Nosler gets a black eye from Varmimt Hunter...

[nvbroncrider]

Like has been said when a manufacturer does his testing it's in a controled enviroment. In the real world you have so many varibles that you can't account for in a lab. If they all standized the test as far as temp humidity atmospheric pressure your going to get a good idea againest one another but as soon as one varible changes the answer does as well.

That's exactly what this test did... it used the industry standard for elevation, temp,.and pressure...

I'm also familiar with Richard Graves, and shot a couple hundred of his 125 .25 cal bullets. They shot well, but did not perform any better than the 115 Berger with a BC working out somewhere around .450 in my rifles.

I understand all the ballistic and physics references that have been referenced here... but it still doesn't change the fact that Nosler was the worst of all the bullets tested, and thier laziness with load data and BC testing is becoming apparent. I'm looking through my Nosler #1 manual, from 1976, I see many many loads that are exactly the same as the loads in the #5 manual... even the velocities are the same. Now... I find it hard to believe that IMR4350 (or any other powder) is exactly the same now as it was 35 years ago.... and certainly the ole solid base does not exhibit exactly the same velocity with exactly the same charge that an equivalent Ballistic Tip will. This new (old #1) manual, combined with this article and some recent personal experience with a couple bullets has really called my favorite bullet company into question. I absolutely despise when companies rest on previous merit, and expect consumer's continued support. I know Nosler has spent some time developing new projectiles recently (AccuBond, e-tip, custom comp., etc) and that is all well and good... However, maybe they should spend some time and resources to develop better testing and data collection proceedures to better service their clientele as well.

That's why it is so cool to look at the old manuals. Some cartridges really surprise you .280 for example they now claim 2800 and 4 gr less with 160 and 4350. You have so much liability today caused by idiots. Example lady suing Mc'Donalds for spilling her HOT coffee on herself!! Duh!! Now these companies must protect themselves from stupid because society has become so soft spined that they don't make morons accountable for there actions. As I say you can fix a lot of things in this world but you can't fix stupid. If they ever fix stupid we will live in a perfect world. We should be able to give such people Darwin awards.

 

[Songdog]

Apparently you misunderstood... the data is nearly identical, with identical velocities... but the bullets are completely different. Did Nosler actually shoot the data for their new manuals... or just copy it from the original manual. Furthermore.... did Nosler actually do any ballistic coefficient testing on the accubonds, or did they simply speculate based on BTs of same weight/caliber?

I'd like to hear Mike or Paul' at Nosler explain this phenomenon/discrepancy....

 

[Oldtrader3]

I can see intuitively when comparing a Nosler ogive curve with another make that uses a secant ogive. It is apparent that the Nosler bullet is not going to fly with the same windslip as the more pointed secant design will. Nosler bullets were designed to yield high practical field accuracy and performance for their specific application which is not long range target shooting. They do very well at their intended task in fact but were not intended to compete against companies like Berger.

 

[300WSM]

and thier laziness with load data and BC testing is becoming apparent. I'm looking through my Nosler #1 manual, from 1976, I see many many loads that are exactly the same as the loads in the #5 manual... even the velocities are the same. Now... I find it hard to believe that IMR4350 (or any other powder) is exactly the same now as it was 35 years ago....

Oooooookkk. So are you suggesting it is better or worse? Is there now a shelf life? If there is a difference from powder made "x" years ago there would be common knowledge of it. There also would be a made date or expires date...etc etc. See what I mean?

and certainly the ole solid base does not exhibit exactly the same velocity with exactly the same charge that an equivalent Ballistic Tip will.

Correct. However my guns never show the same exact data that Nosler published using the same specs. If the new bullet was determined to be very close or atleast close enough to be propelled as the older style, why spend the time to chart essentially the same thing over again?

I absolutely despise when companies rest on previous merit, and expect consumer's continued support. I know Nosler has spent some time developing new projectiles recently (AccuBond, e-tip, custom comp., etc) and that is all well and good... However, maybe they should spend some time and resources to develop better testing and data collection proceedures to better service their clientele as well.

You despise when companies rest on previous merit yet you applaud them for taking the time and money to develop new cutting edge, greener and just overall fresh improved products????????
Nosler gives free data on the website. A new data book where everything is shot again with different and or newer powders might very well mean the end of the free data. For every shooter that is crying for a new book and willing to pay for one I will show you five shooters that are so happy that after spending that hard earned money on those bullets they can get data to shoot those bullets for the price of internet.

Let me ask you this...If the test showed Nosler being head and shoulders above the other companies, yet you just couldn't get them to shoot as good as some other brands from YOUR rifles, would you still shoot them because someone said they were better? Would you do the reverse approach and buy and sell rifles until you found one to shoot with those bullets?
Nosler's work. They work great in the field. That is the constant. In many cases they work great at the range and the field. For some people they may not work as well as other bullets in a certain application at the range, but they still work in the field.

 

[Ridge_Runner]

Like has been said when a manufacturer does his testing it's in a controled enviroment. In the real world you have so many varibles that you can't account for in a lab. If they all standized the test as far as temp humidity atmospheric pressure your going to get a good idea againest one another but as soon as one varible changes the answer does as well.

That's exactly what this test did... it used the industry standard for elevation, temp,.and pressure...

and they used pressure testing equipment during this test and had the exact same sized chamber?

I'm also familiar with Richard Graves, and shot a couple hundred of his 125 .25 cal bullets. They shot well, but did not perform any better than the 115 Berger with a BC working out somewhere around .450 in my rifles.

I understand all the ballistic and physics references that have been referenced here... but it still doesn't change the fact that Nosler was the worst of all the bullets tested, and thier laziness with load data and BC testing is becoming apparent. I'm looking through my Nosler #1 manual, from 1976, I see many many loads that are exactly the same as the loads in the #5 manual... even the velocities are the same. Now... I find it hard to believe that IMR4350 (or any other powder) is exactly the same now as it was 35 years ago.... and certainly the ole solid base does not exhibit exactly the same velocity with exactly the same charge that an equivalent Ballistic Tip will. This new (old #1) manual, combined with this article and some recent personal experience with a couple bullets has really called my favorite bullet company into question. I absolutely despise when companies rest on previous merit, and expect consumer's continued support. I know Nosler has spent some time developing new projectiles recently (AccuBond, e-tip, custom comp., etc) and that is all well and good... However, maybe they should spend some time and resources to develop better testing and data collection proceedures to better service their clientele as well.

well they have changed the max loads, as has every manufacturer is it a buffer to cut down liability or has the powders changed?
and maybe your not aware of it but the only difference in ballistic tips today (those packaged 50 per box) and the solid base bullets of yesterday is the polymer tip.
your best solution is if you can't stand the fact that the BC might not work out to exactly what is published is to find another favorite bullet company. but I'll assure you long as I can buy accubonds I'll shoot'em, cause high BC means nothing if the bullet can't do its job once it gets there, and I know the accubonds will accomplish the task.
RR

 

[Oldtrader3]

300 WSM, I think that you should shoot the bullet that you are most confident in for whatever features you are wanting. I shoot Partitions for all of my hunting because in my rifles, they are very accurate and they have always performed well for me.

If your primary interst is down range accuracy and velocity at long ranges, maybe some other bullet will work better for you. We all have choices and most of us use more than one manufacturer to encompass all of our shooting needs.

 

[RiverRider]

I don't want to get into quoting and nitpicking (I'm in a rare mood, I guess). I would like to say this, though: If the old data in the manual is still working and no one is complaining, why go to the expense to redevelop the data? Someone would have to pay for that, and I like getting Nosler bullets at the lesser price. When new cartridges come out it's time to spend some money in the ballistics lab, but I see no sense in reinventing the wheel.

As far as BCs go: I couldn't possibly care less. All that matters is 1) hitting the target and 2) bullet performance thereafter. Even if you're developing a load for extreme long range hunting, you're still going to have to develop an accurate load and you're still going to have to learn the trajectory of the load selected. There are performance limitations to everything in shooting and I'd much rather have Nosler terminal performance and accuracy than Berger BCs. YMMV.

 

[Songdog]

Chamber size has nothing to do with industry standard for testing BC... nor does caliber...

Also, I'm not debating on-game performance... I've killed 10 times more critters with Noslers than all other bullets combined... been shooting them forever. But, they obviously are resting on the merits of the BT and Partition... as no new data, other than that for new powders, has been shot in 30+ years apparently.

 

[bullet]

Chamber size has nothing to do with industry standard for testing BC... nor does caliber...

Also, I'm not debating on-game performance... I've killed 10 times more critters with Noslers than all other bullets combined... been shooting them forever. But, they obviously are resting on the merits of the BT and Partition... as no new data, other than that for new powders, has been shot in 30+ years apparently.

And what difference does that make since to really know the BC you have to shoot and test it? I don't care that they have not shot and tested a single round looking for the BC of a bullet in 30yrs. I also don't care if they are only generalizing when it comes to BC, because unless I take a round that I have developed and shoot it to find what it will really do, as I do with every new round I work up of any given caliber and shoot it at 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600yds (all but the 358Win which I test out to 300) they can print any general BC as far as I am concerned, because I don't care except where the bullet hits when I test it at different distances and how it kills game on short, medium and longer shots period.

 

[Songdog]

To be straight... I love Nosler bullets... they've never let me down when it counted, in either the accuracy or performance. I was simply stating what the article was stating... and adding some personal inferences...

I then found it very interesting how quickly this very well written, and scientificly accurate article was dismissed by a number of folks (several of whom I respect highly and appreciate their experience) ... who never even bothered to read the article. So... I played a little devils advocate on the whole thing.

BC is very important to me... to be sure. I'll take all I can get though given the bullet is applicable for the application. , and I felt a little let down lately when shooting a drop chart with two Nosler bullets, and noticed they weren't shooting as flat as the velocity should indicate. Then this article more than less confirmed my suspicions. I'll still shoot 70 NBTs out of the .243... because I know the clobber the snot out of coyotes... and make acrobats out of prairie poodles. But, when this box runs dry, you can bet I'll look at the 75 Vmax... because the BC appears to be about 40 points higher... and that means more of the good stuff (velocity, energy) and less of the bad stuff (drift)... without giving up much at the spout (50fps or so). Also, I've thrown enough rounds waaay down range to accept a certain published BC as gospel... shooting your own drop data is vital of one expects to make hits (especially on fur) with any level of consistency.

Seriously though... you should at least read the article... especially if you're going to so much effort to discredit it.

 

[bullet]

To be straight... I love Nosler bullets... they've never let me down when it counted, in either the accuracy or performance. I was simply stating what the article was stating... and adding some personal inferences...

I then found it very interesting how quickly this very well written, and scientificly accurate article was dismissed by a number of folks (several of whom I respect highly and appreciate their experience) ... who never even bothered to read the article. So... I played a little devils advocate on the whole thing.

BC is very important to me... to be sure. I'll take all I can get though given the bullet is applicable for the application. , and I felt a little let down lately when shooting a drop chart with two Nosler bullets, and noticed they weren't shooting as flat as the velocity should indicate. Then this article more than less confirmed my suspicions. I'll still shoot 70 NBTs out of the .243... because I know the clobber the snot out of coyotes... and make acrobats out of prairie poodles. But, when this box runs dry, you can bet I'll look at the 75 Vmax... because the BC appears to be about 40 points higher... and that means more of the good stuff (velocity, energy) and less of the bad stuff (drift)... without giving up much at the spout (50fps or so). Also, I've thrown enough rounds waaay down range to accept a certain published BC as gospel... shooting your own drop data is vital of one expects to make hits (especially on fur) with any level of consistency.

Seriously though... you should at least read the article... especially if you're going to so much effort to discredit it.

I am not discrediting the article, I believe it more than likely is right on giving the parameters he used to control his test, I just don't care that much about BC when I know I have to find out anyway what the bullet will or will not do. I am more concerned about my own findings when shooting loads, where they hit and how they kill. I have shot Bergers, Barnes, lots of Sierra's, lots of Nosler's and some Hornady's along with Speer, Swift, Remington and Winchester when hunting game. I Have never found my drop dope to be consistent with any published BC. I agree with you that I like all the BC I can get except when it comes to sacrificing construction for BC. So don't read into my comments anything you shouldn't and I did not find a link to the article, if I did I would have read it because I would like to know the information. Maybe I overlooked it, but I could not find a link to the article.

 

[RiverRider]

Maybe not everybody has access to the article.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I do not normally get or read that publication. I read what you paraphrased and am unchastened about the rest. I do not think that it absolutely necessary to have an opinion on what that article says about BC, especially with the realisation that many factory bullets which have a published BC will have approximately a standard data error of 6%. Suffice to say, that periodical articles are a place to start but if you are going to shoot prairie poodles at 600 yards, you better do some actual correlation testing to measure actual drop, and perhaps do it at altitude.

 

[Ridge_Runner]

To be straight... I love Nosler bullets... they've never let me down when it counted, in either the accuracy or performance. I was simply stating what the article was stating... and adding some personal inferences...

I then found it very interesting how quickly this very well written, and scientificly accurate article was dismissed by a number of folks (several of whom I respect highly and appreciate their experience) ... who never even bothered to read the article. So... I played a little devils advocate on the whole thing.

BC is very important to me... to be sure. I'll take all I can get though given the bullet is applicable for the application. , and I felt a little let down lately when shooting a drop chart with two Nosler bullets, and noticed they weren't shooting as flat as the velocity should indicate. Then this article more than less confirmed my suspicions. I'll still shoot 70 NBTs out of the .243... because I know the clobber the snot out of coyotes... and make acrobats out of prairie poodles. But, when this box runs dry, you can bet I'll look at the 75 Vmax... because the BC appears to be about 40 points higher... and that means more of the good stuff (velocity, energy) and less of the bad stuff (drift)... without giving up much at the spout (50fps or so). Also, I've thrown enough rounds waaay down range to accept a certain published BC as gospel... shooting your own drop data is vital of one expects to make hits (especially on fur) with any level of consistency.

Seriously though... you should at least read the article... especially if you're going to so much effort to discredit it.

I am not discrediting the article, I believe it more than likely is right on giving the parameters he used to control his test, I just don't care that much about BC when I know I have to find out anyway what the bullet will or will not do. I am more concerned about my own findings when shooting loads, where they hit and how they kill. I have shot Bergers, Barnes, lots of Sierra's, lots of Nosler's and some Hornady's along with Speer, Swift, Remington and Winchester when hunting game. I Have never found my drop dope to be consistent with any published BC. I agree with you that I like all the BC I can get except when it comes to sacrificing construction for BC. So don't read into my comments anything you shouldn't and I did not find a link to the article, if I did I would have read it because I would like to know the information. Maybe I overlooked it, but I could not find a link to the article.

I have never hit low using noslers published BC, always high 1.25 moa on average, shooting .277 130, 140 gr BT, 7mm 140, 150 gr BT, and 7mm160 gr ACCB. so since I was hitting high every shot beyond 600 yards, that tells me I was adjusting too much, the only way thats possible is if the BC is low, am I correct?
so all this personal experience that I saw and did should go out the window cause someone prints an article saying nosler BC's are inflated?
even if they were it makes no difference, cause no 2 people shooting in different parts of the country are gonna have the same actual BC, is that so hard to understand?
RR

 

[Oldtrader3]

RR, I have had the same experience with some Nosler bullets. The 225 Partition being one that normally shoots and little high (+1 MOA) from the charts. I think there may be some bullet design variables between applications.

 

[Songdog]

I hear you RR... I think we're on the same page. I'm sure you look at the published BC when considering a projectile though, right? I do too..

The test simply puts all the bullets under the same light... whether or not you like the lighting is up to you. I too have seen higher than expected BCs out of the heavy for caliber BTs and accubonds...

I shoot all my drop data too... and so I don't care what the actual BC works out to, as long as it's close... but it is nice to have an accurate place to start, and I feel the BCs listed in the article should be more accurate... so I'll start there from now on... that's all.

 

[Ridge_Runner]

I hear you RR... I think we're on the same page. I'm sure you look at the published BC when considering a projectile though, right? I do too..

The test simply puts all the bullets under the same light... whether or not you like the lighting is up to you. I too have seen higher than expected BCs out of the heavy for caliber BTs and accubonds...

I shoot all my drop data too... and so I don't care what the actual BC works out to, as long as it's close... but it is nice to have an accurate place to start, and I feel the BCs listed in the article should be more accurate... so I'll start there from now on... that's all.

well once you have your load worked, takes about 15 rounds to determine your actual BC, Reguardless of the number you start with. I never minded shooting 15 shots,
RR

 

[Desert Fox]

Songdog, I admit, I haven't read the article. With that said however, whatever the result of the test that was published in the Varmint Hunter Magazine is irrelevant to me and my rifle. Same true with all the bullet manufacturer published BC. What matters is the actual BC of the bullet that comes out of my barrel.

Let me ask you this. How many Partition or even Ballistic Tip users carry ballistic computer in the field and shoot farther than 500 yards? I bet not too many. So, if the Nosler publish BC data is off by 10%, it won't matter much to most because at 500 yards, you're only off by less than 2 inches... still within kill zone on big game animal.

 

[super-7]

Apparently you misunderstood... the data is nearly identical, with identical velocities... but the bullets are completely different. Did Nosler actually shoot the data for their new manuals... or just copy it from the original manual. Furthermore.... did Nosler actually do any ballistic coefficient testing on the accubonds, or did they simply speculate based on BTs of same weight/caliber?

I'd like to hear Mike or Paul' at Nosler explain this phenomenon/discrepancy....

Nosler is not the only company to do this, I have Hornady's # 4 manual from 1997 and their #8 manual from last year, not only was the foreword and history of the company word for word, the diagrams of chamber pressures are identical, as are most of the load data for the ol reliables, 243 308 7mm rm 30-06 300 win, many are exact copy and paste of the 97 book. but they had a couple of sections about levr and suprformance that was worth reading I was disapointed in the data with any of the new powders as it was very limited.

I had a pretty good read in " Christensens Arms Hunting" magazine about the truth behind BC's these guys do a ton of longrange work aswell, thier conclusion at the end of the story was unless you intend to hunt past 700 yrds that bc was pretty well irelevant. from 300 -600 the drop on a higher bc(.284) 631 a-max and a 300 cal 485 bc interbond was like 2" to 4" difference depending on conditions while taking thier data. with muzzle velocity be able to offset the difference more. a good read, bc is really meant for the longrange target guys very important. On an elk with a 160 gr bullet in 7mm out to 500 yrds, bullet upset and penetration I think would be the biggest concern.

 

[300WSM]

300 WSM, I think that you should shoot the bullet that you are most confident in for whatever features you are wanting. I shoot Partitions for all of my hunting because in my rifles, they are very accurate and they have always performed well for me.

If your primary interst is down range accuracy and velocity at long ranges, maybe some other bullet will work better for you. We all have choices and most of us use more than one manufacturer to encompass all of our shooting needs.

I couldn't agree more. Exactly why I pointed out that you can show and prove a certain BC but if it doesn't perform well in a certain platform, then all that BC is for nothing. I use bullets from many different sources as some of the rifles I use just shoot better with those.