What makes a bullet accurate
- Thread starter swarovski
- Start date
Consistency. Then again the bullet is only a small part of the equation.
Last edited:
How many beers I had the night before...
I do wonder about the consistency of soft point manufacture, and the inevitable damage to the point that you see in the box, after loading, after chambering / rechambering.
Compared to a decent plastic tip, sometimes soft points look so bad you'd think they'd fly backwards. But it never seems to eventuate, a good soft point is an accurate bullet.
I do wonder about the consistency of soft point manufacture, and the inevitable damage to the point that you see in the box, after loading, after chambering / rechambering.
Compared to a decent plastic tip, sometimes soft points look so bad you'd think they'd fly backwards. But it never seems to eventuate, a good soft point is an accurate bullet.
Last edited:
There are a myriad of answers to this question. Too many to cover. I have two Winchester 30-30's. Both pretty close to identical. One will shoot 3/4" at 50 yards with Speer 150 RN and open sights. The other 1.5 inches. Same bullet. Same LOT of bullets, same load. I guess what I'm saying is that accurate bullets aren't always accurate.~Muir
deeangeo
Well-Known Member
Design & Close manufacturing tolerances to achieve consistent ballistic performance.
That's the claim.
But that doesn't mean that with any given component selection in producing a cartridge, then fired in any given rifle, accuracy is guaranteed any more than terminal performance is.
I have a number of bullets that have the plastic tips broken off. Old damaged bullets.
Loaded up and fired alongside similar pristine bullets, same attention to detail, same everything, at 100yds, there's absolutely no difference in accuracy.
There might be a difference in terminal performance though, but I'll never know because they'll not be used on live quarry.
It's possible at greater range a difference in accuracy may show. I haven't tested that.
Similarly, the 100gn Sierra Prohunter bullet and the Nosler 100gn ballistic tip show no difference in accuracy from my rifle at 100yds, so I use the Sierra bullet, specifically on hinds/foxes.
It's much less expensive and delivers perfect terminal performance, even out to 300+ yds.
That's the claim.
But that doesn't mean that with any given component selection in producing a cartridge, then fired in any given rifle, accuracy is guaranteed any more than terminal performance is.
I have a number of bullets that have the plastic tips broken off. Old damaged bullets.
Loaded up and fired alongside similar pristine bullets, same attention to detail, same everything, at 100yds, there's absolutely no difference in accuracy.
There might be a difference in terminal performance though, but I'll never know because they'll not be used on live quarry.
It's possible at greater range a difference in accuracy may show. I haven't tested that.
Similarly, the 100gn Sierra Prohunter bullet and the Nosler 100gn ballistic tip show no difference in accuracy from my rifle at 100yds, so I use the Sierra bullet, specifically on hinds/foxes.
It's much less expensive and delivers perfect terminal performance, even out to 300+ yds.
Last edited:
swarovski
Well-Known Member
Yes lots of variables for accuracy.the barrel and rifling too play a very big part.
What made me ask this question was after seeing a 50 cal bullet that had been retrieved.the scarring on the bullet where it travelled up the barrel bedding into the rifling was very badly damaged.the bullet looks to have lost all it's sleeky slipperyness ability to be as aerodynamic.you would think that scarring would affect it's accuracy potential
What made me ask this question was after seeing a 50 cal bullet that had been retrieved.the scarring on the bullet where it travelled up the barrel bedding into the rifling was very badly damaged.the bullet looks to have lost all it's sleeky slipperyness ability to be as aerodynamic.you would think that scarring would affect it's accuracy potential
Last edited:
tikka_madras
Well-Known Member
I've always been amazed by this. I had a few SPs that were badly damaged so shot them as a group against some perfect ones. At 100yd it made absolutely no difference. That gave me the confidence to ignore the state of the point at normal deer ranges. I presume it would start to have a noticeable effect at longer ranges, but for hunting apparently not.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
I asked a similar question a while back on here and the general consensus was that design of the base of the bullet had more effect om accuracy than the tip.
This is the notion behind the latest developments in airgun barrel technology. Swedish firm FX have been making barrels with the twist embossed into the bore from outside, first by crimping the final section of the barrel, and more recently by using a thin embossed liner within a rigid sleeve. Lead airguns pellets are obviously highly susceptible to scoring as they travel up conventionally-rifled barrels. Scoring not only increases drag, but due to its diabolo shape a pellet's stability depends on the integrity of its skirt. The embossed rifling is sufficient to impart spin, but doesn't cause scoring, and the result seems to be a remarkable increase in effective range, as the reduced drag and increased stability enable the pellet to retain its energy for longer.
The history of firearms development -especially in the era before jacketed bullets- records many experiments in rifling design, but today only the 5R and MRR stand out. both seek to reduce bullet scoring and deformation: 5R by having sloping transitions between the lands and grooves and placing each land opposite a groove rather than a land; and MRR by doing away with lands and grooves altogether and using a smooth internal spiral to grip the bullet and impart spin. In this respect, MRR resembles FX's smooth twist rifling.
I seem to be saying barrels matter more than bullets, and I think they do. A bad barrel will ruin the performance of a good bullet, whilst a good barrel will bring out the same bullet's accuracy potential.
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
Differences in apparent accuracy at 100 yards may not show up wrt type of bullet, whereas at long range, they will, a lot more clearly (effects of drag and stability over time on the bullet) and in terms of rifling design, I've yet to be convinced that new designs of rifling are any better than traditional rifling. Many BR records and high competition scores have been set which were shot on traditional cut, button or hammer forged rifling.
There are some new kids on the block in terms of rifling design (but even then, I think they're taking some older established rifling principles and simply applying them to mass manufacture for the first time). Sabati is one example, (with MRR already having been mentioned in the post above) having dispensed with traditional sharp edged rifling, and now using what they call Multi-Radial rifling which follows principles first proposed by Whitworth's polygonal rifling principle, but using hammer forged rounded profile for the lands. They are meant to be accurate and so-say tighten up groups but I have yet to see any comparative evidence of this against a more traditional rifled barrel, so the jury may be out on this. It's a tough market and marketing may play a part of grabbing a slice of the pie, or there may be merit in the design. Only some scientific rigour applied to comparative tests using the same bullets would convince me.
Any bullet shot from a "bad" rifle mightn't shoot for toffee, so just saying "it's not the bullet, it's the rifle" doesn't really address the question. There's a reason that top competition shots all either use hand made custom bullets or top Berger bullet types. Design, manufacturing tolerance and consistency. A bullet should ideally not deform in flight nor the jacket be so thin as to break up or be badly damaged by swaging. The argument for flat base against boat tail has more to do with long range advantages in lowering drag and maintaining stability. Flat base can be equally as accurate at closer ranges albeit will exhibit lower BC for any given length of bullet, so may be more affected by wind etc. Not a straight forward answer once the variables are considered!
Worth keeping an eye out though to see of MRR rifling becomes the norm.
There are some new kids on the block in terms of rifling design (but even then, I think they're taking some older established rifling principles and simply applying them to mass manufacture for the first time). Sabati is one example, (with MRR already having been mentioned in the post above) having dispensed with traditional sharp edged rifling, and now using what they call Multi-Radial rifling which follows principles first proposed by Whitworth's polygonal rifling principle, but using hammer forged rounded profile for the lands. They are meant to be accurate and so-say tighten up groups but I have yet to see any comparative evidence of this against a more traditional rifled barrel, so the jury may be out on this. It's a tough market and marketing may play a part of grabbing a slice of the pie, or there may be merit in the design. Only some scientific rigour applied to comparative tests using the same bullets would convince me.
Any bullet shot from a "bad" rifle mightn't shoot for toffee, so just saying "it's not the bullet, it's the rifle" doesn't really address the question. There's a reason that top competition shots all either use hand made custom bullets or top Berger bullet types. Design, manufacturing tolerance and consistency. A bullet should ideally not deform in flight nor the jacket be so thin as to break up or be badly damaged by swaging. The argument for flat base against boat tail has more to do with long range advantages in lowering drag and maintaining stability. Flat base can be equally as accurate at closer ranges albeit will exhibit lower BC for any given length of bullet, so may be more affected by wind etc. Not a straight forward answer once the variables are considered!
Worth keeping an eye out though to see of MRR rifling becomes the norm.
I imagine simplicity of design helps, the basic Sierra bullets are always quoted as being as accurate as anything else despite costing half of what the fancier tipped or bonded bullets cost. Nosler Partions have a reputation for not being as accurate as others, maybe down to a more complex design and manufacture.
Most of my shooting was with 308, it seemed that some bullets and factory ammo was extremely accurate out of any 308 rifle. For example flat base 150g hornady interlock seemed very accurate. 155 and 168 A-max, 168 Hornady BTHP match ammo. With accurate I mean well under 1/2". Rifles used were all sorts from remmy, sauer, tikka, mauser, sako, howa, steyr aand a few more. Twist did not matter either if 1/10 up to 1/13.
edi
edi
swarovski
Well-Known Member
Some bullets don't work in some barrels either.it depends on what accuracy your happy with.only bullet I had trouble with was 120gr nosler ballistic tip in my 6.5 06.around max it would push them 3300fps.i slowed them down and down until around 3000fps and still only shot about 1 inch groups at best.tried different powders as well.still no joy.
The initial work I've done with the .308 ELD-X 178gr is promising. Out to 600m, as far as I can shoot here at this time of year - staunch crosswinds being the constraint - this pill is spot on, sub-MOA all the way.
ChesterP
Well-Known Member
If you can get them, worth trying the TMK 175gr too. G1 BC of .545 (Litz-tested G7 of 0.262) betters even the 190 smk! They have a nice shallow angled boat tail too.
Similar threads
