308Nut

What primers are you using? CCI?

The very bottom most parts of fossil creek holds at least six 400-430" bulls.

What WampusCat said... If I'm on anything less than max power, I'm close enough to not need hold overs or windage. They're cool and have their place but I've personally never found it useful. I've had two FFP scopes and more SFP scopes than I can remember. All of my current scopes are SFP. I'm not against them, I just don't need or desire them enough to justify the extra expenses. That means more reloading supplies for more trigger time;)

Amen.

It's also my least favorite 6.5. 1st and foremost and I know everybody else hates the term barrel burner but when I loose accuracy at 500 rounds, set back and loose it again 200 later, running average loads, it's time for something else for me. I enjoy shooting to much to just get things developed, settled in, have a bit of LR fun and then have to start over....you all can have that crap. The second thing is that the 2 best powders won't fill the case. Or even near it. The more air in the case, the more velocity troubles you'll have when you change altitudes. H4350 and H4831/H4831SC are phenomenal in that caliber. Low ES, good temp stability and crazy accurate. I'm with C. There are other good 6.5 choices out there. 260 and 260AI. Lead the way IMHO. When you look at windage numbers down range, there's not enough difference to squawk about. Plus you get a much higher load density.

Very good post and thank you for sharing. You have no idea how much I respect you for and appreciate your honest here. Most new bullet makers and their reps swear until the bloody end that their BCs are correct. Thank you for admitting that they were initially optimistic. .52 for a 168 is much more believable as is .56 for a 180. Still very much on the high side but those are mathematically possible values.

It seemed to make a difference for me. It was 1/2 the group size at 100 yards and much less ES. I used volume to experiment and test but started weighing to fine tune.

Best way to double check is use a powder measure set to a given grain setting. Fill it up then weigh the powder in an actual grain scale. Do this several times for an average. Using a sole powder measure is somewhat inconsistent. I agree with another poster about marking the ram rod for consistent seating depth. Consistent weight and depth go a long way for accuracy and lower ES.

Don't forget that while you may elect to weigh your charges individually (I am a fan of this for lower ES) that there is a big difference between grains and volumetric grains. Most data is based on volumetric weight so when a manufacturer lists max loads at say 100 grains, you don't weigh 100 grains. You first convert to volumetric weight which if my memory serves me right is 70% or .7. In other words 70 physical grains is equal to 100 volumetric grains.

I'm not sure why first come first serve is so gray or complicated. Early bird gets the worm. Tree stands and blinds placed preseason does not automatically give any one hunter the sole rights to sit near that water hole. Now for a hunter to sit in said tree stand or blind who didn't place it there is another matter. IMHO, first come first served. That said, everybody has the legal right to sit there. 4 hunters could sit there but a respectful hunter would go somewhere else if another hunter was there first.

I imagine the kofa has attracted a lot of attention since this buck was killed. I wonder how many points it will take to make the points pass this year...

Guys with 13, 12 and 11 points did apply but they applied as 2nd choice and drew their first. No tags went to applicants with 13, 12 or 11 points but it does show what type of attention unit 27 late has received. No guarantees that the points pass will be 10 or 11 points this year.

Here is my take on this. If you have a lot of points hold out for 13B or 13A. The bonus pass on these hunts are currently sitting at 15 points. The late 12s are also great hunts but will still take around 13 points to make the bonus pass, wait an extra 2 years and hunt in the 13s. 3A3C requires less points but is also earlier before the rut and not the same experience in my opinion. 23 and 27 have rut hunts and would take 8 to 10 points to make the pass. I would say save your points for 13s and archery & leftover hunt until you get the best tag. Just so you know, it took 15 points last year to make the max points pass in unit 27 late mule deer....a couple were drawn with 10 as applicants with 11, 12, 13 points drew their 1st choices.

So the game department sends me a deer hunter harvest survey in the mail. I bought no archery tag and did not draw for the general season. The survey shows my tag number as 0000. It even asked if I harvested a deer. Lol! I'm not even going to entertain that one. Really AZ?

In my experience, big desert bucks become inactive during daylight hours after the rut until the next rut. Not that they move very far, just become invisible. They have balls and nerves if steel. Unless you all but step on them, they won't bust out of their hiding hole.

Nice job! Nice fuel prices too. I'm still paying $3.00+ for 90 octane per gal.

The lead musket ball will have the higher specific gravity. Which has the higher sectional density? The one with the smaller diameter. Which has the higher BC? My guess (since I'm not a round ball expert) is the one with the more aerodynamic shape. Why do I say that despite what I have been expressing? Because the balance between SD and form factor is extreme in this case. If both had equal dimensions regardless of whether or not they were round balls or modern boat-tail bullets, the lead version would hands down have the higher BC. I agree 100% that shape has much to do with BC. That's why the rule of thumb equation for BC is SD/i where SD is sectional density and i is form factor. Both are critical to the equation. When I'm referring to the importance if SD in BCs, in the context of this discussion, I'm comparing bullets with equal dimensions or equal form factors to illustrate SDs importance. Bullets of dimensions that have differing weights do not have the same BC. The heavier of the 2 will always have a higher BC. Comparing the 170 solid to a 168 Hybrid, the percentage of difference in form factor seems large on paper but in reality, when it comes to drag while it is in flight the change between the 2 is very small. regardless of what any calculators will tell you. Is it possible for your 170 to be higher than the 168 hybrid? It's absolutely possible (banding aside). It would be possible to improve the BC of the 168 hybrid. But not by much. It would take the same form factor as the 215 hybrid to get it up to .544g1. Adding the 2 grains and subsequent increase in SD, the 170 would reach the .550g1 mark if it had the same form factor as the 215. To illustrate my point, Berger's 300 grain hybrid 338 bullet and the 250 grain hybrid 338 bullet have the same form factor. The big difference between the two since the caliber is the same is weight and subsequent SD yet the 250 has a lower BC. In fact, it is directly proportionate. (.818/300) * 250 = .682. .818 is the BCg1 of the 300 grain and .682 is the BCg1 of the 250. 83.4% is the difference in not only the BC but 83.4% is also the difference between their SDs as well. This should illustrate the importance of raw sectional density in regards to BC.

It seems like you guys are on the right track and the product looks good. You're right that if there was a 170 grain 30 cal at .6+ the potential of the 308 would be astounding. I know I'd pay an unimaginable about of money for such a product. Rule number 1 when figuring BCs. Software based calculators are not reliable. Any software based results hold zero weight. Rule number 2. Specific gravity and sectional density has everything to do with the equation. The difference between a razor meplat and those found on match kings isn't enough to make .58 on a 170 let alone .638 or .65. I challenge you to go back to your testing grounds and perform the test again using your bullets but this time shoot another projectile such as the 168 hybrid or vld side by side so you have a known reference to compare against. That way when the vld or hybrid also shows .6+, you'll know Berger is published way low, or your set up needs an adjustment. Also, send a few to another party for an evaluation. What have you got to loose doing either or both?

Can it be expected that a 170 grain that is shaped similar to the 220 SMK to have a BC higher than the 220? I can see that the nose of the 170 is slightly more streamlined than the 220 but the sectional density of the two is extremely different to the 220s favor. Sectional density and form factor are the two largest key ingredients to BC. Just because it has a form factor slightly higher than the 220 does not equate to a BC slightly higher than the 220. Specific gravity and subsequent sectional density flat prevent it. Physics cannot be cheated period. It would take the same form factor as the 215 Berger hybrid to get a 30 cal 170 grain bullet up to .550g1. We both know that the 170 does not have the same form factor as the 215. For any 170 grain 30 cal projectile to have a .65g1 it would take a form factor quite a bit north of the 215's form factor. If the 170 had the exact same shape as the 215 Berger hybrid which has a legitimate .696, the 170's BC would be roughly only 79% of the 215 or about .550 The reality is the 215 and that 170 have different noses and boat-tails. The 170 looks to have about the same nose and boat-tail profile as the 210ABLR which has been verified by several sources including Litz to have a BCg1 of .651. With the lower sectional density, the BC will be lower as well. How much lower? About 21% lower. It is a ballistic fact that bullets of equal dimensions but varying weights change BCs proportionally to their sectional densities. 210 30 cal SD = .316. 170 30 cal SD = .256. With a form factor similar to the 208 amax, 210 vld and 210ABLR, the 170 is stuck with between .527-530g1. The longer body length to weight ratio and the addition of the grooves further reduce it's form factor. There are 168 grain bullets on the market that have BCs slightly higher than .61g1. Unfortunately, they come packaged in a box labeled 7mm. Building a 30 cal 168 class bullet to be higher than a 7mm 168 class bullet is about as difficult as developing transportation to exceed the speed of light. Velocity comes in to play as you know. That said, the 400'sec or so that you'll gain over the 210s is not going to get it up to .6 let alone .65. All that aside, those are some good looking bullets!

Possibility one. Change barrel rifle. The 270 barrel got pulled and tossed. 308 barrel threaded on. Possibility two. Shot him with his own rifle and tossed it. I'm thinking the latter.

On the subject of bullet length, I have a physics question for the ballistic nuts here. Before you can answer the question you have to know that there are 2 bullets that are the same caliber, weigh exactly the same, have the exact same nose profile, the same boat tail profile but one is solid copper and one is jacketed lead. For obvious reasons, the all copper bullet is longer since the body of the bullet needs to be longer to achieve the same weight as the jacketed lead version. With the above info in mind, which one has the higher BC? After you answer, add why you picked the one you picked.

Did you actually shoot the 175 SMK to gain a reference for an accurate comparison? Tell us a little more about your set up. IE how you measured 308 yards, how you measured barometric pressure, temperature, humidity and determined the altitude. Did you test the new chronographs together front to back to ensure they're both the same? How did you enter your data into JBMs engine? Thanks for sharing, M

So, 308? Wait, what's this post about? It's about bullet BCs having limitations. If a 30 caliber 170 grain bullet could hit or exceed the .600G1 mark, the 7mm would be obsolete all together. But the 7mm isn't obsolete and for good reason. Neither are obsolete. They just shine in areas the other doesn't. Having 170 class grain bullets in .6+G1 BCs is one of the 7mm shining qualities. 170 class grain bullets is not the 30 cals strong suit regardless of shape, material or any other factors.

+1 on STOMPs reply ^^^^^^^^ It is not physically possible for a 170 grain 30 cal bullet to reach the .6G1 mark let alone .65. The BC evaluation process used has a flaw somewhere. It can be hard to find which component is flawed or which combination of items. The 177 GS bullet proves this. 177 mono metal shaped like a 208 AMAX and is advertised at .638G1 by GS bullets. Actual firing tests prove that they're not even close to .6 let alone the .638 they advertise. Something that should always be done when using the double chrony method to evaluate bullets with unkown BCs is to shoot another bullet that has a proven BC side by side so you know if there is a major fubar. I have done this in the past for a side by side comparison. You know if you're shooting a 175 SMK over two chronies and you come up with .580G1, you know you screwed up somewhere because you know that the 175 SMK does not have a BC anywhere near .580. It gives you a reference to compare against. You will also know if you're higher or lower than the reference and either way you'll know what percentage higher or lower it is. For example, when the 210 ABLR came out and had a published value of .73, it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that there is no way for a 30 cal 210 grain class bullet to hit the .730 mark. What was the first thing I did when I received some? A little load development and then the double chrony test. I had a 208 load that was within a few FPS of the 210. I shot them side by side. Knowing that the 208 has an accepted average .633G1 BC and a .66+ G1 at 2900'sec I had an accurate reference point to compare against the 210ABLR. After calculating .647G1 for the 208, I knew for a fact that my components were set up properly and that my calculations were correct. At lease very close. Then having shot the 210 over the same two chronies minutes apart from the 208, I knew the calculated value would be very close to reality. It showed me that it was slightly lower than the 208 between 0-200 yards. Out to a grand, it showed that it was slightly higher. I'm assuming that it is because it's BC decays slightly less than the 208 over distance but who knows? At least I know that these two bullets are very close in BC. One red flag I see is your statements of barometric pressure. I'm assuming your using your stated pressure values in your equation. If you are and those are corrected for sea level values while you are shooting at > 1300' elevation, that is part of the problem. Like I said before, the ATF will allow you to donate a handful...It'd be good to get another opinion.

Are you shooting near sea level?