Nosler gets a black eye from Varmimt Hunter...

[Songdog]

Anyone else see the article on Ballistic Coefficients in this quarters Varmint Hunter magazine?

" The Nosler Ballistic Tip bullet, the most overestimated of all the designs considered in this study, had a 6.33% average overestimate."

"... Nosler is generating their BCs for marketing purposes rather than to best inform the shooter of ballistic performance."

It is interesting to note that only two of the NBTs tested came even close the the advertised BC... my beloved 70 grain .243 looked miserable... losing nearly 9% (.310 advertised vs. .285 actual)... others fared even worse. The article is a very good read... and covers a ton of projectiles from Barnes, Hornady, and Sierra too... but it ain't very flattering for Nosler.

 

[Ridge_Runner]

pretty much BS IMO, all the bullets I ever tested except 1 had a different BC than was published, all a G1 BC is, is what the results were on the day they were tested under those conditions. as conditions change so does BC. some are adjusted by the makers to sea level, but we don't know which ones.
the 160 AccuBond has a published BC of .531, in order to make my charts match my trajectory I have to run it from .58 to .62 depending on station pressure. Berger VLD's and Hornady a-maxs are off also, its all in what conditions you shoot them under.
altitude decreases your bar pressure which increases your BC, MV changes your BC, too many variables to take the report seriously.
RR

 

[Songdog]

Twist rate has an effect on BC too.... have you read the article?

Lutz knows his stuff... and I see no intent to defaced Nosler... other than the numbers, and pointing out some laziness on Nosler's part (using same BC for AccuBond and BT of same cal/weight, even though ojive and boattail angles are different)...

I've never been one to take BC numbers as gospel... you always need to shoot that drop chart... but again... Nosler was by far the worst of all the manufacturers tested.

 

[RiverRider]

A theoretical BC based on physical attributes is fine as a guideline, but when computing BCs by actually shooting and measuring drop at various ranges is the only way to know what a particular rifle will do. Twist will have an effect because it directly affects stability. Stability has everything in the world to do with it because a perfectly stabilized bullet will achieve the highest possible BC for that bullet. A bullet that is not perfectly stabilized will shed velocity faster than one that is.

 

[JD338]

RR nailed it. There are too many variables to draw conclusions.
Nosler list their BC as an average so actual testing may produce different results.

JD338

 

[Songdog]

Seems to me, this test removed many of the variables by shooting them all at a constant velocity and running it over 400 yards rather than the standard 100 yards. I believe the manufacturers use the variables to their advantage when establishing BCs... This test seems to remove those inconsistencies. Example: Nosler uses a muzzle velocity of 3900fps to establish a BC for the 55 grain .243 bullet... and a muzzle velocity of 3100fps to establish the BC for the 55 grain .22 bullet.... not exactly apples to apples... even within the same manufacturer's data.

For what it's worth, I've had it work out both ways when shooting long range data... the .25 cal BTs have been notorious under-performers in the BC department for me... but I've been surprised by some of the accubonds (especially the 160/7mm and 200/.30.

 

[Desert Fox]

It's all marketing hype. For the life of me, why not all bullet manufacturers follows Berger in providing customer with BC listing base on G7 rather than the archaic G1. I guess it don't really matter unless you're a long-range shooter.

BC listing! take it for what it is. What really matters is what you're getting in yours.

 

[300WSM]

I don't want to accuse or assume but let me add something to this discussion.

Having imported firearms I would have to arrange getting the guns to writers who wanted to do a story on them.
Kissing butt and being overly nice was common practice because if you didn't there were times when you got slammed or at the very least not focused on in the the story. If you were in fact all smiles and more fake smiles to the writer then your product looked great.
Think about this first before dissecting the story.

As others have mentioned there are so many variables in this comparison.

Furthermore when all is said and done, yet again, brand "y" bullet shoots the best out of rifle "A" while brand "x" bullet shoots the best from rifle "b". There is no magical number to determine this only a rifle, a rest and a target.

 

[Songdog]

Have any of you who commented actually read the article?

If not... how do you know that there were "so many variables"?

If so, how do you explain the accuracy of other bullet lines when shot under these conditions.... and the lack thereof by Nosler and Barnes?

 

[Ridge_Runner]

I've never got the g7 numbers to match either, using bergers numbers for the 140 vld in my 6.5 gibbs, I'm not even close.
now maybe it works and I'm doing something wrong but my way of thinking, the only difference in the g1 and the g7 is the form function, and in my mind anything that can affect a g1 bc will also affect the g7 numbers. but I know what works for me.
songdog, I did not read the article, I have however sent alot of rounds along ways down range, nobodys BC has ever been spot on for me in all conditions. the varibles I speak of are bar pressure, temp, and humidity, you have these variables every time you shoot.
RR

 

[Greg Nolan]

That's a shame. I havn't run across many velocities or BCs that have actually matched any manufactors numbers. The variation in accuracy from one bullet to another in one gun or another, as mentioned, is far more significant that the stated statistics. I don't care what the exact #s are. I care about what shoots good in my rifle, and more importantly, what are the terminal performance aspects. I can live with a slight variation in in bullet trajectory, I have adjustments on my scope for that, but I cant adjust bullet upset. Nosler Accubonds and Partitions perform reliably when and where it realy counts.
Greg

 

[baltz526]

A BC of + - 10% is close enough to get the data for your load and rifle started. The problem with the artical is it trys to turn a variable into a constant. Then blames a product, not their own lack of comprehension. Nits picking Wits

 

[Desert Fox]

Here's a good read.

http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/bctesting2.html

 

[Songdog]

A BC of + - 10% is close enough to get the data for your load and rifle started. The problem with the artical is it trys to turn a variable into a constant. Then blames a product, not their own lack of comprehension. Nits picking Wits

Funny how the Amax line was very accurate, as was nearly all of Sierra's numbers.

+/- 10% is good enough to start building a drop chart... but I'd be pretty pissed I pay $25-$30 for a box of bullets with an advertised BC of .500, only to find it's more like .450... because there's a big difference. That's kind of the point... BCs advertised by Nosler and Barnes seem to be enhanced for marketing purposes...

I don't expect the BC to be exact... but I expect it to be close... I won't quit shooting Noslers... but I think I'll be shooting a lot more Hornadys in the future...

 

[Ridge_Runner]

This is why for years Richard Graves of wildcat bullets would not publish a BC for his bullets. His very popular 200 gr .284 bullet was used by hundreds of long range hunters, and they took many many head of game at astonishing ranges, and the BC's used by all those shooters went from .74 all the way up to .9 your actual BC is what ya shoot.
RR

 

[FOTIS]

I take any claimed BC from any maker with a grain of salt. Too many variables involved.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Ballistic coeeficient is one of those numbers that are stated as a constant number to ease in the calculation of a trajectory but these are actually not constants and form an intregral curve as velocity, stabilization and atmospheric conditions change. Trying to use them as an absolute fixed constants will yield only an partial trajectory estimate most of the time. The longer the range, the less the certainty that the constant will fit your actual trajectory. Few bullets with either G1 or G7 profile biullets and certainly not under all velocity ranges and atmosheric conditions. You have to actually get out and measure drops to find the real curve parameters for this "constant" which is not always. So take them with a grain of salt.

 

[nvbroncrider]

Like has been said when a manufacturer does his testing it's in a controled enviroment. In the real world you have so many varibles that you can't account for in a lab. If they all standized the test as far as temp humidity atmospheric pressure your going to get a good idea againest one another but as soon as one varible changes the answer does as well.

 

[Songdog]

Like has been said when a manufacturer does his testing it's in a controled enviroment. In the real world you have so many varibles that you can't account for in a lab. If they all standized the test as far as temp humidity atmospheric pressure your going to get a good idea againest one another but as soon as one varible changes the answer does as well.

That's exactly what this test did... it used the industry standard for elevation, temp,.and pressure...

I'm also familiar with Richard Graves, and shot a couple hundred of his 125 .25 cal bullets. They shot well, but did not perform any better than the 115 Berger with a BC working out somewhere around .450 in my rifles.

I understand all the ballistic and physics references that have been referenced here... but it still doesn't change the fact that Nosler was the worst of all the bullets tested, and thier laziness with load data and BC testing is becoming apparent. I'm looking through my Nosler #1 manual, from 1976, I see many many loads that are exactly the same as the loads in the #5 manual... even the velocities are the same. Now... I find it hard to believe that IMR4350 (or any other powder) is exactly the same now as it was 35 years ago.... and certainly the ole solid base does not exhibit exactly the same velocity with exactly the same charge that an equivalent Ballistic Tip will. This new (old #1) manual, combined with this article and some recent personal experience with a couple bullets has really called my favorite bullet company into question. I absolutely despise when companies rest on previous merit, and expect consumer's continued support. I know Nosler has spent some time developing new projectiles recently (AccuBond, e-tip, custom comp., etc) and that is all well and good... However, maybe they should spend some time and resources to develop better testing and data collection proceedures to better service their clientele as well.

 

[bullet]

That's a shame. I havn't run across many velocities or BCs that have actually matched any manufactors numbers. The variation in accuracy from one bullet to another in one gun or another, as mentioned, is far more significant that the stated statistics. I don't care what the exact #s are. I care about what shoots good in my rifle, and more importantly, what are the terminal performance aspects. I can live with a slight variation in in bullet trajectory, I have adjustments on my scope for that, but I cant adjust bullet upset. Nosler Accubonds and Partitions perform reliably when and where it realy counts.
Greg

Amen, I have never trusted BC I just get my rifle to shoot and then when testing in the field make my adjustments and the AccuBond and Partition are the best all around terminal killers out there on the market today and I have dropped a lot of game in my life time both short and long with many different makes and brands of bullets.