The Money/Metford nose profile vrs the Elliptical nose.

[Kenny Wasserburger]

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

Cody,
Dan studied various nose profiles and alloys, Metford’s papers and research was were Dan was led, I believe and why he settled on his particular alloy choice, of 95% lead 2.5% tin and 2.5% antimony. This is also where Dan settled on his version of the Metford Bullet nose shape, what we call the money. I know I did some of that research also, and Dan and I shared this back and forth. Dan felt, that at our velocities we shot that anything pointier than the money nose was not worth testing. Plus the probability of nose slump grew greater with a less supported nose.

For our bullets, the straw I alluded too in my earlier post, is in all probability the tin and antimony. The bullet’s compressive strength. I tend to lean towards the conservative side, less antimony using the 95-5 solder for my tin but only to harden my 16-1 alloy from John Walters down to approximately 14.5-1. I think too much of a good thing ie antimony can be a real thing.

Dan also gravitated towards smaller calibers, 38-35 due to the excessive recoil of the bigger 45’s. I can tell one thing a 40 caliber Money in the 40-82 can usually hang with the bigger 45’s most days. But… in real twitchy condition I have seen it crash and burn. Dan wasn’t infallible, he wasn’t always right but he damn sure came close to being so, more often then not.

He did applaud or Heavy gun venture that I put forth from the tales of the Tolloffson Rifle, in 45-110 no less. This came to be and my Dora in 16 twist was the fruit of that venture, Bryan, Jimbo, Michael, and myself built these rifles. Dora took home the mail in 2018 at Raton midrange Prone, posting the top score even at 600 yards against everyone. Using my original Paul Jones Money Bullet, that was specifically made for the 25# Rifles. However it crashed and burned in the single day of Creedmoor. I firmly believe now that I didn’t have the right powder charge for that bullet, which I got from Jimbo. In 2016 at the Byers NRA Regional I used my version of the Money at 518 grs for the midrange, a cross fired 10 cost me and I took second behind Jack Odor. That would cost me a silver in the agg. I used my version of the Money the 446535M for the longrange portion, taking 3rd. And 3rd in the agg by 4 points. Jimbo took gold, Zack Silver, and myself the bronze.

One point of interest, something our engineer friends will find of interest, my load for midrange was 102.0 grs of 1.5 olde Eynsford, about 1436 fps at the muzzle. Bullet weight is right at 529 grs. Dave Gullo reported on day one that my bullets were still supersonic at 300 yards in the pits with an audible crack. No one else’s were. That load won the 600 yard line day one and produced a 3rd at 300 with A 99-2x, and a 3rd at 500 day two.

The same load in 2017 took second in Alliance with 10-1 alloy bullets. But in the spring of 18 didn’t do well in Phoenix, so I parked the bullet. I now believe that I wasn’t going fast enough so I will test it at Byers next weekend, at 800 yards. For 900-1000 I will be shooting my old Money 446545M that’s been sized to fit Dora, same bullet I used at Byers in 16, with good success.

Final note: the elliptical DDPPE bullet that Jim K, and Arnie, helped me design, I shot my highest score at alliance with it this past May and tied Bryan Y. I have also shot my highest scores with it in my Creedmoor match in 2021. Last year I took second in the money match wit it. Yet I have never bettered my mile score than when I shot the 446545 out of the Hell Bitch, which is a 18 twist.
At 1.508 inches long, conventional thought is that the bullet is too long for that twist, yet it holds the record for 8/10 hits at a mile in a single relay with 2 bulls and 6 outers.

Perhaps a Dual Diameter pp bullet with the money nose is in my future.

Dan was driving hard at using patch to groove bullets vrs patching to bore, it was what he was testing at the time of his passing.

Kenny W.

[Kenny Wasserburger]

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

Don, now wouldn’t that be a thing to see and be a part of. Jimbo and I, or Bryan and I, for spotters.

The 1000 yard world champion shot a Money bullet at Phoenix last April.

Kenny Wasserburger

[Kenny Wasserburger]

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

Cody,
Dan studied various nose profiles and alloys, Metford’s papers and research was were Dan was led, I believe and why he settled on his particular alloy choice, of 95% lead 2.5% tin and 2.5% antimony. This is also where Dan settled on his version of the Metford Bullet nose shape, what we call the money. I know I did some of that research also, and Dan and I shared this back and forth. Dan felt, that at our velocities we shot that anything pointier than the money nose was not worth testing. Plus the probability of nose slump grew greater with a less supported nose.

For our bullets, the straw I alluded too in my earlier post, is in all probability the tin and antimony. The bullet’s compressive strength. I tend to lean towards the conservative side, less antimony using the 95-5 solder for my tin but only to harden my 16-1 alloy from John Walters down to approximately 14.5-1. I think too much of a good thing ie antimony can be a real thing.

Dan also gravitated towards smaller calibers, 38-35 due to the excessive recoil of the bigger 45’s. I can tell one thing a 40 caliber Money in the 40-82 can usually hang with the bigger 45’s most days. But… in real twitchy condition I have seen it crash and burn. Dan wasn’t infallible, he wasn’t always right but he damn sure came close to being so, more often then not.

He did applaud or Heavy gun venture that I put forth from the tales of the Tolloffson Rifle, in 45-110 no less. This came to be and my Dora in 16 twist was the fruit of that venture, Bryan, Jimbo, Michael, and myself built these rifles. Dora took home the mail in 2018 at Raton midrange Prone, posting the top score even at 600 yards against everyone. Using my original Paul Jones Money Bullet, that was specifically made for the 25# Rifles. However it crashed and burned in the single day of Creedmoor. I firmly believe now that I didn’t have the right powder charge for that bullet, which I got from Jimbo. In 2016 at the Byers NRA Regional I used my version of the Money at 518 grs for the midrange, a cross fired 10 cost me and I took second behind Jack Odor. That would cost me a silver in the agg. I used my version of the Money the 446535M for the longrange portion, taking 3rd. And 3rd in the agg by 4 points. Jimbo took gold, Zack Silver, and myself the bronze.

One point of interest, something our engineer friends will find of interest, my load for midrange was 102.0 grs of 1.5 olde Eynsford, about 1436 fps at the muzzle. Bullet weight is right at 529 grs. Dave Gullo reported on day one that my bullets were still supersonic at 300 yards in the pits with an audible crack. No one else’s were. That load won the 600 yard line day one and produced a 3rd at 300 with A 99-2x, and a 3rd at 500 day two.

The same load in 2017 took second in Alliance with 10-1 alloy bullets. But in the spring of 18 didn’t do well in Phoenix, so I parked the bullet. I now believe that I wasn’t going fast enough so I will test it at Byers next weekend, at 800 yards. For 900-1000 I will be shooting my old Money 446545M that’s been sized to fit Dora, same bullet I used at Byers in 16, with good success.

Final note: the elliptical DDPPE bullet that Jim K, and Arnie, helped me design, I shot my highest score at alliance with it this past May and tied Bryan Y. I have also shot my highest scores with it in my Creedmoor match in 2021. Last year I took second in the mile match wit it. Yet I have never bettered my mile score than when I shot the 446545 out of the Hell Bitch, which is a 18 twist.
At 1.508 inches long, conventional thought is that the bullet is too long for that twist, yet it holds the record for 8/10 hits at a mile in a single relay with 2 bulls and 6 outers.

Perhaps a Dual Diameter pp bullet with the money nose is in my future.

Dan was driving hard at using patch to groove bullets vrs patching to bore, it was what he was testing at the time of his passing.

Kenny W.

Should read mile match I took second in last year.

[Don McDowell]

Kenney it’s a match worthy of consideration for sure
Be a bugger to set up, but the results would be cause for pause and consideration.

[Kenny Wasserburger]

[quote="Kenny Wasserburger" post_id=343264 time=1694641028 user_id=18]
Fellow long Range Shooters, there are often times when I truly miss the sagacious advice of our brother Dan Theodore.

The topic is the Money nose vrs the Elliptical Nose.



Anecdotal evidence aside here, has anyone done an extensive study of the two bullet shapes on paper at distance? I know Brent D favors the Prolate nose design, which is quite Similar to the Elliptical nose shape. The money Nose is similar to the Metford bullet.

Here is were ole Dan would have stepped in and while not above using Anecdotal evidence, he would often temper that with considerable empirical experience behind his offered opinions. Yet he would question such evidence himself until he had proven it. Dan was not above applying such testing in a high level match, something I long admired him for. It is something that Jimbo and myself have often been known to do. As they say, “no guts, no glory”.


I am looking for some empirical evidence on the Money vrs the Elliptical Nose, more than mere anecdotal evidence.

“Paper don’t lie “ Dan Was fond of saying, I rather tend to agree with that statement.

Brass is in my tumbler, I have plenty of DDPPE bullets on hand and could fire up the pot to make some of my Jones PP Bullets for Dora.

KW
[/quote]


This was the meat of my original post, the very next post was from JohnnyV, postulating on the needs for multiple tests and a strict protocol. While I agree with his premise, and I do in theory. That was not what I was asking for, and this was a tangent I didn’t want the thread to take, though he was hell bent to do so. So I got a bit terse and spanked him a bit. Trying to move a thread off on a tangent is the ultimate in rudeness, especially when it gives no information pertinent to the subject. Like capt Call I don’t tolerate rude behavior in a man. Hopefully JohnnyV will forgive my abruptness, I wasn’t being rude just wanted the thread to stay on subject.

Empirical evidence experience is about all we have on this subject. The pure difficulty of trying to do such tests, would harken back to Dan’s two target experiment with a dowel inserted into the bullet holes of two targets, to measure the angle of trajectory decay. Reminds me of a famous Wyoming shooter/hunter setting up a range to measure trajectories in a Montana valley with tissue paper framed for data points a various yardages. My sharing of My research with Dan about Pickett’s writing on this in the early issues of the Rifle. I believe this prompted Dan to take that action. Both Pickett and Dan were skilled engineers and riflemen.

Hopefully Arnie will chime in his experiences are definitely worthy of a listen too.

Kenny Wasserburger

[Kenny Wasserburger]

How I started out with the DDPPE design.

viewtopic.php?p=322835#p322835

Kenny W.

[Aviator]

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

Todd, I wonder if you would clarify one point for me, to make sure we're on the same page.

I know that some folks assume that .01 inch adjustment of the rear sight equates to one minute of angle. But of course it really depends on the actual distance from the rear aperture to the front aperture.
When you say 125 minutes from 200 yards to 1000 yards, do you mean 125 minutes of angle, or 1.25 inch adjustment of rear sight?

I don't doubt that your paper patch bullets have higher BC, just want to make sure we're talking the same language.

Steve

[martinibelgian]

Come to that, how many have sights calibrated to the actual line of sight/barrel length? In actual minutes, not fractions of an inch?

[Don McDowell]

Good point Gert.
Not speaking for Todd but , maybe it would have been better to use ponts than minutes. I find the point difference on the rear sight quiquite similar to Todd’s. With the 446535 bullet from one of my 45-90’s the 1000 yard setting will be roughly 155 points on the staff, the 459535 m2 165 is a good starting point

[desert deuce]

Perhaps may not apply here, however?
I switch rear staff's one rifle to another.
I seem to notice one minute of elevation, or windage, on one rifle does not move the point of impact the same distance on two different rifles when shooting the same load in the two different rifles.

[craneman]

Steve,
Sorry for the confusion, 125 points.

Todd

[Kenny Wasserburger]

Left to right.

The original Paul Jone Money 45023 at .446 diameter 529 grs avg wt in 14.5-1 alloy

BACO bullet of my design the 446545M .447 diameter sized to .446 538.5 grs avg wt 14.5-1 alloy.

BACO bullet of the team effort the 452550DDPPE .452 major Diameter.446 547.5 grs avg wt 14.5-1 alloy.

First bullet was used in 2018 to win Scope Midrange Prone. Yet fell apart in the Creedmoor match that year. I shot it also in Phoenix in 2019 again with 102.0 grs and faired poorly. I believe due to not an accurate load at longrange.

Second bullet was used to win the bronze 2016 NRA BPTR Regional @Byers. Taking 1st Master in the Long Range. This bullet like the other two is a pleasure to cast with.

Third bullet has taken second at Alliance several years in a row in the long range and second 3 times at the Wasserburger Creedmoor match, 2 years high score at 1000 yards. Tied this year for first @Alliance with my best score to date, on their steel.


All bullets have shown excellent accuracy in various matches and I have a book full of groups fired at 200 yards with MOA accuracy on our best days. All of these bullets shoot very well @600 yards at my range at the match. With the edge just barely to the Jones money, these were all just a single test. So not enough data to draw a clear picture @600 yards of any one of them offering a clear advantage over the others. Here is where JohnnyV’ Outline of testing protocol comes in. I have to draw on my empirical evidence from 3-4 years shooting matches instead.

PS all those loads were shot with Primer Wads. I actually don’t believe primer wads are of any benefit until past 600 yards. Many years of empirical evidence there to draw upon.

At 600 yards the original Money has shot very well, documented at 2018 Midrange Nationals. The load was 102.0 grs of 1-1/2 Olde Eynsford. I took second at alliance in 2016 with it shooting, my now 3rd best score there. With 102.5 grs of Olde Eynsford. At Byers I intend to use it at 800 yards with a 103.5 gr load of a new lot of Olde Eynsford 1-1/2. This change has proven to be very accurate with the other two bullets.

My testing has been more limited since 2020, as I don’t have the primers or powder to waste. So matches are where the bulk of my testing is done currently.

In the spirt of the search of our best loads for long range. I would love to host, not a match per se but a bullet testing seminar at the ranch. Both 600 yard testing and 800-1000 yard testing. This is along the lines of what Don proposed but in a more relaxed setting. No pressure just shoot, what ya brung. The conclusions of such would be of real benefit to the shooters in attendance of course. But also to the rest of the collective.

JohnnyV bring your stuff too. You’re always welcome, Lester and Tony also I would hope to get to attend. And Semtav, Craneman you’re also welcome. Cody Smith too. Don you’re so close it be criminal not to come.

Multiple spotters would work together with a single shooter at a time to ensure he gets the most best accurate information to keep him on target to give the load the best chance for a real performance evaluation. What Don proposed is great but it would I believe evolve into just a spotter’s match not the best evaluation of bullet performance.

We could work 2 shooters at a time one at 800 and 1 at 1000. Possibly a 3rd at 600. All on the line with a spotter by committee. Multiple Glass looking at the target at the same time not to win a match but to get the maximum effort to stay on target, for each shooter.


Kenny Wasserburger

[JonnyV]

Kenny looks like you're thinking the same things I was when I made the prior posts. I get fired up about this s#!t and with all this free time, I'm working on my shooting anywhere from 10-12 hours a day, every day. Not meaning to run people over with all the ideas I think up.

From a data standpoint, wouldn't it be better to compare years worth of groups from a broad range of shooters? Hundreds of groups that have been recorded, or better yet where each shooter still has the targets or photos of the targets to look at and compare?

Not likely that an absolute answer could be achieved. However, you might find that a different profile is better "most of the time" at certain velocities/ranges? There's a book about rocketry that I read incessantly as a kid building rockets that has a lot of pertinent information on this (ballistics/aerodynamics/trans-sonic flight), having trouble finding it though...

[Kenny Wasserburger]

[quote=JonnyV post_id=343358 time=1694972687 user_id=309429]
Kenny looks like you're thinking the same things I was when I made the prior posts. I get fired up about this s#!t and with all this free time, I'm working on my shooting anywhere from 10-12 hours a day, every day. Not meaning to run people over with all the ideas I think up.

From a data standpoint, wouldn't it be better to compare years worth of groups from a broad range of shooters? Hundreds of groups that have been recorded, or better yet where each shooter still has the targets or photos of the targets to look at and compare?

Not likely that an absolute answer could be achieved. However, you might find that a different profile is better "most of the time" at certain velocities/ranges? There's a book about rocketry that I read incessantly as a kid building rockets that has a lot of pertinent information on this (ballistics/aerodynamics/trans-sonic flight), having trouble finding it though...
[/quote]


But at what yardages…? These all look the same at 200 even 600. Where and how could you quantify groups @800 and 1000 over the many years. That’s what I am getting at. Conditions and spotters play a huge part at long range. And some are definitely much better at that than others. Which has absolutely nothing to do with bullet performance, except confidence in it to respond to correction, and your shooter’s ability to break ‘em center.



KW

[Don McDowell]

KW your bullet test thing sounds fun, but it it happens anytime between now and around the 18th of November I’ll have to plead Nola contendray
Not sure how the best bullet profile will ever be determined. Matches are good evidence , but unless everybody opts out of a spotter and unlimited sighters, the question was it the spotter or is it in fact the bullet, primer powder…. The list goes on question
Heck look at the high power guys and the plethora of bullets they have to choose from and with the exception of the bullet detour of the month gets replaced by the next hottest thing.