Small ideas for bolt action rifles.

[Floyd]

That is why, all else being equal, gun & muzzle velocity, a higher BC bullet will increase the first shot hit probability, and downright increase long range accuracy.

These are my last few comments because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. (Replace doing with 'saying' and that is me going insane.)

(#1) BC really has nothing to do with any particular rifle's 'first hit probability' on the first shot . I've got rifles that won't shoot squat with a cold barrel, but will nail tacks there after. I also have rifles whose accuracy goes to **** when the barrel gets hot. I fail to see your logic or even the point in saying that.

(#2) Ever play around with different loads and bullets etc. for a rifle or pistol?. The trick is to find the bullet and the load (powder type and burn) that work well with the firearm in question. Just because the bullet chosen has a higher BC does not automatically make it the most accurate bullet for the load or firearm. Some load combinations just don't perform well in some firearms. The art is finding the 'sweet spot'.

While its generally accepted that in theory that a bullet with a higher BC will be more accurate at range than a lessor BC bullet, and though that is probably not categorically wrong to say so, that does not mean that it is a gospel fact. If it shoots like crap at 100yds, then it will certainly shoot like crap at 1000yds. Accuracy at distance is not simply a matter of seating a higher BC bullet in a cartridge and expecting the round to perform better. It just doesn't work that way.

(Yes you did say 'all things being equal'. But therein lies the problem..)

All original WW2 scopes, a 6x Zielsechs scope on the K98k and a 3.5x PEM scope on the Mosin. And it's not me who's firing, I'm right handed myself. The guy firing is Leigh, and he has a popular youtube channel where he shoots these rifles.

Only problem he had was that his particular Zielsechs scope only was adjustable out to 800 meters, so shooting at 1000 & 1200 meters was very difficult. He has since sold this example and is looking for a Zielsechs adjustable out to 1200 meters.

And you don't think that 6x vs 3.5x has anything to do with the resulting differences in grouping at 800m?



Having said all of the above, I have no qualms with your conclusion that at excessive ranges the KAR will group better than a Mosin. That is entirely plausible. You just have to watch the apples vs oranges.......

I'll end my discussion in this thread here as I can't think of how to make my points any clearer and rehashing the same old same old isn't doing anyone any favors....

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

This is getting quite hilarious.

What's hilarious is you continuously ignoring what is being said.

The BC does not change the accuracy.

Sorry but at long range (which is what I am talking about) it actually does change the accuracy. To claim otherwise would be to disregard some simple and irrefutable facts in regards to ballistics.

First of all, as already explained, a higher BC delays the inevitable transition from supersonic to subsonic flight, a point at which a slight instability is caused to the bullet, decreasing accuracy from that point on.

I'm wondering how many times I'll have to write this before you finally understand it...

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

These are my last few comments because the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. (Replace doing with 'saying' and that is me going insane.)

(#1) BC really has nothing to do with any particular rifle's 'first hit probability' on the first shot . I've got rifles that won't shoot squat with a cold barrel, but will nail tacks there after. I also have rifles whose accuracy goes to **** when the barrel gets hot. I fail to see your logic or even the point in saying that.

(#2) Ever play around with different loads and bullets etc. for a rifle or pistol?. The trick is to find the bullet and the load (powder type and burn) that work well with the firearm in question. Just because the bullet chosen has a higher BC does not automatically make it the most accurate bullet for the load or firearm. Some load combinations just don't perform well in some firearms. The art is finding the 'sweet spot'.

While its generally accepted that in theory that a bullet with a higher BC will be more accurate at range than a lessor BC bullet, and though that is probably not categorically wrong to say so, that does not mean that it is a gospel fact. If it shoots like crap at 100yds, then it will certainly shoot like crap at 1000yds. Accuracy at distance is not simply a matter of seating a higher BC bullet in a cartridge and expecting the round to perform better. It just doesn't work that way.

(Yes you did say 'all things being equal'. But therein lies the problem..)

Ofcourse I'm talking about loads already considered accurate in the rifle.

When experimenting with old rifles trying to find the 'sweet spot' you're talking about, then just seating a high BC bullet wont solved anything, you need to know what type of powder to use for each bullet weight, and you need to know what bullet weight your rifle likes the best as-well. If you got that figured out, then you can start finding a bullet of the same weight but with a higher BC, and you should in theory increase the overall accuracy, definitely at long range.

I could ofcourse have put it like this:

You have two different rounds, round A and round B. Both rounds seat a bullet of the same caliber, same weight, featuring the same contact length with barrel, and the same powder is used to gain the same MV through the barrel. Only difference is that round A's bullet has a more blunt nose and therefore a lower BC than round B's bullet.

The powder and bullet weight combination has already been tried & tested as accurate with the particular rifle.

Out to 700 meters the rifle groups the same with both round A & B, past that range the rifle performs markedly better with round B. Why?: Reason is that out to 700 meters both round A & B are still going supersonic, past that range however and the lower BC of round A means it reaches the transonic region, and the bullet takes a hit to its' stability, decreasing accuracy past that range as compared to round B which is still going supersonic.

And you don't think that 6x vs 3.5x has anything to do with the resulting differences in grouping at 800m?

Not according to the guy doing the shooting.

It's mostly about clearly being able to see your target, which ofcourse a higher magnification will help you with. But if you can see it, be it with 3x or 12x, there's no difference, then you can place your sights on it.

Having said all of the above, I have no qualms with your conclusion that at excessive ranges the KAR will group better than a Mosin. That is entirely plausible. You just have to watch the apples vs oranges.......

Let's remember that this conclusion isn't based on the BC of the bullets both rifles fire, it is based mostly on the design & build quality of the rifles.

A higher BC bullet just helps retain the accuracy for longer before the transition in speed and resulting decrease in stability occurs = a longer accurate range.

 

[Floyd]

Not according to the guy doing the shooting.

It's mostly about clearly being able to see your target, which ofcourse a higher magnification will help you with. But if you can see it, be it with 3x or 12x, there's no difference, then you can place your sights on it.

I know I said I was done, but to this I just have to say BULL****!
What a crock. And he claims you can get identical groupings shooting 3x vs 12x at 800m? Gee, I wonder why no one shoots with a 3x scope at the 1000 yd IBS matches? Do yourself a favor and don't use this guy as a source anymore.......

===========

To give some of our forum members who never have the opportunity to shoot the real thing, and to give them some perspective about what is possible here is some fun stuff. This will give those guys something to compare some of the outrageous claims you'll hear from time to time to.

The second link has some really interesting (if you're so inclined) discussion about what some of the different shooters in this type of competition look at when matching their bullet choice with their particular weapon.

2009 IBS 1000yd (914.4 meters) Heavy Gun record in 2009. There are various rules, time constraints and what not, but basically Heavy Gun is an unlimited class. IBS has several disciplines, this is one of them.

This is the water cooled gun that shot the grouping:

Spoiler!

EDIT*** link for those who can't get the pics to work: http://longrangeshooter.com/2009/06/new-1000-yard-shooting-record/

Old but good article about the sport....
[URL="http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek057.html"][URL="http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek057.html"][URL="http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek057.html"][URL]http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek057.html[/URL]


Have fun, guys.....

[/URL]

[/URL][/URL]

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

I know I said I was done, but to this I just have to say BULL****!
What a crock. And he claims you can get identical groupings shooting 3x vs 12x at 800m? Gee, I wonder why no one shoots with a 3x scope at the 1000 yd IBS matches? Do yourself a favor and don't use this guy as a source anymore.......

===========

I do agree with him somewhat though. Having a 4x to 12x scope myself mounted on a Remington 700 (Japanese Optisan), I can group the same at 400 meters using either 4x or 12x zoom, as long as I can clearly define my target so I can place the crosshairs directly in the middle. So in a sense he's right, he did say that you had to clearly be able to see the target. Also lets remember he's shooting at 18x18 inch targets, and if you have 20/20 vision then a 3.5x scope will be enough for you to clearly define it.

If my target gets so small that I can't clearly define it anymore then it's time for more zoom. But before that, it aint necessary, it won't have an impact on my movement with the gun, it's about being able to see it and place the crosshairs directly in the middle. A higher zoom will help, no doubt, but only to a certain limit.

To give some of our forum members who never have the opportunity to shoot the real thing, and to give them some perspective about what is possible here is some fun stuff. This will give those guys something to compare some of the outrageous claims you'll hear from time to time to.

The second link has some really interesting (if you're so inclined) discussion about what some of the different shooters in this type of competition look at when matching their bullet choice with their particular weapon.

2009 IBS 1000yd (914.4 meters) Heavy Gun record in 2009. There are various rules, time constraints and what not, but basically Heavy Gun is an unlimited class. IBS has several disciplines, this is one of them.

This is the water cooled gun that shot the grouping:

Spoiler!

Old but good article about the sport....
[URL="http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek057.html"][URL="http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek057.html"][URL="http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek057.html"][URL="http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek057.html"][URL]http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek057.html[/URL][/URL]


Have fun, guys.....

[/URL]

[/URL][/URL]

Pictures didn't work.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Just to demonstrate what 20/20 vision allows you to do:

Schmidt Rubin K31, 1,050 yards, Iron Sights, 7 shots, 3 hits:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1HJP3QQv1w]YouTube - 1,050 yards, open sights, Swiss K31 7.5x55 Schmidt-Rubin 7.5x55 rifle[/URL]

Same performance as with the scoped rifles. The only reason he's capable of this is because of the size & colour of the target (18x18" Red) allowing him to better define it.

 

[Bowrrl]

I really hope TWI doesn't pay attention to the forums or else HoS is going to consist of the Russian team winning by dying until the Germans disconnect from boredom and the Germans winning by using space age equipment hand crafted on krypton by the virgin priestesses from the cult of The Fonz.

 

[VariousNames]

It's pretty hard to argue about some things when they have solid, factual base on them such as ice is slippery, **** smells like **** (ignoring the possibility if the person has lost the sense of smell), K98k tends to be more accurate than Mosin under common circumstances etc unless we want to intensionally make it a cluster**** by bringing in problem of induction and other metaphysical, philosophical things which would just derail this thread further.

Seriously, the problem of induction is probably the most genuine objection I can see here, and a totally legitimate point.

I mean, maybe not in a metaphysical sense, but definitely in a methodological sense. Unus smattering of anecdotal evidence and the small sample size isn't the most convincing data I can imagine. Hell, I'm not even really convinced that the BC's he's using are accurate.

Yes this is as lousy as argument can get, but unfortunately given the facts (and lack of in some cases) about RO:Ost, RO2 and the data Unas has posted here it's pretty difficult to post anything else besides raise potential, if slightly humorous\amusing concerns on practical ingame scale, even when people would be in favour of the idea.

Well, necessarily with a larger sample we're going to deviate some from the stuff he's given us, but I'd like some idea of where we're at with these rifles, seeing as the difference between 1-4 MOA is no laughing matter (easily the diff between semi and bolt) and that range is beyond what I can mentally establish for either cartridge/rifle, granted the amount of fairly baseless claims running about.

I would like to see that level of precision modeled, seeing as it already is, and I would like a genuine attempt at accuracy, even if it deviates by a substantive margin from the real figures just due to....well, the problem of induction. It gives a sense of....authenticity. Is that strange?

To reexamine what I've said and to reiterate my objection to your complaint...

I think it's obvious that most people won't notice the difference,

but considering that the precision is already there anyway,

I think it would be a good idea for the values to be checked, backed by some degree of evidence, and set somewhere in good faith.

And I hope that's not too asinine of a thing to be concerned about.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Seriously, the problem of induction is probably the most genuine objection I can see here, and a totally legitimate point.

I mean, maybe not in a metaphysical sense, but definitely in a methodological sense. Unus smattering of anecdotal evidence and the small sample size isn't the most convincing data I can imagine. Hell, I'm not even really convinced that the BC's he's using are accurate.

The BC figures I listed a quite genuine, they can be found both on the internet and in books on the subject, either in actual G1 figure or by extrapolating the figure from actual ballistics tables. (G7 is more accurate then)

If there is any doubt regarding any information I have submitted then I will gladly back it up with source material and picture evidence. Just ask away.

The points I have raised are the following:

1.) The K98k features a thicker barrel than the Mosin
2.) The K98k features a stepped and tapered barrel design, where'as the Mosin's barrel is almost entirely straight.
3.) The K98k features a higher build quality than the Mosin, esp. in the metal work.
4.) During the war the K98k was supplied ammunition of a higher build quality than that of the ammunition supplied for the Mosin during the war.
5.) The German 7.92mm 12.8 gram s.S. projectile featured a G1 BC ranging from .584 to .595 depending on type (MG or Sniper grade)
6.) The Russian 7.62mm 9.54 gram Type L projectile featured a G1 BC of .395.

These six points are the ones that warrant the suggestion for a slightly higher ingame accuracy for the K98k over the Mosin.

 

[VariousNames]

If there is any doubt regarding any information I have submitted then I will gladly back it up with source material and picture evidence. Just ask away.

I can't say no.

I'll take whatever you've got, because I'm a greedy dude and I like gunporn.

It would also tickle the historian in me. Go nuts.

Then again, if it's too much trouble, no bother. It's just a discussion about videogames, and I'm just an idiot on a webforum.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

I can't say no.

I'll take whatever you've got, because I'm a greedy dude and I like gunporn.

It would also tickle the historian in me. Go nuts.

Then again, if it's too much trouble, no bother. It's just a discussion about videogames, and I'm just an idiot on a webforum.

Hehe, well it would be nice to know where to start

For bullet BC's one can start by checking out the ballistic table provided by Fabrique Nationale for their 12.8 gram FMJBT round, which is a copy of the German s.S. round:


The BC for the Russian 9.54 gram Type L round has been provided on the 7.62x54r.net website: [URL]http://www.7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmo003.htm[/URL]

 

[Floyd]

Have you got a trajectory graph for the 197.5 gr german round at K98 mv's? I think it would be interesting to compare to two graphically.

From the 7.62 site you posted:

 

[VariousNames]

That's the best I can do. 7.62x54R with ballistics from 7.62.net: http://tinyurl.com/4hs27fb freeware ballistics calculator I used: http://www.ballisticsimulator.com/
http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmoID.htmhttp://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmoID.htm

" In 1908 the new pointed "spitzer" bullet known as the "L" for light was adopted which weighed 9,6 grams (147 grains) and had a muzzle velocity of 855 meters/second (2800 feet/second). [...] In 1930 the case head was changed from a rounded shape to a bevel and tombac jacketed bullets began to replace the cupro-nickel bullets in the early 1930s."

That's the closest I can get to establishing the historical context for the round you mentioned.

But if you're looking for a specific request..

In particular I'd like some evidence that the particular .584 BC s.s. cartridge was standard issue for riflemen in WW2.

I'll try and find some evidence that that particular model cartridge at FN is modeled off the historical WWII era cartridge, but perhaps you could help me in that regard as well

Suffice to say all things in this thread accounted for I think there's a good case to be made for changing the ballistics data in HoS to comport with at least some of these findings.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

But if you're looking for a specific request..

In particular I'd like some evidence that the particular .584 BC s.s. cartridge was standard issue for riflemen in WW2.

Well S.m.E. was std. issue after late 1942, before that s.S. was the std. issue round. After late 1942 only snipers and machine gunners were allowed to use s.S. ammunition. In 1943 US intelligence continued to specify the s.S. as the std. German 7.92x57 round though, despite the semi armour piercing S.m.E. having replaced it in 42.

You can check out this site as-well:
[URL]http://www.cruffler.com/Features/JUL-01/trivia-July01.html[/URL]

I'll try and find some evidence that that particular model cartridge at FN is modeled off the historical WWII era cartridge, but perhaps you could help me in that regard as well

I have examples of both, they are pretty much identical, eventhough the German bullet seems a little more streamlined featuring a more shallow cannelure and a better finish.

I can pull one out and take a picture one of these days.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

A visual illustration of the difference in trajectory out to 600 meters using Norma's ballistics program. Can't go any further than that using that program I'm afraid.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Alright, pulled a couple of bullets from their casings, will be posting pictures in a few days when I get new digital camera (old one doesn't work anymore apparently )

Let me tell you guys though, these bullets are VERY well made, absolutely prestine.

 

[Actin]

wondering for some time now...

Is this thread still fitting in the 'ideas and suggestions' section?
only see used bullet numbering and bc's and stuff

 

[ductape3]

Is wind included in the accuracy of the bullets in HoS? because I think that if there is no wind, than this entire argument is useless because wind will have a greater effect on the course of the bullet than the BC...

 

[VariousNames]

Well S.m.E. was std. issue after late 1942, before that s.S. was the std. issue round. After late 1942 only snipers and machine gunners were allowed to use s.S. ammunition. In 1943 US intelligence continued to specify the s.S. as the std. German 7.92x57 round though, despite the semi armour piercing S.m.E. having replaced it in 42.

You can check out this site as-well:
http://www.cruffler.com/Features/JUL-01/trivia-July01.html[url]http://www.cruffler.com/Features/JUL-01/trivia-July01.html[/URL]

From your own post in the following thread

The regular infantry were issued primarily with the Patrone S.m.E. (Spitzgeschoss mit Eisenkern) up until late 42 and almost exclusively from there'on. The S.m.E is a 11.5 gram FMJ BT with a mild steel core, referred to as semi armour piercing, it provided better penetration performance than regular lead cored bullets, whilst not quite as much as the dedicated armour piercing bullets with hardened iron cores, designated Patrone S.m.K (Spitzergeschoss mit Kern). The ballistic coefficient was a repectable .480 G1.

In which you mention both that the s.S. was primarily issued to MG and snipers whereas the regular infantry were "issued primarily" with the Sme, which has a far less impactful .480 BC. And that's only until "late 1942." Incidentally, the Battle of Stalingrad did not begin until July of 1942. I wouldn't suppose that many riflemen would be floating around with sS cartridges on account of that during the BoS, would they?

From this measure it seems to me two things, one, that sniper ballistics should vary compared to riflemen, and two, that the BC variance between regular section Soviet and German infantry wouldn't be nearly as psychotic as you've implied.

And I still don't see where you're getting all this ballistics data on German cartridges. If it's a print source, I understand, but it would be nice to get a citation.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

From your own post in the following thread


In which you mention both that the s.S. was primarily issued to MG and snipers whereas the regular infantry were "issued primarily" with the Sme, which has a far less impactful .480 BC. And that's only until "late 1942."

I made a mistake earlier, seeing as s.S. was infact std. issue up until late 1942, huge stocks of it having been made up until that point. S.m.E. took production priority from late 1942 onwards, this was done in an effort to save lead (S.m.E. used a mild steel core instead of lead).

Incidentally, the Battle of Stalingrad did not begin until July of 1942. I wouldn't suppose that many riflemen would be floating around with sS cartridges on account of that during the BoS, would they?

Actually most would be equipped with s.S. rounds at that point, seeing as the S.m.E. only started overtaking s.S. production in late 42 (November or December). And apparently it would've been until late 1943 before newly distributed S.m.E. started outnumbering the already distributed s.S. for riflemen use.

According to most sources though s.S. production makes up roughly 80% of all 7.92x57mm ammunition produced from 1935 to 1945, so they no doubt would've had a lot in stock throughout most of the war - atleast up until around 1944 as the following suggests: In a letter to the German high command in July 1944 the general of infantry expressed concerns regarding the lack of s.S. ammunition available for sniper use, in the same letter explaining that the std. issue S.m.E. wasn't considered nearly as satisfactory for the long range precision work conducted by the sniper (This can be read in the book German sniper 1914-1945 on page 91)

From this measure it seems to me two things, one, that sniper ballistics should vary compared to riflemen, and two, that the BC variance between regular section Soviet and German infantry wouldn't be nearly as psychotic as you've implied.

From late 1942 onwards s.S. ammunition was primarily to be distributed for sniper and machinegun use.

As for the 11.55 gram S.m.E., let's remember that muzzle velocity was 785 m/s for that round.

And I still don't see where you're getting all this ballistics data on German cartridges. If it's a print source, I understand, but it would be nice to get a citation.

I already gave the FN chart, but there are ofcourse also the WW2 charts which list a slightly higher velocity retention for the s.S. round over the first 300 meters. As long as you got the ballistics charts you can easily map the bullet BC, no problem.