Originally Posted by Marlin Junky
Yes it can.
|
   
   
|
|
Yes it can.
Greetings Marlin Junky and Larry Gibson:
Butcher, it's been a short while since I seen your name on one of these repies. It's good to see you back.
I use a hand pump to air up my 909S. Mainly cause I don't have the spare cash to lay out for a carbon fiber tank and hoses.
When I was out shooting last weekend I did find myself wishing I had an air tank after about the fourth time I topped of my air reservoir but, I can live with a hand pump for now. Once you get a pumping routine down it's not that bad.
Larry I think your bullet suggestion is just about right on the money. Back on post 29 is a picture of a selection of cast bullets that JIMinPHX gave me when I first started this thread. Jim milled/drilled hollow bases of various depths and contours on each. One of them bullets was similar to the bullet you've suggested; only slightly shorter.
I wasn't sure how they'd fly cause their diameters were smaller than the measured dimensions of my bore. When I shot them last weekend they all seemed to shoot just fine. They all seemed to end up at or near where I was aiming.
My reason for trying to come up with an "Air Gun Specific" bullet for my Sam Yang is because I'm wanting a design that will give me good interior, exterior and terminal ballistics in a slow moving bullet. I want to be done with the days where Air Guns just shoot pellet-type projectiles and cast pistol bullets. I'm looking for a "Dedicated, Air Gun Specific" bullet.
I know it's been said again and again that bullet design is a balancing act between all three of those qualities but, I'm still going to try to have my cake and eat it too. I think all three ballistic qualities can be had with the right design.
The design I'll be casting this weekend is the design I hope will work. Although; with the flat-nose contour I ended up with I think it will detract from the exterior ballistics this time around. My next attempt will be more of a pointed nose.
OK, I just caught myself starting to ramble on like I actually now what I'm talking about. The truth be told; with all there is to know about ballistics and bullet design, it would be closer to the truth for me to state that I know nothing, rather than trying to explain what and the why I'm doing what I'm doing in coming up with a new bullet design.
There has to be a design that could rightly be considered "Optimum" for these Big Bore Air Guns. And since I haven't found it by searching the internet then I figured I'd try to come up with that "Optimum" Air Gun Specific bullet design myself.
Wether I succeed is still up in the air but, I think I'm off to a decent start.
HollowPoint
Last edited by HollowPoint; 09-03-2010 at 08:43 PM.
I finally finished the work on my second bullet mold attempt. It turned out a little rough around the edges but still functional.
The bullets also are dropping from the mold a little rough around the edges but, I know they'll still work. How well they work is yet to be seen though.
If I get a chance I'll take them out and shoot them this Labor Day weekend.
It's a relief to finish this mold. I did learn alot from all the mistakes I made. I'm kind of anxious to get started on my next mold but I want to test this first batch of bullets first.
No sense in building another mold if these don't shoot well; even though I'm relatively confident that they will, I could be mistaken. I've been wrong before. I'm trying real hard not to get ahead of myself but it's difficult not to.
Since I'm the one that's developing these bullets I've taken it upon myself to name them as well. I'm calling them, "Arc-Angel " bullets . (C) Copyright 2010 Tim Montano If that name has already been applied to another bullet design I'll worry about it later. Right now, "Arc-Angel" bullets (C) Copyright 2010 Tim Montano are their working title.
Why "Arc-Angels ?" (C) Copyright 2010 Tim Montano
Because, it's the "Arc-Angels" that usher in new eras. They are the Heralds of new beginnings. If these or any of the modifications I make to these bullets perform as I hope they will, I think this is an appropriate name for these "Air Gun Dedicated" bullets.
Behold; Fellow Big Bore Air Gunners; I bring you tidings of great joy. For today a new Air Gun Specific Bullet has been born; Yada, Yada, Yada. You get the picture.
There will finally be a bullet that has been researched, designed and tested specifically for Air guns. Not just for shooting water-filled jugs with dramatic effect in order to sell to the uninitiated cast bullet novice. Not just a flat-nosed, un-gainly, aerodynamically inefficient slug of lead that shoots well but isn't really made for air guns and tends to destabilize at higher velocities.
I know that there's a good chance that these "Arc-Angel" bullets (C) Copyright 2010 Tim Montano are just an exercise in futility but, I just can't help getting ahead of myself and thinking, " If these work well enough I can scale them up or down to the various small-bore and larger-bore air guns being used today.
That is yet to be seen though.
Here's a couple of pics of how they look. I hope to be able to post some updates on how they shoot as time permits.
HollowPoint
Last edited by HollowPoint; 09-22-2011 at 09:07 AM.
Looking forward to the testing. Hope they fly true!
Actually, there are a few boolit designs out there that were researched, designed and tested specifically for airguns. Off the top of my head; Gary Barnes' designs (he keeps most of them a secret between himself and his customers).....Eric Henderson designed a DragonSlayer boolit a couple/few years ago, and Seth Rowland designed the "JR" series WFN airgun slugs about a year ago. I think there is also another Cast Boolit forum member here that designed some great hunting slugs for the DragonSlayer.
" Hope they fly true! "
Hi Butcher: That makes two of us.
I've seen some of the bullets designed by the gentlemen you mentioned. I'm leaning more toward "aerodynamic" bullets with carefully proportioned hollow points.
I'm wanting good flight characteristics without sacrificing the punch that most of these other Air Gun bullet appear to be designed around.
That's were the small hollow point comes in. I'm hoping that the aerodynamic profile of the bullet makes it slice through the air and fly true until it reaches the target; at which time the small hollow point initiates just the right amount of expansion to equal the effect of the wide flat nose profiles that many of these other bullet designs are known for.
HollowPoint
Last edited by HollowPoint; 09-07-2010 at 05:36 PM.
I've been trying like crazy to figure out how to calculate the Ballistic Coefficient of a bullet the shape of my new "Arc-Angel" bullets.
I've googled up more than one online calculator set up specifically for this type of calculation but, I must be entering incorrect information in one or more of the data fields cause, it's just doesn't seem to be coming out right; or I'll get error messages instead.
I've even gone as far as searching bullet-data-bases for bullets with profiles and weights as close to the profiles of my "Arc-Angel" bullets as possible, in hopes of getting a clue of the ballistic coefficient of my bullets.
I think it has a lot to do with me sucking at math that makes this a frustrating ordeal. Anybody out there know how to do this? A little help please.
HollowPoint
HP,I've been trying like crazy to figure out how to calculate the Ballistic Coefficient of a bullet the shape of my new "Arc-Angel" bullets.
I've googled up more than one online calculator set up specifically for this type of calculation but, I must be entering incorrect information in one or more of the data fields cause, it's just doesn't seem to be coming out right; or I'll get error messages instead.
I've even gone as far as searching bullet-data-bases for bullets with profiles and weights as close to the profiles of my "Arc-Angel" bullets as possible, in hopes of getting a clue of the ballistic coefficient of my bullets.
I think it has a lot to do with me sucking at math that makes this a frustrating ordeal. Anybody out there know how to do this? A little help please.
HollowPoint
Go to Radio Shack and see if you can buy a very long cable for your Chrony OR set one of these out at two different distances (perhaps 10 and 200 feet, whatever):
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct...tnumber=531741
With the F1, you'll need a spotting scope to read the display. I would should several groups at the distance you plan on measuring the velocity before actually shooting over the chronograph. Then use the following app:
http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmbcv-5.1.cgi while trying the different drag functions (you'll see what I'm talking about once you get there).
MJ
This looks like it could be a serious contender for the Sam Yang in the lightweight division. The latest airgun-specific design.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...523#post992523
Hi Butcher.
I believe you could be right about that new bullet you posted the link for. If it had a round nose it would almost be a dead ringer for the UPP bullet.
If it were a little longer it would almost be clone of the "REAL" bullets I've seen or the "Raptor" bullet that was kept under wraps for so long by its creator. It has all of the characteristics of those bullets known to shoot extremely well out of the .45 Big Bores. The fact that it's a lighter weight projectile makes it even more interesting.
I hope it shoots like gang-busters. Light weight bullets like that are what seems to be missing in the .45 big bore ranks. Well done Mellow-Man.
Marlin Junky:
The link you provided is one of the three Ballistic Coefficient calculators I came up with as well. I went back and checked all the numbers I had entered.
In the data field asking for distance between chronographs I had inadvertently put 10 yards rather than 90 yards. I believe this would be correct if I placed my first chronograph at 10 yards and my second at 100 yards.
Also, just out of curiosity, I went through all the "Drag-values" as you suggested, to see what the differences would be. The lowest BC that turned up was .119 using the G1 value and .190 using the G7 and the RA7 (or RA4 value; I can't remember what it was now) value.
One of the things I read about these "Drag-Values" stated that, "for "Standard Bullets" the G1 value was used" and "for Boat-Tail Bullets the G7 value was generally used" but, because these Arc-Angel bullets don't fall neatly into the "Standard Bullet" or the "Boat-Tail" bullet genre of bullets designs, I'm still not convinced that I'm getting correct numbers.
In my very short and informal search for this information, I've come across bullets with profiles like school busses that have higher BC's. Of course these other bullets are being fired at higher velocities so that must also figure into their equations.
I'll keep looking into it and see what I can come up with.
I wasn't able to go shooting this weekend but I did manage to cast a few more bullets on Sunday after tweeking the Boat-Tail ends of my mold. I now have the lightest bullet hovering at 160 grains with the heaviest of the three still at 225 grains.
It was the 225 grain bullet that I was attempting to run the BC numbers on.
I was hoping to get the lightest bullet down to about 150 grains so that when I make up my new mold with pointier nosed bullets, the added nose weight would bring me back to about 160 grains. I'll just have to see how it works out.
HollowPoint
Last edited by HollowPoint; 09-07-2010 at 09:23 PM.
Opps: posted the same reply twice. My bad.
HollowPoint
Last edited by HollowPoint; 09-07-2010 at 09:23 PM.
The Arc-Angel has landed.
OK, I'm getting carried away.
I got a chance to shoot a few of them at short range. (30-50 yard offhand)
It looks as though right now -with this flat nosed profile- the heavier bullets are more accurate than the light weights.
I didn't take my camera with me. I didn't even plan on going out cause I've been feeling under the weather for the last few days but, I was just dying to try these out.
It was informal shooting to be sure but, these Arc-Angel bullets showed some promise.
The metal stock for the new mold I plan to make should arrive next week. Right now, my work schedule next week looks like it's starting out kind of busy but if I finish up in time I can start making up my parts.
Now that I know they'll shoot, I plan on making an adjustable Cramer Style two cavity mold.
If it comes out like I've planned, I'll be able to cast Arc-Angel bullets of weights ranging from 160 grains to 230 grains in the pointy-nose profile and 155 to 225 grains in the flat nose profile.
With a separate jig, I can hollow point them and hopefully have some long range hunting bullets with a good ballistic coefficient for such a slow moving bullet.
The weights I've listed are just estimates based on the weight I'm getting now with flat-nose bullets cast from straight-stick-on wheel weights.
I know it's kind of a bold plan for a novice mold maker but, having learned from a multitude of mistakes I've made, I now believe it's doable.
HollowPoint
(C) Copyright 2010 Tim Montano
Last edited by HollowPoint; 09-12-2010 at 10:23 PM.
Hey, I’m back.
To those of you that have been following this thread, I’m sorry it’s been so long since I added anything new.
For the last few weeks I’ve been dealing with one of those “No-Medical-Insurance Cancer-Scares” you hear about from time to time; along with the accompanying “Your-Money-or-Your-Life” drama that the medical professionals tend to interject into these already stressful situations.
Because of this situation my regular routine was put on the back burner till I could get things worked out.
I did log on here from time to time just to get my mind off of these events.
The bad news is, I have quacks practicing "Defensive Medicine" for doctors. The good news is, it was just a case of severe Acid Reflux.
Go figure.
I still have a little healing time ahead of me but, for the most part I can resume my “Before-The-Scare” routine.
Other than the initial informal shooting I did with my Arc-Angel Bullets, I haven’t gotten a chance to do any further shooting. That will be changing soon. Now that I know I’m not in for a prolonged session of physical and psychological distress I can resume my R&D of this bullet design.
I did get a chance to tinker with my second prototype bullet mold while going through the above mentioned ordeal. (also, just to get my mind off of things I was going through)
I decided to build a mold that would allow me to cast my Arc-Angel Bullets in as many configurations as possible out of the same mold. I figured it would save me the time and expense of having to build multiple bullet molds in order to find the optimum weight, length or profile.
Prototype number 2 isn't nearly as rough around the edges as my first bullet mold but, like my first mold, I know it will work just the same.
Once I figure out which of these Arc-Angel Bullet configurations is the optimum one, I can concentrate on building my molds specifically for that bullet shape and weight.
I think I’ve now figured out a way to build my molds in the traditional hollow point mold configuration without the use of a CNC mill. The thing that was holding me back was the rebated-boat-tail of these Arc-Angel Bullets.
The form I have to make for the Rebated Boat Tail is so deep that putting the boat-tail form on the top of the mold may have given me fill out problems.
I want to test a few bullets before I move onto prototype number 3 though.
I’ve included a couple of pics of prototype number 2 below. Stay tuned for further developments.
HollowPoint
(C) Copyright 2010 Tim Montano
Last edited by HollowPoint; 09-22-2011 at 09:07 AM.
Hi all:
I tried casting with my Second Prototype Arc-Angel Bullet mold this morning. I immediately started having problems.
Even with the problems I did manage to cast a few good bullets but, these problems all stemmed from my poor choice of materials with respect the the "Cramer-Components."
I made them out of aluminum; the cross-pins and the main cylinder into which the Rebated Boat Tail form slides.
This meant that the hotter I got my mold the more galling that occurred with the cross-pins and the main cylinder. Which in turn meant that I couldn't keep a fast enough casting-pace to maintain the proper mold temperature. (not to mention the Heat-Sink effect that aluminum has anyway)
Although the mold design appears to be sound and functional, my choice of metal for some of the key components is less than adequate.
I'm going to have to ditch the existing aluminum cross-pins and cylinder and turn some steel components to replace them. Also, I wasn't to crazy about the function of my alignment pins. I think I didn't make them large enough. I'll have to replace those too.
Hopefully I'll get some time to do that next week.
To give you an idea of what I was wanting to achieve with this Arc-Angel Bullet mold design, I've included a low quality image of a few of the bullets that did come out usable.
HollowPoint
(C) Copyright 2010 Tim Montano
Last edited by HollowPoint; 09-22-2011 at 09:07 AM.
Sorry, I'm getting in on this very late and I don't have time to review all the posts leading up to its development; however, why is this design preferable to a hollow base mold similar to Lee 459-405-HB but with a much lighter as-cast weight?
Would it be possible to duplicate .45 ACP pistol ballistics with this Korean rifle and a soft lead "pellet"? If so, I would think it would be adequate for most deer hunting situation at bow-type ranges (e.g., from a ground blind or tree stand).
MJ
Greetings MJ:
"Would it be possible to duplicate .45 ACP pistol ballistics with this Korean rifle and a soft lead "pellet"? If so, I would think it would be adequate for most deer hunting situation at bow-type ranges (e.g., from a ground blind or tree stand)."
I would say yes to both. In fact, the main reason I bought this air rifle was to replace the traditional
bow and arrows I was using to hunt deer here in AZ. I developed a case of tendonitis in my drawing arm so I decided to sell the bow and use the money to buy this rifle.
While doing some research on these Big Bore Air Rifles I found that alot of guys were doing just that; I mean, hunting deer, hog, coyotes, among other game.
Unfortunately, I didn't know that the only thing that can be legally hunted with any pneumatic weapon here in Arizona are rabbits. I found this out only after purchasing the gun.
I'm hoping our local Game and Fish department will change those regulations in the upcoming year. If not, I'll have to be happy using it to hunt rabbits. Still alot of fun.
As far as my bullet design being preferable; I really can't say that it's preferable to any other projectile. I've shot various .45 caliber bullets out of this rifle and they all seemed to hit at or near where I was aiming.
When I first started this thread, JIMinPHX gave me several .45 caliber bullets of different weights and configurations to try out. He had manually hollowed out the bases of each bullet just to see if one performed better than the other.
The problem was, (if you can call it a problem cause there really wasn't one) they were all .45 caliber pistol bullets designed to shoot out of powder burning guns. My reason for coming up with the Arc-Angel Bullet design was to deliberately design and test a bullet specifically for the Big Bore .45 caliber PCP Air Rifle.
I didn't want a blunt nosed pistol bullet. I wanted an aerodynamically efficient bullet that would give me good internal, external and terminal ballistics when shot out of a low-velocity air rifle like mine.
After doing some research on optimum bullet designs for slow moving bullets, (700-900 fps) I decided to incorporate a rebated boat tail and a semi-hollow-base into the same design just to see if it would shoot.
As luck and a little good research would have it, the design has shown to have some promise. That's why I've continued to pluck away at it trying to tweak this design into an optimum weight and profile for my Sam Yang .45 caliber PCP Air Rifle.
There are presently a whole lot of projectiles made specifically for these Big Bore Air Rifles and some of them are real good shooters. (and more coming online every day) I was just wanting to go in a different direction with my bullet design.
You'll find that most of these other designs are basically full wad-cutter profiles with high driving bands and deep lube grooves. For the most part, they are not made to be ballistically aerodynamic.
So far it's worked out pretty well. I still have alot more tweaking and testing to do but, I figure that in two or three more month I'll be ready to send some bullets out for testing in other Air rifles of the same caliber. So far I've only shot them out of my rifle.
I hope I made some sense with my reply. Thanks for the inquiry.
HollowPoint
(C) Copyright 2010 Tim Montano
Last edited by HollowPoint; 09-28-2010 at 09:09 PM.
With the 909S, yes you can. The 909 is more like a target .45ACP, or black-powder pistol in power as far as fpe is concerned. Tuned 909S rifles have spit out 143grain roundball at over 1010fps, 200grain boolits at 887fps, 218grainers at 816fps, 238@778fps, 305grain@718fps, and even 415grainers@633fps (try that with your .45ACP lol!). So that's about medium range .45ACP, right?
Personally, as far as boolit design is concerned I'm concerned only with accuracy, the best velocity for the boolit weight, and terminal ballistics. If you are just shooting steel plates then any ol' roundnose slug that is accurate will do fine I imagine. For hunting I want to slap them hard with a big meplat. The hole in game is noticeably larger when a WFN profile is used at these velocities, even over a LFN which is still a good sized meplat.
I get plenty of accuracy at 50 yards with a WFN (under an inch c-to-c). If I'm shooting something farther out than that, it's just a target so any accurate slug will do (though I've rung 6inch spinner plates several times in a row out at around 120 yards shooting 260grain WFN slugs that hammer those plates like no other). The Lee ROA has shown to produce the most FPE in my rifle to date (a 909 at about 270-285fpe with most medium weight slugs).
Some old-school gun guy once said "pistol rounds don't have a ballistic co-efficient" or something to that affect. Meaning that the short range ballistics of these rifles makes BC a mute point under 100 yards or so where the majority of my shooting takes place. 150-200+ yard shooting may merit something out of the ordinary, though.
Last edited by Butcher45; 09-29-2010 at 12:37 AM.
Hi all: Many Thanks to those of you who may have participated in this sale. As of now, all the items I listed are sold pending receipt of payment. I am now a little closer to testing my bullets.
This is just a short note to those who may be interested. I will be moving into my formal accuracy testing of the Arc-Angel Bullets within the next couple of weeks.
In an effort to make this testing more convenient, I've decided to part-out/sell my last T/C Contender Carbine setup.
The funds raised by this sale will be used to purchase a High Pressure Carbon Fiber Air Tank and accompanying hoses and such. Without this Carbon Fiber tank I'm afraid I'd be doing more Hand-Pumping than testing.
Please be aware that the phrase, "Hand-Pumping" in no way refers to the act of masturbation.
If you know anyone that may be interested in T/C Contender parts, please steer them to the Swapping and Selling area of this forum. I'm not the only one selling stuff there. Who knows, maybe they'll be interested in something that one of the other sellers has listed.
I'm hoping this notice doesn't go against the policies of this Cast Boolits website. If it does please let me know and I'll remove immediately.
Thanks guys.
HollowPoint
Last edited by HollowPoint; 10-02-2010 at 10:45 AM.
It's been about a month since I last went out in the field to do some shooting.
I took the Sam Yang .45 out to do some rabbit hunting this morning. The weather has finally turned favorable for some morning and evening desert hiking.
Last Saturday I cast up some 155 grain Arc-Angel Bullets that I figured would be absolutely the perfect weight for rabbits. They may have been the perfect weight but they didn't seem to be grouping worth a darn. They were all impacting about a foot to the left of my point of aim at 50 yard and a little higher than the 200 grainers I shot out of this gun the last time I was out.
I also had some 200 grain Devastators left over from a previous outing and a small number of 200 grain Arc-Angel Bullets as well. These slightly heavier bullets both seemed to shoot right to my point of aim; shooting off-hand.
Incidentally, I went to the same spot I was at the last time I took out my Sam Yang. At that time it appeared that there was a cotton tail rabbit under every bush.
I didn't see a single rabbit this time around.
What really surprised me was that I spooked up several Mule-Deer at several different locations as I was trampling along.
I think the reason that the lighter weight Arc-Angel Bullets don't seem to shoot as consistently is because the shorter they are the less driving-band there is to catch the rifling and keep the bullet aligned when it's pushed into the chamber.
If you'll notice in the bullet pics I provided in previous posts, the shorter Arc-Angel Bullets are at their widest at the very tail of the bullet. This appears to give only enough contact area to seal the bore but not enough to center the bullet in the chamber or the bore as it's fired. It actually creates more of a pivot point for the bullet rather than a means to center the bullet.
I haven't tried the heaviest Arc-Angel Bullets yet. I'm still waiting for all the funds I need to purchase one of those Carbon Fiber Air Tanks I've got my eye on. Anyhow, the heaviest Arc-Angel Bullet I can get out of my present/latest mold is 240 grains.
I'm hoping that if the 200 grainers are any indication, then the 240's will do much better.
If the heavier Arc-Angel Bullets don't give me enough increase in performance then, another bullet-design-tweeking will be in order.
Oh well; it felt good to get out again. It will feel even better once I can get to the range for some formal bullet testing.
HollowPoint
(C) Copyright 2010 Tim Montano
Clear something up for me if you will.
You said that the 155grainers "didn't seem to be grouping worth a darn. They were all impacting about a foot to the left of my point of aim at 50 yard and a little higher than the 200 grainers I shot out of this gun the last time I was out."
If they were all impacting at about the same place, why do you think they seem to be inaccurate? From reading your post it gives the impression that you were shooting 155grainers while zero'd for 200grain Devastators, and that they were hitting off paper. Did you see the group they printed?
Do you think they didn't seem to shoot well just because they hit so far away from the 200grainers zero'd POI? Different weight of boolit (even different designs of the same weight) can impact anywhere compared to each-other. Different diameters can print far from other diameters on paper. As an extreme example, I recently had very undersized .452's hitting about 3-4 feet to the right of another boolits zero'd POI@50yards. Lots of different dynamics at play with that valve, and in that barrel, with various hardnesses of alloy. Heavy boolits often impact higher than lighter ones using the same zero (as they are commonly reported to do in C@B revolvers).
A hunting buddy went out on a hunt loading slugs in his 909 that were about 50 grains off of what he had sighted in with (RB/EPP/UG's). He thought it wouldn't make much difference in the POI, which I insisted it would. He was even going to go for a headshot. I told him I doubted that he would hit the head of a coyote with a different load than he zero'd at. We went target shooting the next week, and I had him take a shot at the target with the 200grainers, and it showed that he would have cleanly missed the head of a coyote, and possibly could have missed a body shot it was shooting so high.
It will be nice to see you post groups on paper comparing your boolit designs to the more established/proven stuff to see how they compare. That will be very interesting.
Where are the chrony shot strings? WE WANT CHRONY SHOT STRINGS LOL!
Hi Butcher:
You know, as soon as I'd finished writing my last post/reply I had a feeling that someone would come on and question some of the things I'd just written. I can only blame myself. I don't usually go into any great detail when I write something new.
That lack of detail leaves folks to either wonder what the heck I meant or completely misinterpret what they've just read.
I'll try to answer your questions in the order they were asked.
"If they were all impacting at about the same place, why do you think they seem to be inaccurate?"
I was shooting at a small rock about 50 or so yards away. This small rock was sitting in the middle of a dry sandy wash. I could clearly see the impact craters where each of my shots was hitting; and, as I stated, they were impacting about 12 inches to the left and a little higher than the 200 grainers I shot the last time I was out shooting this gun.
"Did you see the group they printed?" The impact creators were spread out a good 4,5 or 6 inches in that general impact area. I didn't have a tape measure or a camera with me so I'm just guessing at the measurements.
"From reading your post it gives the impression that you were shooting 155grainers while zeroed for 200-grain Devastators, and that they were hitting off paper." That's exactly what I did. When your checking accuracy from one load or another (especially at the close range of 50 yards) there's really no need to adjust the sights. I expected these lighter bullets to have a point of impact different from the 200 grainers. By simply holding my aim at that small rock, (even though the sights were set for the 200 grainers) I could clearly see where the 155's were impacting; and how well they were grouping.
"Do you think they didn't seem to shoot well just because they hit so far away from the 200-grainers zero'd POI?" I think I just coverd this question with my last couple of answers.
In trying to figure out what might be causing these apparent inaccuracies the only thing I could come up with at this time was mentioned in the sentence, "I think the reason that the lighter weight Arc-Angel Bullets don't seem to shoot as consistently is because the shorter they are the less driving-band there is to catch the rifling and keep the bullet aligned when it's pushed into the chamber."
"It will be nice to see you post groups on paper comparing your boolit designs to the more established/proven stuff to see how they compare. That will be very interesting." I completely agree with you here on both counts.
"Where are the chrony shot strings?" I actually have a Brand New Crony that I bought several years ago to check the velocity of my 17 Remington. I never did use it. It's still sitting in the box in my storage room. When I finally start with my bullet testing I'll blow the dust off of it and post some numbers. Right now I think it would be a pointless waste of time.
" WE WANT CHRONY SHOT STRINGS LOL!" You know Butcher, when I look at the number of hits that this particular post has gotten over time and then I look at the names on the replies, I sometimes feel like you and I are the only ones actually present; with an occasional visit from some of the other good-guys on this site. I figure we've each come onto this post/thread at least a couple of thousand times apiece.
I know you've garnered alot of useful info during your run with these Big Bore Air Rifles and it's always good when I learn something new from one of your responses but, it would be nice to hear from someone who may know something that neither one of us has heard of or learned yet.
Is there any body else out there reading these words that has any thoughts or new ideas that can help in this process of coming up with an Optimum Air-Gun-Specific bullet for the Sam Yang Big Bore?
I'm not going to laugh at your ideas. I know what it feels like to be laughed at for thinking something different than the accepted norms of this forum.
And I promise I won't question your intelligence or presume you to be ignorant either. I know what that feels like too.
I guess I'm just needing to know that it's not just me and Butcher45 trying to teach each other what, (for the most part) we already know.
HollowPoint
Last edited by HollowPoint; 10-11-2010 at 11:34 AM.
Posting Permissions
| BP | Bronze Point | IMR | Improved Military Rifle | PTD | Pointed |
| BR | Bench Rest | M | Magnum | RN | Round Nose |
| BT | Boat Tail | PL | Power-Lokt | SP | Soft Point |
| C | Compressed Charge | PR | Primer | SPCL | Soft Point "Core-Lokt" |
| HP | Hollow Point | PSPCL | Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" | C.O.L. | Cartridge Overall Length |
| PSP | Pointed Soft Point | Spz | Spitzer Point | SBT | Spitzer Boat Tail |
| LRN | Lead Round Nose | LWC | Lead Wad Cutter | LSWC | Lead Semi Wad Cutter |
| GC | Gas Check |
Reply With Quote
