Bullet Nose Profiles

[COBPTR]

I'll start a new thread as to not interfere with the journey of your 44-77 but wanted to continue the discussion with Jim and others.
I'm fine by the way, hope you're well too!

I still like the Money Bullet but wondering what else was out there. BACO claims to have some GG design elliptical/prolate bullets but they aren't in the online catalog. I was debating trying one in a new rifle I should have shortly.
The highest score I've seen shot in a Creedmoor Agg. was with a Creedmoor bullet. The highest single distance I've seen shot at 1000 is with a Money. The best I've ever done in a 15 shot string at 1000 is with a Postell? I know Arnie and Jim have put up a couple of amazing scores up with the Prolipticals (yes,that's what I'm calling them now).
BUT, that was with the superior PP technology so it is hard to qualify against the others. Some of us choose to challenge ourselves a bit more with the inferior technology! We wouldn't want to make this TOO easy.
I guess the point is shoot what you're confident in and alot of different bullets will work as long as you know what the call for the condition is for yourself, the rifle and your bullet. I would like to try a Proliptical if anyone had any spares in .45 cal. I think the original Postell is a neat bullet too that John Madden provided a drawing for to BACO, another one that interests me.
Or I could just learn to shoot what I have better and actually practice a little?!


Robert

[Don McDowell]

I've found that the "money" bullet will shoot with a bit less elevation, and takes a bit less windage, most of the time. I've also had decent results with the original postel/creedmoor nose shapes.
I'm of the firm belief that it's a matter of picking the nose style that you fancy the most, find a good load and run it to the best of your ability.

[Distant Thunder]

Robert,

Even though I am a shameless advocate of paper patching I don't really want everyone to shoot paper patch, at least not just yet, I like to win once in awhile ya know.

I do like the ellipticals and I have a BACO mold (borrowed) for such a bullet that fits my Hepburn well. It is a tad long at 1.460", but I hope to test it eventually. I am also just starting to work with a BACO elliptical in my .44-77. My hope it that both bullets will work well for me.

I don't think you could go too far wrong with an original (Ideal) Postell design if that is available from BACO. Brooks can also cut one for you in .45 cal.

So there are choices out there if you want to give them a go. Both Brooks and BACO make good quality molds, I have a few from each.

The most important thing is to keep the length a bit below the max for your ROT.

[Martini2]

I read of several long range bullets that shot well and had different nose profiles. After all is not the major part of down range trip near or below the speed of sound ? This most probably negates the shock wave effects of different points on the projectiles. The key issues of accuracy you already note. Low velocity differentiation and balanced length and twist. I suggest (kindly ;-) that when we come out of hibernation in spring our attention turns to NEW Mold Syndrome. Always hoping to find the true grail ;-) M2

[Kurt]

I think most of us serious shooters in the black powder game have been looking for the grail. Shooting the .44-2.6 CPA these last two days and in the past as well as the .44-77 I'm pretty convinced that I found it.
Again today messing with the new scope I also had some test loads I used. It was close shooting at 100 yards but I had several groups a quarter would cover the holes without see the cuts through the paper.
I have a bullet for the .45 caliber just like it and it put me in the top 9 at the quigley using the .45-90.
In #3 at the Mt. 1000 using the same bullet and rifle.
I would sooner twist the elevation knob a couple points more and get the accuracy I want then use a bullet profile that gets marginal at extended ranges.
   

[Martini2]

Hello Kurt, you are the one true example of durable testing and ballistic tuning. Very few people can show as many one minute included angle grouping as your pages of data reveal (winter snow bank bullet trap etc. This is what is required to let the dogs loose with BPCR. I'd contend you could pick one of your best loads and invert the bullet backwards for real flat nose and have similar results ;-) Sure would get dem chickens attention at least ;-) Of course each rifle bullet combo is unique and does require the full treatment to develop. I recall article of are Government's 1870"s development of 45-70 rounds by firing over a mile distance. The tons of powder and PB expended came up with the now famous 510 gr. round nose. It is still not a bad choice today (well cast, uniform weight ect.) The next legionary profile is possibly the Postal or slightly pointed design. These are go to designs in either PP or GG renderings. I really like the way they escape from the mold blocks too. Best regards M2

[Kurt]

Well Gert I only show my best results. I shoot a lot and the best groups are just a small fraction.

Instead of inverting a bullet how about just making a .45-90 wad cutter

   

Seriously you have to see what your bullet alloy and load under the bullet will do to get the best from it. Yes one can just throw something in the pot and shoot it, that will also tell you what is going on. I just like seeing what is really going on and correct the issues.

Kurt

[august west]

What do folks think of the original factory Sharps ammo bullet profile? Was this design just a pleasing shape that looked suitable, or did they labor over it the way they did case length?

[Distant Thunder]

aw,

If you are asking about this style of bullet here are my thoughts.

   


This a very good design because 1) it mimics the elliptical shape used very effectively today is a bit simpler form (just 3 radii), 2) the nose length is 45% or less of the OAL and that is a good rule of thumb, 3) the nose tip is not overly sharp with a nose radius that is between 1/4 and 1/3 of caliber, also a good rule of thumb.

Just my opinion based on 30 years of shooting BPCR, but I don't think the ogive shape itself is real important as long as the following parameters are met:

1) The OAL is under the maximum length for the twist rate by about 5%.
2) The total nose length is 45% of the OAL or a little less.
3) The nose is capped with a radius that is between 25% and 33% of caliber.
4) The nose form is not overly slender and therefore minimizes nose slumping.

This is for Creedmoor bullets shot at 800 to 1000 yards. Under 800 yards you can get away with a slightly longer OAL, a more slender, longer nose that is more pointed at the tip. Keeping the velocity above 1300 fps helps too. The shorter the distance the more you can get away with in violating these guidelines. If you are only shooting 200 yards you can probably get away with almost anything if pushed fast enough.

The number one rule is the most important, if you want good consistent results you MUST keep the bullet overall length within the limits of what the twist rate will stabilize well. With black powder you can not increase the velocity enough to gain enough rpm to overcome a length that is over what a given twist rate can optimally stabilize.

Remember, YMMV!

[Distant Thunder]

Kurt,

It is my understanding that a full wadcutter bullet suffers stability issues at some point after 100 yards or so. They can shoot extremely well at 100 yards and less. I have now idea why, but just what I have been told.

What range was that target shot at?