Steelangel
Member
Beyond 1100 fps @ sea level, the bullet shock wave parts the airflow anyways. It super cavitates the air. It is no longer aerodynamic until it slows back below the speed of sound.
Humor me
Humor me
Beyond 1100 fps @ sea level, the bullet shock wave parts the airflow anyways. It super cavitates the air. It is no longer aerodynamic until it slows back below the speed of sound.
Humor me
Your information is wrong. If it were true jet fighters could travel at 3X the speed of sound with no aerodynamic concerns.Beyond 1100 fps @ sea level, the bullet shock wave parts the airflow anyways. It super cavitates the air. It is no longer aerodynamic until it slows back below the speed of sound.
Yeah and ailerons and rudders wouldn’t work if that were true because there would be no air touching themYour information is wrong. If it were true jet fighters could travel at 3X the speed of sound with no aerodynamic concerns.
Beyond 1100 fps @ sea level, the bullet shock wave parts the airflow anyways. It super cavitates the air. It is no longer aerodynamic until it slows back below the speed of sound.
Humor me
Beyond 1100 fps @ sea level, the bullet shock wave parts the airflow anyways. It super cavitates the air. It is no longer aerodynamic until it slows back below the speed of sound.
Humor me
Your information is wrong. If it were true jet fighters could travel at 3X the speed of sound with no aerodynamic concerns.
A real world example. A modern 180 gr boat tail bullet with good aerodynamics fired from a 30-06 @ 2800 fps is moving FASTER at only 75 yards than a 180 bullet with poor aerodynamics fired from a 300 WM at 3000 fps. The same aerodynamic bullet fired from a 308 at 2600 fps will pass the 300WM at only 175 yards.
I'm not entirely sure what your post is saying, but boattail bullets have a higher ballistic coefficient than the same diameter and weight flat base. That translates into a flatter trajectory and less wind drift. That is proven, not theoretical.
"... boat tailed projectile has NO aerodynamic effect on the bullet at all."
Steelangel, your view is opposed by the known fact that the trajectory of a boat-tail is flatter than that of a flat-base. That can only occur due to a lesser rate of loss of velocity from air resistance.
A different milieu, but pertinent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kammback
I vaguely recall that the "chop-off" point was where the tail is one-third of the cross-sectional area at the midpoint of the car.
Now those reasons I can buy, but the aerodynamic reason some swear by are baloney. Thanks for the feedback!I like boattail bullets for two reasons. They load easier into the neck of the case, and they have less bearing surface inside the barrel which can increase velocity without increasing pressure. In years past I liked long bullets but in my quest for accuracy and performance in a hunting rifle I now favor shorter boattail bullets.
I like boattail bullets for two reasons. They load easier into the neck of the case, and they have less bearing surface inside the barrel which can increase velocity without increasing pressure. In years past I liked long bullets but in my quest for accuracy and performance in a hunting rifle I now favor shorter boattail bullets. The 150 grain boattail out of a 30-06 at 2900 fps is a good example. Easy to load, accurate and hit like a hammer.