Pond James Pond
New member
I ask this with mainly longer range shooting in mind.
I am not yet at a level where BC makes much difference, but as I develop loads I am trying to select the bullet-powder combinations now that will meet these needs later.
If I have a good long range load, even if I only use it to shoot 100-300m now, every shot will serve to make me more used to its performance and characteristics.
So that means making smart bullet choices now.
As some know I have been developing a load for my 155gr Amax.
However, as I understand it, longer range shooting would mean somewhat heavier bullets. So I am looking at 167-180gr bullets.
I also understand that Ballistic Coefficient will affect how well the bullet works further away. But how big a deal is it?
My Amax bullets are listed as .435 BC.
By contrast I can get a Hornady 168gr HPBT with a BC of .450 or a 180gr SST with a BC of .480.
Then there is the Lapua offering: the 167gr and 180gr Scenars at .446 and .482 BC respectively and then the impressive .498 of the 170gr Lockbase bullet!
So the Lockbase is most attractive: an impressive BC in .30 cal, and a lower weight meaning a smidge less recoil.
Here is the issue: comparing the Lockbase with the 180gr SST the Lapua is €10 per 100 more expensive. That adds up.
I know this is mostly down to me, but I want to put the BC difference in perspective. If the BC difference will make next to no discernible change in performance, it makes the choice easier. If it means a noticeable improvement in consistency/accuracy and a flatter flight that also carries a lot of value to me.
So, is the lower weight and .018 greater BC worth an extra €100 per 1000 rounds?
I am not yet at a level where BC makes much difference, but as I develop loads I am trying to select the bullet-powder combinations now that will meet these needs later.
If I have a good long range load, even if I only use it to shoot 100-300m now, every shot will serve to make me more used to its performance and characteristics.
So that means making smart bullet choices now.
As some know I have been developing a load for my 155gr Amax.
However, as I understand it, longer range shooting would mean somewhat heavier bullets. So I am looking at 167-180gr bullets.
I also understand that Ballistic Coefficient will affect how well the bullet works further away. But how big a deal is it?
My Amax bullets are listed as .435 BC.
By contrast I can get a Hornady 168gr HPBT with a BC of .450 or a 180gr SST with a BC of .480.
Then there is the Lapua offering: the 167gr and 180gr Scenars at .446 and .482 BC respectively and then the impressive .498 of the 170gr Lockbase bullet!
So the Lockbase is most attractive: an impressive BC in .30 cal, and a lower weight meaning a smidge less recoil.
Here is the issue: comparing the Lockbase with the 180gr SST the Lapua is €10 per 100 more expensive. That adds up.
I know this is mostly down to me, but I want to put the BC difference in perspective. If the BC difference will make next to no discernible change in performance, it makes the choice easier. If it means a noticeable improvement in consistency/accuracy and a flatter flight that also carries a lot of value to me.
So, is the lower weight and .018 greater BC worth an extra €100 per 1000 rounds?