Received a box of Hornady 30 cal 150gr INTERLOCK SP bullets in the mail yesterday. Some of the tips, which are lead, have a few minor dings and a few even have a slight "flat" area on them, presumably from being knocked around in the box during shipping. I don't think that would impact ballistics, but wanted to throw it out here and ask. I'm thinking for closer ranges, like less than 100 yards, no problem. Maybe if I were trying to hit a 400 yard target?
Does slightly deformed tip of bullet affect ballistics under 100 yards?
- Thread starter M88
- Start date
Received a box of Hornady 30 cal 150gr INTERLOCK SP bullets in the mail yesterday. Some of the tips, which are lead, have a few minor dings and a few even have a slight "flat" area on them, presumably from being knocked around in the box during shipping. I don't think that would impact ballistics, but wanted to throw it out here and ask. I'm thinking for closer ranges, like less than 100 yards, no problem. Maybe if I were trying to hit a 400 yard target?
NoSecondBest
New member
All my Remington .458 404g JHP look like that or worse. They still shoot one ragged hole at 100 yards. I guess my answer is "not that I can tell". If I were shooting benchrest competition I'd probably be more particular.
A guy did a test ages ago, did all kinds of slices, gouges, and drilled holes in the tips of quite a few bullets. No noticeable change to their accuracy.
Holes drilled in the BASE of the bullets, accuracy went to hell.
basically a tiny or small deformation in the tip of the bullet doesn't change the weight or balance enough to matter. In the base of the change of a few grains of weight can destabilize the inflight spin enough to affect accuracy.
Hope this answers your question. The bullet in your pic is normal, and many are much worse with no effect on their accuracy.
Holes drilled in the BASE of the bullets, accuracy went to hell.
basically a tiny or small deformation in the tip of the bullet doesn't change the weight or balance enough to matter. In the base of the change of a few grains of weight can destabilize the inflight spin enough to affect accuracy.
Hope this answers your question. The bullet in your pic is normal, and many are much worse with no effect on their accuracy.
THIS is what I suspected, and glad to hear confirmed by those that have experience here. After digging around more since I posted this the other day, I did run into an article that did as 44 AMP said. The guy mangled the tips/front of bullets in all kinds of ways and tested that effect. Little if any change. For ME that is counter intuitive, but lots of things in this world are. Good to know. Thanks folks.44 AMP said:
Lots of things in this world are, for me as well. But many things do make sense when looked at in the right way.
First off, with a bullet, it is not only pushing through the air, but also spinning rapidly on its axis. Mass, inertia, torque, and other factors are in play. Bullets are essentially pointed rods thick at the back, thinner at the front. So a tiny change that does actually unbalance the front is over-ridden by the still balanced stability of the more massive rear section.
Anything less than a perfectly balanced nose will "wobble" it's something that could be calculated, math says it must exist, but the effect of that tiny wobble is (usually) hidden /overwhelmed by other factors, so there is seldom any effect on accuracy we can see.
An "unbalanced" bullet base, on the other hand, has a great effect. It is the greatest mass of the bullet, so if the weight is lopsided (not "true" with the spin axis) the bullet won't fly true, either.
Think of a football, as a related example. The point of the ball can wobble a bit but the ball still flies straight enough, if the throwing hand applies the spin correctly to the wide middle of the ball. But, if your fingers slip as you throw, the spin is unbalanced, and the torque of the big part spinning off balance sends the pass to who knows where. The base of the bullet is the "big part" due to its mass.
clear as mud now, right?
Mike Irwin
Staff
"A guy did a test ages ago, did all kinds of slices, gouges, and drilled holes in the tips of quite a few bullets. No noticeable change to their accuracy."
We published that article when I was with American Rifleman back in the early 1990s.
It was quite a revelation to me at the time.
We published that article when I was with American Rifleman back in the early 1990s.
It was quite a revelation to me at the time.
These guys are not scientists, but they document what they test and present the outcomes , all in entertaining way:
https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-49-damaged-bullet-accuracy-and-the-box-o-truth/
https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-49-damaged-bullet-accuracy-and-the-box-o-truth/
Interesting read seanc... although apparently not professionally done, he took the time to try and get some good results. What he DID show was 44 AMP's assertion that a chunk out of one side of the main MASS of the bullet, like the chunk this guy took from the base with a file, DOES have an effect.
Mike Irwin
Staff
I think the primary cause of inaccuracy from a damaged bullet base is due to uneven turbulence formed at the base of the bullet.
So Mike are you saying that the turbulence caused from the missing chunk out of the rear of the bullet is more of a destabilizing factor than the fact that the bullet mass is now lopsided, as 44 AMP says "not 'true' with the spin axis"? I would assume it's both. Just out of pure curiosity, wondering what would cause more destabilizing. I suppose that would be determined by how MUCH of the base is deformed.Mike Irwin said:
Also, can I assume that at short range, say 25 or 50 yards, even a damaged base wouldn't matter much?
If you take a chunk out of the base of a bullet, so that material is missing from the rim edge of the base you'll get some gas blow by. Maybe gas cutting. And it will be an unbalanced rotation. Worst of both worlds I would think.
You can test this, I think if you notched some bullet bases, and then took others and drilled an equal size hole in the side of the bullet, just above the base, leaving the base intact, you should be able to determine which one had the greater effect on accuracy. If there was any noticeable difference, of course.
You can test this, I think if you notched some bullet bases, and then took others and drilled an equal size hole in the side of the bullet, just above the base, leaving the base intact, you should be able to determine which one had the greater effect on accuracy. If there was any noticeable difference, of course.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"So Mike are you saying that the turbulence caused from the missing chunk out of the rear of the bullet is more of a destabilizing factor than the fact that the bullet mass is now lopsided"
That's what I recall from things I've read, because imperfections in the base, even if they don't upset the distribution of the mass of the bullet, can have a significant effect on accuracy.
I know the military did some testing on different methods of closing the base of FMJ bullets and found that uneven closures, lead spurs jutting out through the closure, etc., can really mess with accuracy even if they have very little affect on the bullet's center of mass.
In reality, few production bullets, especially cored ones with drawn jackets, have perfectly balanced centers of mass, or whatever it's called.
That's what I recall from things I've read, because imperfections in the base, even if they don't upset the distribution of the mass of the bullet, can have a significant effect on accuracy.
I know the military did some testing on different methods of closing the base of FMJ bullets and found that uneven closures, lead spurs jutting out through the closure, etc., can really mess with accuracy even if they have very little affect on the bullet's center of mass.
In reality, few production bullets, especially cored ones with drawn jackets, have perfectly balanced centers of mass, or whatever it's called.
Thanks Mike and 44, for humoring my curiosity. To me, ballistics is an interesting subject. On one level, analogous to electronic circuits (I'm a retired electronics tech) in that lots of things happen VERY very quickly. For me the appeal is breaking that instant in time down to human speed to analyse whats happening when. Years ago in my 30's just starting out woodworking I was cavalier with equipment, and as a result suffered stitches and bruised ribs on several occasions from my table saw "shooting" a chunk of wood at me at roughly 80 mph. I've learned to respect equipment and processes the hard way. Segue into re-loading. I'm JUST getting into re-loading, and NOW I tend to be overly cautious on things. Especially things as serious as making bullets where a mistake could cost me a finger. I would LOVE to experiment with loading intentionally defective rounds to test them out. Would be an interesting experiment. Not there yet, but at some point I will be and am going to test this out, just for fun and to satisfy my curiosity.44 AMP said: