes. ‼️👍
Only the ELD lines (X, M, VT), CX, and A-tip incorporate it. Use-case for V-max, SST, monoflex, etc... is typically well inside of the range that drag variability is going to have a meaningful impact.
I’m still waiting on a bonded bullet from Hornady. Both a pistol line and a rifle line of great bonded bullets would sell like crazy. I don’t understand why it’s not considered. Especially when the only option for the hand loader is Swift and you need a second mortgage to buy them.
The interbond already came and went. Also what do you mean the only option for hand loader is swift? there are plenty of bonded projectiles from other companies
Pretty cool to see, artillery shells are also flat nosed. Not sure if this is why but I would imagine it might be. should have started by looking at artillery rounds. I bet a lot of R&D goes into that from billion dollar companies that don't publish everything. I love shooting the ELD rounds tho!
The 124s in 9mm and 110, 125s in 38 special have expanded in gel just fine for me. Never saw where it was "proven" that they dont expand. Only failures to expand i had were in 38spl with 158 and 180g out of a snubbie, and both were below hornady reccomended muzzle velocity for use, so i expted they would not expand.
Well now if you can just fix the Ogive position on the bullet, keep consistent bearing surface so I can seat a bullet in the SAME DAMN SPOT AND MAINTAIN THE CORRECT BULLET JUMP I just might buy more of your bullets and stop telling people your bullets are junk. Keep in mind David Tubb Patented a tool to groove a bullet and create a detached air flow (Area Rule) and he tips the bullets too.
Are you asking about the velocity difference? I'm pretty sure they came out and said the box listed was with Reloder 26 and later batches used different powder with a lower velocity
Bergers are more consistent, hands down. If a high BC was the end all be all for a bullet, you'd see Berger designing bullets that way. Consistency is what wins a match and Hornady, try as they may, just don't have it at the same level that Berger does.
I am by nature , a sceptic .I will say this to anyone who doubts that Hornady HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR A WHILE. They need to take out a box of ELD-m or ELD-X bullets they have and with OVERHEAD LIGHT look at the bullet tips facing up.. You will see LITTLE SHINY FLAT SPOTS on the tip. Then,.compare those directly to any tipped bullets you may have of other brands( Nosler, Barnes, Sierra ,etc) .NONE of those other bullet brands have that tiny flat meplat on their tips!
So what does this do that the technology behind an OTM doesn't do? We already know that an OTM creates an air pocket around the front of the bullet to reduce variability and drag. Or are you just getting back to the basics of an OTM with the marketing of a polymer and aluminum tip?
Not many OTM/BTHP bullets achieve the level of drag variability that our flat tips do. Even the ones that get in the same ballpark are spotty lot-to-lot. The molded/turned tips are much more consistent.
You guys are funny. This information has been known since the seventies. It has been used in missile design for a long time. The real story should be how manufacturing can produce consistency of a product that is so small in size and how can you produce a product that won’t deform during feeding when the bullet rides up the feed ramp. That is what I have always wondered about for decades. I have damaged the meplate on bullets on purpose just to see how accuracy is affected and have created dependable fliers. Good job on making better bullet making machines. I don’t mean to sound harsh but you have only discovered something within your industry and not something new.
Lots of testimonial but short on data. Also the name is a little misleading. It is not false, but..... Could have named it drag consistency or a bunch of other names, but no Hornady chose to sound like the Enquirer instead of a scientific journal.
There seems to be a rash of videos about bullet stability, lately. I IS possible to "overstabilize" a bullet. Like the rest of the general universe, we operate in FOUR "dimensions"; Z, Y, Z and T (Time). This is fairly important. We "spin" bullets to stabilize them in flight. Even round, lead balls. See the huge difference between smooth-bore and rifled muskets shooting round balls of similar diameter. This has been observed and studied for about three hundred years. A chap named Greenhill did a prodigious amount of work on this business and came up with the "Greenhill formula" just in time for the ballistic world to be turned on its head. The appearance of "cylindrical" bullets and then smokeless powder somewhat "overstretched" his initial envelope, but not too much. Once a bullet leaves the muzzle, it is subject to two major forces; Air resistance (drag), and GRAVITY. At supersonic speeds, MOST of this drag is in the form os high-presssure "shock cones, and not just from the pointy meplat. And, remember, serious rifle bullets are rotating at thousands of rpm,unlike supersonic aircraft. The entire idea of spinning a bullet is ti impart "gyroscopic stability"that will maintain alignment with the "line of departure. (Where the barrel is pointed at the moment of discharge). Great idea, BUT, gravity inexorably pulls the bullet,spinning or not, toward the ground.. Thus the "natural" flight-path is NOT a straight line and not even a simple "arc" but a PARABOLA, more or less. And so, If the bullet is spun too fast, it will try to stay on the line of departure rather than align with the parabola. Aerodynamics will "kick" it back on line, but not necessarily EXACTLY on the original trajectory. Optimally-stabilized bullets make many "micro-adjustments" as they fly. UNDER-STABILIZED bullets will wander all over the place. There is, essentially, a "window" of optimal stabilization.. Also, over stabilization" is not usually noticeable until well down-range, say five or 600 yards, when weird groups start occurring.. There are, or have been, several long dissertations about this on various sites. Even several barrel makers have chipped in with detailed articles. Also, higher altitudes and higher temperatures make for thinner air, which is less resistant. This is the reason the original 1:14 inch twist od the M-16 was changed f inches to 1:12 inches; in the high Arctic, stability was assessed as being sub-optimal. Final thing: I was under the impression that SUPERSONIC bullets primary drag is from the "shock-cone" pressure fronts. "Skin resistance" can only occur with "laminar" flow. Once again; bullets spinning at many thousands of RPM behave a bit differently from aircraft in supersonic flight, in a great part because of that rotation, but also that they are LOSING 'speed" from the moment of launch.
Would you say the same thing about designing the aerofoil in the 1800's? Patenting a shape/designed part to take advantage of a natural phenomenon is not the same as patenting the phenomenon.
@@milesn3173 That is certainly a good point. The aerofoil certainly was patent worthy because it exploited a natural law. If Hornady's patents are limited to designs that take advantage of a natural law, that is fine with me. But, the podcast seemed to suggest their patent was broader than that. People have been putting flat tips on bullets for decades. If another company can take advantage of the natural law without infringing on their designs, they should be able to.
This patent should have never been granted. Bullet tipping and pointing is not new technology. Yes they discovered a ratio that correlates to best performance. But they better not start suing Meplat trimmer makers.
If Hornady bullets are so good. Why am I seeing berger and sierra dominate competitions? Were is the Team Hornady sponsored guys at the top of the podium? This podcast also smacks with contradiction with the most recent Cortina podcast. " hornady caters to middle of the road shooters, not the high end precision guys who are just a small part of the market". That is a quote from your guy, not Mr. Cortina. You are sending mixed signals guys. You need to tighten up your PR on podcasts, I am confused.
That is a blatant misquote for one, and a mischaracterization for two. It was referring to the target audience of the podcast and had nothing to do with the capabilities of our products. Here's a real direct quote from that podcast that is maybe the most relevant to your comment: "You guys can control what you say, but you can't control what people hear." V/R Miles Neville
Do you have stats for your claim? From one source that tracks that stuff, I see Berger on top by a good margin, followed by Hornady, and then Sierra a distant third.
He directs the conversation to the way it will sound best as an advertisement,and hype. Gets a a little annoying at times. Still hasn't sold me on their bullets, as I've seen too many reports of production variables about them, which to me, means the QC is in question to start with, and probably overrides the benefits of the improvements.they are trying to make.
@@davecollins6113 The best shooters generally try and get sll their brass, bullets, powder, primers from the same lot. You expect variation lot to lot even from berger and lapua.
How many have hi powered Doppler radar capable of tracking bullets to 1km + ? I’m thinking if there were some, more would be shooting bullets from Big Red.
@@jeffsiewert1258 would you submit that the best shooters will select the very best products? Generally at no spared expense? If you would strong man that argument, you may find Hornady while a great bullet (which I am a fan of) is not winning championships like Berger’s do. And they are an open metplat
No, IMO the “best”shooters likely have invested a big chunk of money into bullets, primers powders, cases to keep their loads consistent, Good on them However, something new that comes along that’s a better mousetrap that they don’t have the equipment to evaluate, i don’t think they’re going to be in a rush to jump ship. What is the dispersion of Berger bullets in your experience? 0,04 mils one sigma for 30 shots?
@@chriskloster13 You dont think that could be because Berger "sponsors" the best shooters? Which means the best shooters all happen to shoot bergers?
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
I immediately thought of Tubb's nosering when I saw the title. Did you guys explore drag variability reduction in other areas of the bullet besides the meplat and boattail? Give the decision maker who decided to move to production before the patent was approved a pat on the back for us. Awesome innovation. Jayden ought to be in the running for a Nobel prize after the large sample size stuff and drag variability this year.
Thanks Hornady for an accurate and inexpensive hunting bullet. As a hunter I appreciate you guys
Catching up on the podcast this is a wow. Having the intuition that something was persistently intermittently wrong and following the trail with great science and engineering was a great job.
Thanks so much!
Wow, this is an amazing podcast! what a concept, and great job of delivering it to the public.
2nd time watching for me, I'm sure I'll watch again.
Visual aids would be good on many of these podcasts. Showing bullet shapes or showing the characteristics of external ballistics, etc.
Great podcast guys! FWIW, bullets made on a CNC lathe fired using sabots (no partof the flight projectile touching the barrel during launch) exhibit about a 1.0-1.5% drag variation in the spark range where the zero yaw drag can be determined to within 0.1%. Push that envelope, it doesn’t know how tp push back!
Awesome surprise today! These deeper dive episodes are my favorite. Not that the others are bad but these ones iv usually watch a few times and then also while I reload.
Glad you like them!
Innovation never seems to stop at Hornady. Makes me wonder, what's next. Great podcast, fellas! However, I'm still waiting for a 50 BMG podcast. History of the cartridge, target and long range usage, 750 gr Hornady A-Max ammo...
I think it's great that you guys are doing so much testing and science and willing to share it with the public. I get you had to get a patent on it first as Hornady is a business, but you are still here talking about your findings. I wish other ammo manufacturers would do the same to move the "sport" along. Honestly, if I buy match ammo, mostly I reload, I always buy Hornady, Berger or Sierra bullets. I've heard and seen good things from Lapua scenars but I've never used them.
"Its fun to hit what youre aiming at."
Nice summary
You guys are gonna have to edit the background bullets now.
Aw crap.. 😞
Very nice discussion guys, I am excited to see this technology spread into all the calibers options you have. My only rifle is a 6.5 Grendel AR for both hunting and home defense. She needs some ELDM I think.
I am trying to remember the fuses we used on our howitzers. I seem to remember they were mostly rounded with the exception of the Fuze VT, which was a fuze that would go off at a predetermined height above the target. It had a flat tip on it. I don't recall there being a significant difference in accuracy, but we rarely shot it. It was more expensive. With 10,000 meter plus trajectories, there was plenty of time for the air to interact with the bullet shape.
One thing that I am curious about is the impact on overall drag. To me, it's a type of form or shape drag. There's some minimum drag for every cross section and then variations in efficiency in drag based on shape/contour.
I wonder if there's a correlation to say, a radius or gyration about the centroidal axis of the bullet. In other words, the bullets aren't spinning perfectly around the centroidal axis. The tip is wobbling a bit. When one shot wobbles too much it causes the variability. The flat tip keeps that from affecting the trajectory by keeping the radius of gyration inside the flat. That's what my pea brain is thinking.
I appreciate the work you guys are doing. I have been testing your 208 eldm for f-class. Over have of the bullets in a given box will have a slightly deformed tip. It's hard to see, but if you run a fingernail down the tip, I find a slight mushroom. Usually not going all the way around the tip. I have run a few thru a tipping die to uniform the tip, but haven't tested them yet.
Very well done.
I would like to see a podcast on BC G1 vs G7.
I have read that G1 is based on a specific velocity. But G7 is not based on velocity.
I read that in the front end of the Barnes reload manual.
The Barnes bullets do not have the BC of the Hornady bullets but the front end book education was much better.
Ave tried some Speer soft points that give be a 1 hole group (5). Don’t understand that but just live it.
I do more shooting when working up loads then any other time.
Watch episodes 34 and 44. They go into everything about BCs.
What’s the point of discussing any G function when you have 4 DoF?
I've really enjoyed your discussions on sample size and variability. You cited the ATips today, one of the things I always thought made them better is that you get 100 consecutive projectiles off the assembly line. My thought is that this reduces the variation in the rounds as a result of tooling wear, vs a random sample of 100 made out of 1000+s of rounds in a production run. I was wondering if you have ever compared 100 consecutive ELD-Ms to 100 ATips? If so, what are the differences?
I bet that old rancher had that custom rifle made after he missed a few coyotes in a row. that’s how my grandpa got his target 10-22 Ruger, kept missing a gopher that was living in grandma’s asparagus patch lol
Great podcast. Is there any chance of you quantifying how much your groups shrunk by? i.e would you have a 50 shot group say 1 - 1.2 moa now say .8 - 1 moa? or MR went from say .7 to .6 for 50 shots - something like that? Keep up the innovation. thanks.
But weren't they talking about vertical dispersion only? Not actual group size?
@@johnseptien3138 whatever - what was the difference that they saw be it pure vertical dispersion or something else - as a measurement before and after. they could even quantify it as a % improvement for them and their equipment.
Great podcast as usual and thanks for all the work you guys do collecting data. I bet you don’t go home and complain to your wife about having to shoot a rifle all day. Smart guys with dream jobs . Congratulations! And let the haters keep hating. They will get on the Red Train one day
Thank you greatly for that!
It's been known for a long time that flat nosed bullets track straighter and deeper than round nose bullets of the same weight and velocity. Oh, nevermind that was with heavy slow moving cast or solid bullets on game animals........lol
62 grain eld-vt in a 22creedmoor factory ammo! When’s it coming?
Does the flat tip on the BTHP (no polymer or aluminum tip) do a similar thing for consistency?
That's an "It depends". Most of the time, no. The formation of the meplat is not uniform enough and you see significantly more drag variability in BTHP/OTM style bullets, but a few lots of a few types of bullets do very well if the meplat closes up exceptionally uniformly.
Every time i hear them, i feel like a geek in a library that wants to consume all them book's.
(Whispering)Only here, the books are talking😊
Should go over how it effects bthp more
Great video. It would be interesting to.know what the drag on the A-tips would be like if it was maximized. The BC on those things is through the roof even after being comprimized to minimize the drag variability....
Great point!
"The bullet is too round. It needs to be more pointy" --Supreme Leader
Hornady has been testing this for years.... just today I found 2 of these broken off tips in a box of the ELD-Ms. :(
CONGRATS Boys! But now, with a flat meplat you will have to Doppler test all these new flat meplat Hornady bullets because they WILL have more drag with different trajectories than the old, pointed Hornady cartridges. No?
It was a relatively small change (usually less than 3% net drag) but we have recently updated all of the 4DoF bullet files to reflect the new technology.
Very interesting program. Thanks!
Thank you too!
39:57 so you aren't going to put it on 17's or 204 ruger? seems like it would be perfect for 204 for varminting at small targets like that.
For the most part those cartridges are used well inside of the velocity/trajectory range that drag variability would have a meaningful effect.
They know more than i do so i listen. Not sure what the takeaway is on this one. So they can make improvements in the future??
Ratio of tip to caliber. Shape of bullet. So how does the 'length' of the bullet figure in? Does shape dictate the ratio of bullet's caliber to tip diameter to 'length' of bullet???
The craziest thing to me is that you needed the head of the company to be out of town to justify getting a doppler radar for a ballistics company in the first place.
Surely an accurate measuring tool would be the first thing he would want for his engineering department.
Yes it’s these little comments on the cast that make me cringe. Great observation
At that time, the size of the company vs. the cost of the technology had to be hugely considered. Looking back, I’m sure Steve & Jason say that we should have pulled the trigger years prior… What a great investment it’s been for the company and the industry as a whole!
People who don't run businesses don't understand the cost of adopting new technology.
So does this mean at some point we will see, on boxes of bullets, a number similar to the BC number reflecting "Drag Variability"??
Can that be done? Sure. Next thing you have to do is standardize the test so all bullet makers can report their numbers & the user can make a valid comparison. Will the other billet makers sign up for that if it makes their bullets look inferior? Doubtful.
So, does this explain "flyers" that are the random increase in velocity? I just completed a two day reloading class. We measured charge weights (meaning triple checking) on 3 different brand scales, one of them Hornady. I built 7 rounds at each half grain increment, 5 for the group and two spares, with 178 ELD Match, Fed. Gold medal LRM primers, brand new Peterson brass, Accurate Mag Pro, in a climate controlled environment; using the Hornady manual for 300 WinMag, from 65.5 to 76.5; I had to use at least one spare for each 5 shot string, to get below 20 ES and single digit SD. Some shots were lower velocity, and some were higher. Same method between shots, single feeding, cooling time, bolt open, yata yata yata. At some charge weights, it took both spares to get a consistent velocity. BTW, I was using brand new equipment, that came with the price of the class, not the most expensive, but has a long standing reputation for quality.
What happened?
The technology discussed above would not effect muzzle velocity or groups at 100-200 yards. Your "flyers" unfortunately, can be caused by many variables including your gun may not like the projectile/powder combination. If you brass was virgin and your chamber is on the bigger size you could be seeing higher than normal ES. Measure your fired brass to a virgin brass with a headspace comparator gauge and that will give you an indication of your chamber size. Try your load again with once fired brass and see if your SD's drop. Try a different bullet. Try different powder. Down the rabbit hole you go.
@@Bierjager Yes Sir, that's exactly what I did. There is a.005 difference between the virgin brass I used, vs after firing and the Mag Pro powder is probably not the best choice, but I wanted to test it. I had a few rounds loaded to 77gr with H1000 and the same projectiles and they were a lot better. 5 rounds were below 20 ES and below 10 SD. I got rained out at the range so I couldn't finish the Mag Pro work up; so maybe when I go back and get into the higher charge weights, the Mag Pro will do better. Thanks for your suggestions ‼️🤙
@@MrCclimeGo Singe digit SD's are excellent for any gun and very impressive for a case as big as a 300WM. I am not familiar with Mag pro but if you plan on hunting with that gun I would make sure that powder is not temperature sensitive. H1000 is excellent. Welcome to reloading and good luck.
@@Bierjager Yes Sir, I am a Ultra Green ( like fluorescent) Green Horn to reloading. I took a class, and chose the Mag Pro at the behest of the instructor. The cases loaded with H-1000 were done by my best friend who is an experienced reloader. I began gathering various supplies of powder and primers just within the past 3 months. I don't even have a press yet. The price of the class included a 3 die set of Lee Precision dies (just the basics of course) and 100 Fed match grade primers and powder of my choice. I've read about the favorites that most people use and wanted to try something different. I'm still very much in learning mode but I'm taking good notes. ‼️👍
Thanks for the info, guys. I enjoy the podcasts you guys do. Does the SST line use DVRT? I currently have 123 & 129 gr SST bullets
Only the ELD lines (X, M, VT), CX, and A-tip incorporate it. Use-case for V-max, SST, monoflex, etc... is typically well inside of the range that drag variability is going to have a meaningful impact.
I’m still waiting on a bonded bullet from Hornady. Both a pistol line and a rifle line of great bonded bullets would sell like crazy. I don’t understand why it’s not considered. Especially when the only option for the hand loader is Swift and you need a second mortgage to buy them.
Go and listen to their solid copper podcast...
The interbond already came and went.
Also what do you mean the only option for hand loader is swift? there are plenty of bonded projectiles from other companies
Don't hold your breath.
Would love to see something to compete agenst the berger 200.20x
More marketing acronyms
Should’ve buckled up sooner for this one🤔🤙
Pretty cool to see, artillery shells are also flat nosed. Not sure if this is why but I would imagine it might be. should have started by looking at artillery rounds. I bet a lot of R&D goes into that from billion dollar companies that don't publish everything. I love shooting the ELD rounds tho!
Wow. I wonder if this has any application in aviation or even marine.
Why would aviation and marine need consistent drag?
Increase the fuel consumption by .0.2% and it will hit the dustbin.
aviation is not about small groups they got controls for that.
Why are my eldm pointy then?
But the pointy bergers still spank the eldm at distance.
I came here to say this..haha
Where’s your data attesting to that alleged “fact”?
@jeffsiewert1258 1840 yds with some well known benchrest shooters and gunsmiths. That don't get a paycheck from a bullet manufacturer.
What's the plan to fix XTP bullets now that they're proven to not expand in non-magnum cartridges?
The 124s in 9mm and 110, 125s in 38 special have expanded in gel just fine for me. Never saw where it was "proven" that they dont expand. Only failures to expand i had were in 38spl with 158 and 180g out of a snubbie, and both were below hornady reccomended muzzle velocity for use, so i expted they would not expand.
Well now if you can just fix the Ogive position on the bullet, keep consistent bearing surface so I can seat a bullet in the SAME DAMN SPOT AND MAINTAIN THE CORRECT BULLET JUMP I just might buy more of your bullets and stop telling people your bullets are junk.
Keep in mind David Tubb Patented a tool to groove a bullet and create a detached air flow (Area Rule) and he tips the bullets too.
You can always tell what I was aiming at by what I hit.
That is a keeper of a quote!
What happened to your 7PRC ammo? Sounds like Ron Spomer is on to something.
Are you asking about the velocity difference? I'm pretty sure they came out and said the box listed was with Reloder 26 and later batches used different powder with a lower velocity
Why are people still shooting Berger for competitions? Are you not able to beat them?
Half the cost of A-Tips.
Price, availability, history
@@yukon4545 More like 10 cents a bullet cheaper.
Bergers are more consistent, hands down. If a high BC was the end all be all for a bullet, you'd see Berger designing bullets that way. Consistency is what wins a match and Hornady, try as they may, just don't have it at the same level that Berger does.
ELD-M is double the price, Berger or SMK does what I need it to do, good enough for governor work.
technically they did solve some of these back in the 50's and 60's but it wasn't with bullets it was with aircraft.
I am by nature , a sceptic .I will say this to anyone who doubts that Hornady HAS BEEN DOING THIS FOR A WHILE. They need to take out a box of ELD-m or ELD-X bullets they have and with OVERHEAD LIGHT look at the bullet tips facing up.. You will see LITTLE SHINY FLAT SPOTS on the tip. Then,.compare those directly to any tipped bullets you may have of other brands( Nosler, Barnes, Sierra ,etc) .NONE of those other bullet brands have that tiny flat meplat on their tips!
So what does this do that the technology behind an OTM doesn't do? We already know that an OTM creates an air pocket around the front of the bullet to reduce variability and drag. Or are you just getting back to the basics of an OTM with the marketing of a polymer and aluminum tip?
Not many OTM/BTHP bullets achieve the level of drag variability that our flat tips do. Even the ones that get in the same ballpark are spotty lot-to-lot. The molded/turned tips are much more consistent.
ALL OTM HOLLOW POINTS HAVE RAGGED UNEVEN MEPLATS
@@JamesClark-lw6sw anyone who's tried seating to a specific coal has seen that for sure.
You guys are funny. This information has been known since the seventies. It has been used in missile design for a long time. The real story should be how manufacturing can produce consistency of a product that is so small in size and how can you produce a product that won’t deform during feeding when the bullet rides up the feed ramp. That is what I have always wondered about for decades. I have damaged the meplate on bullets on purpose just to see how accuracy is affected and have created dependable fliers. Good job on making better bullet making machines. I don’t mean to sound harsh but you have only discovered something within your industry and not something new.
Is this why Nosler RDFs pattern like shotguns instead of group like a rifle?
👍👍👍
I think somebody is stealing cutting edge bullets homework 🤔
Lots of testimonial but short on data. Also the name is a little misleading. It is not false, but.....
Could have named it drag consistency or a bunch of other names, but no Hornady chose to sound like the Enquirer instead of a scientific journal.
Thanks for the comment! Here's a bit more info from the website. Hope that helps ya! - www.hornady.com/dvrt
Great except when you said a $5000 rifle is for everyone. For most of us regular people that is out of range for us to even hope for.
There seems to be a rash of videos about bullet stability, lately.
I IS possible to "overstabilize" a bullet. Like the rest of the general universe, we operate in FOUR "dimensions"; Z, Y, Z and T (Time).
This is fairly important.
We "spin" bullets to stabilize them in flight. Even round, lead balls. See the huge difference between smooth-bore and rifled muskets shooting round balls of similar diameter. This has been observed and studied for about three hundred years. A chap named Greenhill did a prodigious amount of work on this business and came up with the "Greenhill formula" just in time for the ballistic world to be turned on its head. The appearance of "cylindrical" bullets and then smokeless powder somewhat "overstretched" his initial envelope, but not too much.
Once a bullet leaves the muzzle, it is subject to two major forces; Air resistance (drag), and GRAVITY. At supersonic speeds, MOST of this drag is in the form os high-presssure "shock cones, and not just from the pointy meplat. And, remember, serious rifle bullets are rotating at thousands of rpm,unlike supersonic aircraft.
The entire idea of spinning a bullet is ti impart "gyroscopic stability"that will maintain alignment with the "line of departure. (Where the barrel is pointed at the moment of discharge).
Great idea, BUT, gravity inexorably pulls the bullet,spinning or not, toward the ground.. Thus the "natural" flight-path is NOT a straight line and not even a simple "arc" but a PARABOLA, more or less.
And so, If the bullet is spun too fast, it will try to stay on the line of departure rather than align with the parabola. Aerodynamics will "kick" it back on line, but not necessarily EXACTLY on the original trajectory. Optimally-stabilized bullets make many "micro-adjustments" as they fly. UNDER-STABILIZED bullets will wander all over the place. There is, essentially, a "window" of optimal stabilization.. Also, over stabilization" is not usually noticeable until well down-range, say five or 600 yards, when weird groups start occurring..
There are, or have been, several long dissertations about this on various sites. Even several barrel makers have chipped in with detailed articles.
Also, higher altitudes and higher temperatures make for thinner air, which is less resistant. This is the reason the original 1:14 inch twist od the M-16 was changed f inches to 1:12 inches; in the high Arctic, stability was assessed as being sub-optimal.
Final thing: I was under the impression that SUPERSONIC bullets primary drag is from the "shock-cone" pressure fronts. "Skin resistance" can only occur with "laminar" flow. Once again; bullets spinning at many thousands of RPM behave a bit differently from aircraft in supersonic flight, in a great part because of that rotation, but also that they are LOSING 'speed" from the moment of launch.
Innovation is great, but maybe you guys should learn how to put accurate velocity numbers on the boxes!!
“Patented” is not a brag.
David tubb nose ring cutting. same concept
No. Not the same.
Yes, achieves the same result.
Patent # or it's all marketing persiflage.
I am not sure how you patent a natural law.
Would you say the same thing about designing the aerofoil in the 1800's? Patenting a shape/designed part to take advantage of a natural phenomenon is not the same as patenting the phenomenon.
@@milesn3173 That is certainly a good point. The aerofoil certainly was patent worthy because it exploited a natural law. If Hornady's patents are limited to designs that take advantage of a natural law, that is fine with me. But, the podcast seemed to suggest their patent was broader than that.
People have been putting flat tips on bullets for decades. If another company can take advantage of the natural law without infringing on their designs, they should be able to.
Lower the variance in velocity between batches of ammo instead of this 0.00001% crap
This patent should have never been granted. Bullet tipping and pointing is not new technology. Yes they discovered a ratio that correlates to best performance. But they better not start suing Meplat trimmer makers.
If Hornady bullets are so good. Why am I seeing berger and sierra dominate competitions? Were is the Team Hornady sponsored guys at the top of the podium? This podcast also smacks with contradiction with the most recent Cortina podcast. " hornady caters to middle of the road shooters, not the high end precision guys who are just a small part of the market". That is a quote from your guy, not Mr. Cortina. You are sending mixed signals guys. You need to tighten up your PR on podcasts, I am confused.
Man you must have a hard time seeing and understanding shades of grey.
That is a blatant misquote for one, and a mischaracterization for two. It was referring to the target audience of the podcast and had nothing to do with the capabilities of our products. Here's a real direct quote from that podcast that is maybe the most relevant to your comment: "You guys can control what you say, but you can't control what people hear." V/R Miles Neville
I will cross check myself. Standbye.
I was polite and to the point. Also hadva excelkent counter point. You deleted my post. Its your podcast. Do as you want. Unsubscribed...... good day.
Do you have stats for your claim? From one source that tracks that stuff, I see Berger on top by a good margin, followed by Hornady, and then Sierra a distant third.
A of varmints are not going to like this.
Seth, less talking please
He directs the conversation to the way it will sound best as an advertisement,and hype. Gets a a little annoying at times. Still hasn't sold me on their bullets, as I've seen too many reports of production variables about them, which to me, means the QC is in question to start with, and probably overrides the benefits of the improvements.they are trying to make.
@@davecollins6113 The best shooters generally try and get sll their brass, bullets, powder, primers from the same lot. You expect variation lot to lot even from berger and lapua.
All this hype and the best shooters in the world still shoot bullets in a yellow box
How many have hi powered Doppler radar capable of tracking bullets to 1km + ? I’m thinking if there were some, more would be shooting bullets from Big Red.
@@jeffsiewert1258 would you submit that the best shooters will select the very best products? Generally at no spared expense? If you would strong man that argument, you may find Hornady while a great bullet (which I am a fan of) is not winning championships like Berger’s do. And they are an open metplat
No, IMO the “best”shooters likely have invested a big chunk of money into bullets, primers powders, cases to keep their loads consistent, Good on them However, something new that comes along that’s a better mousetrap that they don’t have the equipment to evaluate, i don’t think they’re going to be in a rush to jump ship. What is the dispersion of Berger bullets in your experience? 0,04 mils one sigma for 30 shots?
@@chriskloster13 You dont think that could be because Berger "sponsors" the best shooters? Which means the best shooters all happen to shoot bergers?
@@jonathanrogers9961 I think if you had a conversation at the firing line at Southwest nationals you would have a different perspective
Jayden must coin it to the bank... He basically IS Hornady's face of tech.