The topic is the Money nose vrs the Elliptical Nose, for our long range bullets. We all know the limitations of using the various alloys, nose setback, or even slumping.
All things being equal I believe we reach a point of diminishing returns on bullet alloys, particularly that of a binary alloy containing lead/tin. My current alloy is of 16-1 from John Walters, which I add 120 Grains per pound of that alloy, 95/5 solder being 95 % tin and 5% antimony. For All practical purposes this is my 14.5-1 alloy I call it.
In my Dual Diameter bullet that was designed by committee, Distant thunder, and Arnie and myself this alloy has been fairy successful in the past few years at Alliance and the Wasserburger Matches. This bullet has an elliptical nose. This bullet weighs in at 547 grs and has only been used in my 25# 45-110 with a 16-1 twist rate.
In 2021 at my match shot my best score ever in Creedmoor. Last year I shot a very good Mile score with irons. And a good Creedmoor score these past several years. Granted I have some experience at my own range that often translates into good scores. The mile match almost necessitates iron sight usage which hampers my scores there I feel, with my eyes being the limiting factor.
In 2018 the last year a Target rifle nationals was fired at Raton, I won the scope Midrange Prone National title, with the top score fired at 600 yards of anyone including Gullo. I was 3rd at 300 and 3rd at 500. I was using my Paul Jones Money PP 450023 PP mould cut for The 25# Shiloh. This bullet comes in at 534 or so grains in my alloy, so it is lighter than my DDPPE bullet.
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.”
As a side note these past two weeks, after reading Rick Moritz’s excellent article on primer wads in the BPCR News, I dropped that step from my loading procedure for my match and Big Whiskey. I had also done the same for the Smithmoor Cup at Carpenter. My scores were still comparable to my previous silhouette scores. Leading me to believe if anything at midrange matches, that I need to focus more on follow through than anything else. Though in the paper matches I did rather respectable that week both in big bore wand the historical match with my 22 shooting the highest paper score.
However in the 1000 yard match and 900 yards plus the mile I had several shots go high on my string of fire, I had no primer wad in these long range loads where as I normally do. We had switching tail winds at the mile which added to the vertical issues I am certain of that as everyone else had the same problems.
I recovered 2 of my only 4 outer hits at the mile, one demonstrating a very slight angle of impact and the other for all practical purposes a nearly straight on hit.
The mile was won with one of the lowest scores ever shot in that match a side wind often meant a 18 to 24 MOA windage correction. I will be returning to using primer wads in my long range loads, my chronograph data and many previous years Empirical evidence says it has effect at the longer ranges. 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
