wind gypsy
WKR
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2014
- Messages
- 9,683
I get 2880 out of my factory length Tikka
With 8208? How's brass life?
I get 2880 out of my factory length Tikka
I know your getting bombarded with questions but figured I’d ask. What are you seeing for velocities with the above 8208 load? Iv got varget and xbr and need to pick a powder for this years 77s in Lapua brass. I’m at 2700 with mildly compressed varget in a 20” suppressed tikka factory barrel.
With 8208? How's brass life?
Is anyone running 77TMK in an AR mag? Are you just seating them at 2.260 and still loading to the 23gr’s?
Dumb question but when you refer to 8208 your are referring to IMR 8208 XBR right? I have a pound of that on hand currently, but I didn't know if there was another 8208 variant.To no one in particular-
You’re pole vaulting over mouse turds. Take a 77gr TMK, put 23.7gr (or 23.5or 23.3gr) of 8208 in a case (any case), with any standard SR primer, seat it to 2.26” COAL, shoot. That’s it. That combo has shot well in every single 223/5.56 we’ve tried it in.
Another way that I am old school is that I still believe real bullets have lead.Random additional data point to this thread.
My son took a caribou this week with his favored Tikka .233. As everyone knows, .223 loads are hard to find on the shelf these days, so we used some factory loads with Barnes 62 gr TSX that I had left over from deer hunting a couple years ago.
One shot to the shoulder and two follow ups to the ribs at just under 100 yds. All exited. The shoulder shot broke the joint on both sides. All of that was good.
Drawbacks... that little copper bullet essentially punched a 1" hole through the lungs. Bleed out was slow, and a coup de grace to the head was required a few minutes later.
Based on this and previous experience with blacktail, I have no concerns about penetration, but would prefer a softer expanding type bullet for more lung damage. We will continue to use this gun for smaller (by Alaska standards) game. My kids shoot it very well, and I like that.
That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. Ideally the bullets are supposed to drop all of their energy inside the target. Transfer all the energy possible. If it took 3 shots, and they all passed thru, that to me would indicate some issues I'd want to avoid. I have personally witnessed 2 black bear and a couple deer hit with barnes , and I will not load them any more. I'd rather hit the target animal with a large, rapidly expanding bullet, to transfer energy and put it down as quickly as possible. Very hard to beat many of the sierra, hornady , berger and nosler choices out there these days. Many of their offerings are much better suited for big game, in my opinion. Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the jobOne shot to the shoulder and two follow ups to the ribs at just under 100 yds. All exited.
That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. Ideally the bullets are supposed to drop all of their energy inside the target. Transfer all the energy possible. If it took 3 shots, and they all passed thru, that to me would indicate some issues I'd want to avoid. I have personally witnessed 2 black bear and a couple deer hit with barnes , and I will not load them any more. I'd rather hit the target animal with a large, rapidly expanding bullet, to transfer energy and put it down as quickly as possible. Very hard to beat many of the sierra, hornady , berger and nosler choices out there these days. Many of their offerings are much better suited for big game, in my opinion. Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job
I believe that projectile weight, velocity, and bullet composition have something to do with how an animal reacts when I drop the hammer. I believe one has to make their own decisions when comparing kinetic energy, or something like taylor knock-down values. I also believe that if l do my homework and pick a good bullet, I tend to knock things down. My vocab isn't great, I'm just a fabricator who used college to get a drinking degree.You still dont understand and illustrate that by talking about energy.
Energy has nothing to do with bullets and how they perform. 0. zilch, nada.
You almost have a complete understanding just need to remove energy from your vocabulary and mind.
Work is the change in Kinetic Energy. Work is also Force times distance. Force over the bullet area is stress. Stress is related to strain (and ultimately yield and fracturing) via the modulus of elasticity. This is the simplified version, but energy is THE mechanism by which bullets expand. Geometry and material (characterized by the modulus of elasticity) play large roles as well.
Feel free to outline the formula(s) showing how velocity (not energy) deforms material.
Bullet manufacturers market bullets based on “impact velocity “ the same way the used to (and some still do) market MV and BC. We just have better tools to measure/calculate MV & BC today. Impact velocity is marketing.
LOL. You pejoratively tell a user that they are wrong - energy means nothing, nada, zilch, and only velocity matters. Now you’re butthurt when called out and want to explain that you knew all along that energy mattered and I’m muddying waters . I should be less surprised by internet interactions.
For a single bullet geometry & material as well as a single impact object geometry and material, you could back out velocity as a metric if that’s what you wanted to do. In today’s age, anyone can quickly figure out remaining energy just as quick as remaining velocity, so I’m not sure why you’d pick velocity as a metric in that circumstance. However, mfg’s don’t list “impact velocity” on a bullet-by-bullet basis nor do they characterize impact material geometry and material. They broadly characterize entire lines. This is part of the reason you hear folks say such-and-such bullet hit a ____ animal above states impact velocity and didn’t perform.
Impact velocity is 100% a marketing term. Impact velocity is a way that manufacturers package relatively complex science and SELL it to consumers….our bullet has a lower number so it’s more better. Marketing departments are typically …..”generous” in how they characterize their own products.
Not to disagree with you at all, in fact I have see the same thing, esp. with the original Barnes. My question is, was the poor performance from a TSX or TTSX ? I ask because they are quite different in my experience!That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. Ideally the bullets are supposed to drop all of their energy inside the target. Transfer all the energy possible. If it took 3 shots, and they all passed thru, that to me would indicate some issues I'd want to avoid. I have personally witnessed 2 black bear and a couple deer hit with barnes , and I will not load them any more. I'd rather hit the target animal with a large, rapidly expanding bullet, to transfer energy and put it down as quickly as possible. Very hard to beat many of the sierra, hornady , berger and nosler choices out there these days. Many of their offerings are much better suited for big game, in my opinion. Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job
That illustrates some of the hang-ups with using small rifle cartridges , for one, and underperforming barnes bullets, for two. A larger cartridge , with the proper bullet choice, may have dropped that bou where it stood. Instead it got another 10 seconds of fun with a bullet hole in its shoulder. ...... Barnes may have its place, and they may kill animals, but i just don't believe they are the best tool for the job
Dumb question but when you refer to 8208 your are referring to IMR 8208 XBR right?
Kenitc energy is not a real physics calculation, yes work energy momentum are. If go back to my school days.Work is the change in Kinetic Energy. Work is also Force times distance. Force over the bullet area is stress. Stress is related to strain (and ultimately yield and fracturing) via the modulus of elasticity. This is the simplified version, but energy is THE mechanism by which bullets expand. Geometry and material (characterized by the modulus of elasticity) play large roles as well.
Feel free to outline the formula(s) showing how velocity (not energy) deforms material.
Bullet manufacturers market bullets based on “impact velocity “ the same way the used to (and some still do) market MV and BC. We just have better tools to measure/calculate MV & BC today. Impact velocity is marketing.