Figure 2: Litz and Hornady G1 BCs vs. sectional density.
Style Diameter Mass SD (in)
A-MAX 0.224 A-MAX 0.224 A-MAX 0.224 A-MAX 0.243 A-MAX 0.264 A-MAX 0.284 A-MAX 0.308 A-MAX 0.308 A-MAX 0.308 A-MAX 0.308
(gr) 52
75 80
Figure 3: Litz BCs and Hornady’s claims for the Hornady SST and V-MAX bullets tested by Litz.
Hornady Litz Litz Overestimate
(lbs/in²) G1 BC G1 BC G7 BC (%) 0.148 0.247
0.214 0.435 0.228 0.453
105 0.254 0.500 140 0.287 0.585 162 0.287 0.625 155 0.233 0.435 168 0.253 0.475 178 0.268 0.495 208 0.313 0.648
0.280 0.119 3.78 0.424 0.212 2.59 0.463 0.231 -2.16 0.505 0.252 -0.99 0.600 0.299 -2.5 0.617 0.307 1.30 0.424 0.212 2.59 0.461 0.230 3.04 0.481 0.240 2.91 0.651 0.324 -0.46
Table 2: Litz BCs and Hornady’s claims for the Hornady A-MAX bullets tested by Litz. The average overestimate is 1.01%.
Table 2 compares Hornady and Litz BCs for the A-MAX match bullet design. Having a polycarbonate tip, soft lead, and a relatively thin jacket, the A-MAX is not a bad choice for varmint hunting. The average overestimate is 1.01%. The Hornady A-MAX .264 140-grain had a conservative estimate, low by 2.5%. Two A-MAX bullets were overestimated by more than 3%: the 52-grain .224 and the 168-grain .308.
Style Diameter Mass SD (in)
V-MAX 0.224 V-MAX 0.224 V-MAX 0.224 V-MAX 0.243 V-MAX 0.243 V-MAX 0.243 V-MAX 0.243 V-MAX 0.264 V-MAX 0.277 V-MAX 0.284 SST 0.257 SST 0.264 SST 0.284 SST 0.308 SST 0.308 SST 0.338
Page 102 Winter 2012
(gr) 40
50 55 58 65 75 87 95
Hornady Litz Litz Overestimate
(lbs/in²) G1 BC G1 BC G7 BC (%) 0.114 0.200
0.142 0.242 0.157 0.255 0.140 0.250 0.157 0.280 0.181 0.330 0.210 0.400 0.195 0.365
110 0.205 0.370 120 0.213 0.365 117 0.253 0.390 129 0.264 0.485 154 0.273 0.525 150 0.226 0.415 165 0.248 0.447 225 0.281 0.515
0.191 0.191 4.71 0.231 0.116 4.76 0.253 0.127 0.79 0.238 0.119 5.04 0.268 0.134 4.48 0.326 0.163 1.23 0.392 0.196 2.04 0.364 0.182 0.27 0.360 0.180 2.78 0.368 0.184 -0.82 0.374 0.187 4.28 0.495 0.247 -2.02 0.503 0.251 4.37 0.413 0.206 0.48 0.449 0.224 -0.45 0.533 0.266 -3.38
Table 3: Litz BCs and Hornady’s claims for the Hornady SST and V-MAX bullets tested by Litz.
blance to a modern long-range bullet than the G1 standard projectile (Litz 2009). Consequently using the G7 bal- listic coefficient yields more accurate predictions for most boat-tail bullet designs, especially at long range. The lower number of the G7 BC for a given bullet represents a difference in how the G7 standard drag curve relates to the Mach number; it does not suggest a higher drag. The G1 and G7 ballistic coeffi-
cients measured by Litz have been pub- lished in his excellent book, “Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting” for a number of bullets, including most of the Berger line (Litz 2009). However, since Bryan is now the ballistician for Berger Bullets and Berger uses Bryan's numbers, Bryan's numbers are not an independent test of the manufacturer’s claims in this case. Furthermore, rather than simply copy the BCs from Bryan's book, the numbers reported here were reverse engineered as described in the Method section below. The results sec- tion presents a number of figures and tables comparing the G1 BC with bullet company claims and reporting the G7 BC to enable readers to compute more accurate long-range trajectories, wind drift, and retained energy with tools that might not include a built-in library of the Litz G7 ballistic coefficients. Fi- nally, the discussion section discusses some trends that can be observed from the data and the relevance of the find- ings.
Method In order to determine the accu-
racy of the ballistic coefficients of the manufacturing companies of Hornady, Nosler, Sierra, and Barnes, a ballistics
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212