The Money/Metford nose profile vrs the Elliptical nose.

[semtav]

I think the best test would be to have three or four shooters of equal abilities firing from the same point at the long lines using different bullets at muzzle velocities 1300-1330 fps, which I find to be the real sweet spot with .45 caliber.

Todd

That's about the same speed DD has mentioned.
But would you be skewing the results by limiting the testing to that speed.

Would you have a completely different result if you bumped the speed up into the 1400s.

You mentioned having issues with the pointier bullet in headwinds but if you were shooting that pointier bullet in a 45-110 driving it a lot harder could the results be just the opposite?

[ian45662]

I can add another piece of data to the equation. Not scientific but just something that has been observed. Last year I used my Shiloh with the elliptical bullet for the 5@ 1000. I could hardly find the target. I have used this combo before with success but this time was a bust. At the time I thought I just had a bad weekend and just moved in. Fast forward to the Creedmoor match in March of this year. I used the same rifle same load. This was the first time I had used the Shiloh and that bullet in this match and for the first time I didn’t even medal. My worts Creedmoor performance. Then this past weekend… . I switched back to a money bullet but in a grease groove version and the Shiloh came alive. Almost beat my all time best agg score and my best single relay score. That’s with a load that has not been fully wrung out either. I know it’s not long range but my scores in silhoette were better with the pp money I have. I can shoot both designs in my highwall and it does like the money better. Looks like my Shiloh does also. I have shot good scores in L.R. With the elliptical but for whatever reason it has not preformed as consistently for me as the money has.

[kwilliams]

Still thinking that all this talk about nose shape is speculative at best.....until the profile can be defined by accepted math and dimensions. There is no one ellipse shape for example, Just google what an ellipse is and how it is created. How much leeway is there in the design and have it still qualify as a Money, Metford or Elliptical.

[Aviator]

Did you do any BC calculations with that data? Amazing how close they are even down range. Quite interesting. Is it possible the 12-1 bullet starting slower yet by 150 has moved ahead in velocity, due to bullet alloy or just circumstances?

KW

Using the Hornady ballistic calculator, that data suggests that the 542M3 bullet is about .42 BC, and the Postell about .41.

It is such a small data set that I would not make too many assumptions from that, because I am not sure that the Hornady calculator is geared toward the bullets that we are using. And at 150 yards, the bullets are still well within the transonic region.

However, I have been using the Hornady ballistic calculator for several years to estimate come-ups from 300 yards to 1000 yards, and it gets me in the ballpark. My experience suggests that the .43 BC that I have been using for the Money bullet is a little optimistic, and the .38 BC that I have been using for the Postell is a little pessimistic, and this small data set seems to confirm that. For future use, I will probably use .42 for the Money bullet, and .40 or .41 for the Postell, and see how it goes. However, I believe that atmospheric and elevation changes are probably even more significant than missing the ballistic coefficient by .01 or .02.

I had never before tried to use data from the LabRadar to estimate BC, but it appears that it may have merit. Though I suspect that getting velocity numbers farther out than 150 yards would be much better.

As you know, the bullet nose shape is not the same when it leaves the barrel as it was prior to primer ignition!
So, I suspect that ballistic coefficient can vary quite a bit depending on the powder charge!

From the Hornady ballistic calculator:
A .42 BC 532 gr bullet at 1320 fps requires come-up of 129 minutes from 200 to 1000 yards, and drifts 141 inches in a 10 mph wind.
A .40 BC 532 gr bullet at 1320 fps requires come-up of 132 minutes from 200 to 1000 yards, and drifts 147 inches in a 10 mph wind.

My take-away is that higher BC is of course good, but stability against getting upset during flight is even more important (and less easy to predict).

[semtav]

Still thinking that all this talk about nose shape is speculative at best.....until the profile can be defined by accepted math and dimensions. There is no one ellipse shape for example, Just google what an ellipse is and how it is created. How much leeway is there in the design and have it still qualify as a Money, Metford or Elliptical.

This is an original DanT design but even Dan varied the dia of the nose slightly

dant.jpg

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Still thinking that all this talk about nose shape is speculative at best.....until the profile can be defined by accepted math and dimensions. There is no one ellipse shape for example, Just google what an ellipse is and how it is created. How much leeway is there in the design and have it still qualify as a Money, Metford or Elliptical.

You make an excellent point, not all money or for that matter Elliptical nose shapes are the same, there is no real standard.

KW

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Did you do any BC calculations with that data? Amazing how close they are even down range. Quite interesting. Is it possible the 12-1 bullet starting slower yet by 150 has moved ahead in velocity, due to bullet alloy or just circumstances?

KW

Using the Hornady ballistic calculator, that data suggests that the 542M3 bullet is about .42 BC, and the Postell about .41.

It is such a small data set that I would not make too many assumptions from that, because I am not sure that the Hornady calculator is geared toward the bullets that we are using. And at 150 yards, the bullets are still well within the transonic region.

However, I have been using the Hornady ballistic calculator for several years to estimate come-ups from 300 yards to 1000 yards, and it gets me in the ballpark. My experience suggests that the .43 BC that I have been using for the Money bullet is a little optimistic, and the .38 BC that I have been using for the Postell is a little pessimistic, and this small data set seems to confirm that. For future use, I will probably use .42 for the Money bullet, and .40 or .41 for the Postell, and see how it goes. However, I believe that atmospheric and elevation changes are probably even more significant than missing the ballistic coefficient by .01 or .02.

I had never before tried to use data from the LabRadar to estimate BC, but it appears that it may have merit. Though I suspect that getting velocity numbers farther out than 150 yards would be much better.

As you know, the bullet nose shape is not the same when it leaves the barrel as it was prior to primer ignition!
So, I suspect that ballistic coefficient can vary quite a bit depending on the powder charge!

From the Hornady ballistic calculator:
A .42 BC 532 gr bullet at 1320 fps requires come-up of 129 minutes from 200 to 1000 yards, and drifts 141 inches in a 10 mph wind.
A .40 BC 532 gr bullet at 1320 fps requires come-up of 132 minutes from 200 to 1000 yards, and drifts 147 inches in a 10 mph wind.

My take-away is that higher BC is of course good, but stability against getting upset during flight is even more important (and less easy to predict).

It most certainly would have a lot to do with the powder charge, and the resulting effect on the nose shape upon ignition. Your take away Steve is exactly what I am thinking about, how to predict it. We also have to consider the effect of the bullet alloy. Dan had a running theory on the compression strength of our alloys. We both had watched a documentary on the compression strength of mud bricks with straw and without. The bricks with straw were stronger or had a higher compression strength. A special press was used to crush the bricks and the failure point was recorded by special equipment.

Dan postulated that such a test on our bullets would be of merit. Far out stuff lol. Though that theory has stuck with me over the years. Dan had been working on the match behind calculating the compression strength at the time of his passing. Along with patching to groove diameter bullets.

Ian’s personal experiences are, while what Dan would call empirical evidence, but they are based over a several year period of time and multiple experiences. Hardly worth discounting, as it’s a large data base of experience to draw upon.

We also discussed in length the use of the radar used at Yuma proving grounds, back in the day when MLV and the Shiloh folks were there. The how far will a sharps shoot article. I was once told it costs about 22K to use that radar unit per shot?

“Nothing is new under the sun, when man is involved” who wrote that I am not sure. Frank Hyde had Sharps build and UMC loaded the ammo, construct 12 1878 Borcharts with 18 twist barrels, and 2-7/8 cases filled with 125 grs of powder and a 620 gr bullet, to take overseas. The whole experiment was a failure.

The top 1000 yard shooter at Phoenix was using a 45-100, and an original Paul Jones Money bullet.
Other top shooters use the 45-100 of late. John Vehous, Bryan Youngberg, Dave Gullo etc.

I messed up some bullets last night used the wrong sizer die. After making 25 I checked them and was wondering about the extra effort required to size them. After 20 minutes on page 88 of my one shooting diaries I found reference to the proper sizer die to use. Since that diary is a work in progress, the table of contents has been updated with the proper die size at page 167, and so noted. AnD back to the casting pot.

Nose shape obviously plays a part in maintaining down range stability in those twitchy conditions. While we have mostly empirical evidence to support that theory, we of yet have the software or radar ability to accurately predict or measure that outcome. So far the evidence points to the blunter Metford/money style of nose, being more stable in such conditions less effected.

KW

[craneman]

I always enjoyed my conversations with Jim Kluskins, especially pertaining to bullet design. I copied the following post of his from the Historic Shooting site that some might find interesting.

Two long-range .45 caliber paper patch bullets.

On another forum I mentioned that during the Friday practice at the recent Harris, MN 1000 yard match I had an opportunity to compare two very different .45 caliber paper patch bullets.

It started with me shooting some loads Brent Danielson and I loaded at the range to test his powder in my rifle. The load was my usual long-range load of 83.0 grains of 1 1/2 Swiss but with a different lot number than what I have been shooting. Everything else was the, primer, brass and bullet.

The loads we assembled, 20 rounds, were not shooting too well, but I was managing to keep them all on paper except one that missed low. There were 3 or 4 other shooters that were watching as I shot. When I finished I was somewhat disappointed that it hadn't gone better.

That's when Steve Farringer said that it would be interesting to see how a known good load shot as a comparison. So I grabbed a box of my loads that had everything the same except with 83.0 grains of my 1 1/2 Swiss. To be completely fair this is a load I have developed over time and it shoots very well. No load development was done with Brent's powder. We just loaded the same weight, 83.0 grains because that's what I use.

I laid back down and fired 3 shots, much to my relief they all went inside the 10-ring! I believe there was an X or two but the main point is they shot to center and within the 10-ring. Prefect elevation and windage.

In that same box were 10 paper patch bullets given to me by a friend to try when I had a chance. This was as good a chance as any.

My long range bullet is an elliptical bullet that has shot very well for me over the past 10 years. It holds up very well even when the winds get nasty. I think of it as the perfect long range bullet.

The ones my friend Ray gave me to try are rather blunt nose pour bullets with a short ogive and that little flat on the tip. Someone said, "Those look like muzzle loader bullets!", and they do. They look like a hunting bullets.

As I loaded the first one I commented that I'd probably have to come up some to hit paper, but how much? Well there's one way to find out, shoot it with the same sight setting and see.

So I lined up and when Mike said the conditions looked good I let her go. The target went down and I was in the scope after the shot and saw nothing to indicate a miss.

To my complete surprise and everybody else's too it came up a 10! Hmmm, that's odd! Well let's shoot another! I did and that one came up inside the 10-ring as well! Now my brain is working hard trying to understand how this can be. So I shot a 3rd one and said, "If that one is a 10 I'll be shocked!". Well, you know it came up inside the 10-ring too!

So now I'm left wondering just how much it really matters what kind of nose a bullet has, even at 1000 yards? I will say that this all happened late in the afternoon and the winds were fairly mild, but not calm. I do believe the more blunt designs are easier to get to shoot well, at least that has been my experience. Think of the Lyman 457125, what rifle doesn't shoot that bullet well!

So here are the two different bullets I shot, 3 of each, that resulted in six 10s in a row without ever touching the elevation.



The one on the left is Ray's bullet, the one on the right is mine. The load was the same for both. Ray's is 1.415" long and weighs 545 grains. My bullet is 1.430" long and weighs 532 grains.

I have to say that the fit of Ray's bullet in my bore was just nice and snug and there is a lot of guiding diameter there with the long shank so I'm not surprised they shot well, just surprised that they shot to the exact same POI at 1000 yards! And the same windage too!

Something to think about I guess, I sure don't understand it.
Jim Kluskens
aka Distant Thunder

[Aviator]

Here is a photo of the two bullets that were used to collect the chronograph data, plus a third bullet.

DSCN0928_smaller.jpg

Left is the 459542M5 Money bullet (1.455 long)
Center is the 459535P3 Postell bullet (1.405 long)
Right is the 444545 bullet (1.435 long), which I used in my muzzle loader last week in Hungary at the World Championship long range match.

Note that the noses have considerable differences.

The muzzle loader bullet, when shot at ~1330 fps, seems to require about 132 minutes of elevation from 200 to 1000 yards, which is nearly identical to the Postell bullet, even though the nose is quite short.

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Craneman,

That’s some interesting observations from Jim, yet he did profess to believe the Elliptical bullet in his opinion as being the best nose profile yet then questioned that statement in his own personal experience with some other bullets after the match testing.

Steve that’s some interesting observations and data on your muzzle loading bullet vrs the Postell bullet.

Your GG money bullet is a tad blunter than my long 1.508 Money PP .446 bullet definitely a sharper profile on mine.

After 2 years of rather poor performance at Byers, I am leaving the DDPPE bullet home and shooting this pp bullet instead, it 538.5 grs avg wt.

Brent’s Prolate nose is closer to the elliptical bullet but it’s different, he once allowed that getting a true prolate nose cut was “Difficult”


That bump up or let off in the wind .5 seconds after you broke the shot is where we get bit most often yet some bullets are obviously less effected than others.

Is it speed?
Is it bullet weight.
Is it bullet length or Bullet nose shape?

All valid questions and observations.

Kenny Wasserburger

[jackrabbit]

Hey Kenny, I wish I had more to add to this conversation. Thank you for starting it, I have found it very interesting.

My one thought is that I always figured Dan T had thoroughly wrung out the ballistics of the bullets and had found the money bullet profile superior. I know most of his notes and data are gong, but from what I know about him, I guess I have a hard time believing he would have wasted any time on a nose design that might have been inferior to an existing design? Maybe he didn't get to test it as thoroughly as he wanted to before he passed? I had always assumed Dan had done all of the leg work and there wasn't any reason to question what he found as superior, which I thought was the money profile.

Also, I thought I remembered seeing Doc Lay had some good data showing how much flatter the money profile flew than other designs. I wonder if he still has any of that info or it could be found on the forum here?

Thanks again, Cody

[bohemianway]

It would be informative if someone had the actual layout (dimensions/mathematical equation) of the Money and other profiles for comparisons to well known and studied transonic shapes.

Thank you,
Charles

[steveu834]

All,
I have been reading some of Dan’s old posts about bullet designs and alloys with antimony. I found this and found it interesting about how alloys affected groups. viewtopic.php?t=22927&hilit=antimony

Cheers,
Steve

[craneman]

I really don't know if a flatter shooting bullet design offers a significant advantage at the speeds our bullets travel but will offer up that Steve (Aviator) mentioned his three bullet profiles required about 132 minutes from 200-1000 yards. My load & bullet traveling at the same velocities requires 125 minutes to go from 200 yards here at the house to the 1000 yard line at Lodi.

Todd

[Don McDowell]

Been pondering this for awhile
The flatter shooting bullet at our velocity helps in that the lower sight setting helps keep a better cheek weld at the long lines
But if we think back to before Dan came with the metford profile and Doc started kicking butt and taking names with it and it was then coined Docss moneybullet,,, if you weren’t shooting the pj Creedmoor or an nei postel…
Look at the impressive string of wins at major matches by folks like Gullo, Johnson, and others shooting the money bullet. While once in a while other profiles sneak in to the top 3 places one has to wonder was it the bullet or was it simply rifleman and spotter ability coupled with lots of trigger time before the match?
Match results and equipment list tell us a lot but they don’t factor in the conditions of the individual relays.
One way to do an emperical study might be a 1000 yard match with all the shooters on the line with qualified ,independent,competent target pullers in the pits