Hornady VLD bullets ?
- Thread starter rebs
- Start date
How do you mean "VLD"?
If you mean the ELD series of bullets, they shoot pretty well.
I'm not so sure i buy into the whole tip melting story that Hornady proclaimed to be the genesis of the ELD.
If that were indeed the case, Nosler and Sierra would indeed have changed also.
Also note that Hornady has not changed their SST, and Interlock line.
If you mean the ELD series of bullets, they shoot pretty well.
I'm not so sure i buy into the whole tip melting story that Hornady proclaimed to be the genesis of the ELD.
If that were indeed the case, Nosler and Sierra would indeed have changed also.
Also note that Hornady has not changed their SST, and Interlock line.
Not in 223 but I have in 30 caliber and they are showing major promise in two barrel I have had issues with for a good load.
ELD is a harder tip but they are also a different profile than say the AMAX (used to be ZMAX in 30 cal) - side by side you can see the difference (match bullets)
I think AMAX is a hunting type lower down the calibers but not sure where the break is.
ELD is a harder tip but they are also a different profile than say the AMAX (used to be ZMAX in 30 cal) - side by side you can see the difference (match bullets)
I think AMAX is a hunting type lower down the calibers but not sure where the break is.
The ELD-X is the hunting bullet. The ELD-M is the match bullet, although I'm reading reports from a lot of hunters claiming that the M bullet performs better as a hunting bullet than the X bullet.
I've only tried the ELD-X's in 30 caliber and 6.5mm. They've shot great for me in 308, 30-06 and 300 WSM. Same results in 6.5 CM.
I've only tried the ELD-X's in 30 caliber and 6.5mm. They've shot great for me in 308, 30-06 and 300 WSM. Same results in 6.5 CM.
kilotanker22
New member
The Eldx is shooting pretty well for me.
std7mag, The sierra Game Changer tip although a different color. Looks and feels like the same material.
I have the Eldx, Nosler Ballistic tip, and some Hornady sst bullets. I could test the melting temperatures of each of those tips to see if there is a difference. If the tip melts in flight it must have a lower melting temperature than a tip that wouldn't melt during flight.
std7mag, The sierra Game Changer tip although a different color. Looks and feels like the same material.
I have the Eldx, Nosler Ballistic tip, and some Hornady sst bullets. I could test the melting temperatures of each of those tips to see if there is a difference. If the tip melts in flight it must have a lower melting temperature than a tip that wouldn't melt during flight.
kilotanker22
New member
The AMAX was a Match bullet. Lots of people use it for hunting though. I used to shoot them in 105 grain in a 243.
I don't know. When i think VLD i think Berger, or Lapua Scenar.
Of course the Nosler ABLR would fit into the VLD catagory also, albeit a hunting bullet, not a match bullet. (Although i did manage a 1.5" group of 3 at 600 yards once)
The Berger VLD Hunting used to be Walt Bergers match bullet.
Of course the Nosler ABLR would fit into the VLD catagory also, albeit a hunting bullet, not a match bullet. (Although i did manage a 1.5" group of 3 at 600 yards once)
The Berger VLD Hunting used to be Walt Bergers match bullet.
I have no idea how Hornady became convinced of the melting theory. They say their Doppler radar showed unexplained drops in BC that a higher melting point tip avoids, but looking through Bryan Litz's measured BC's for other makes of plastic tip bullets don't seem to reveal a clear difference. Of course, we don't know how big the effect Hornady measured is. It may not be significant in the grand scheme of things.
The main source of heat from air friction is from compressing the air in front of the bullet at supersonic velocities. I've seen in a couple of places that aircraft skin temperature is cooled by the air as fast as it is heated up until about Mach 1.2. After that, you start to get a net temperature rise because the air boundary layer gets thick and heat can't be carried away as easily by it.
If you pull bullets from a capturing medium like sawdust, they are hot but you can bounce them in your hand and not be burned. Most of that heat is probably from friction with the barrel. By the time you pull the bullet out of the medium, the copper has spread it from the bearing surface over the rest of the bullet surface and from there it goes more slowly into the less heat conductive lead (about 11 times less). The polyoxymethylene acetal plastic and its copolymers used in bullet tips are about are about 200 times less heat conductive than copper, and heat will move into them correspondingly more slowly. Their melting point is mostly over 330°F and they are rated for service without deformation to just above the boiling point of water. I am not convinced air friction can get even the surface of these tips that hot in the time the bullet flies, but the calculation is complicated by the aerodynamics of the shape of the bullet so it's difficult to be certain. The difference in kinetic energy of the bullet from near to far is more than enough to account for heat to melt a bullet, but even though it is ultimately lost as heat, most of it is carried off by the laterally expanding compressed air that makes up the shock wave cone.
Velocity loss during flight will steadily reduce the gas compression and temperature ahead of it. My expectation is the heat could only penetrate the tip surface. There would be no time to carry it to the core. So I would expect impact with soil or a capture medium to scrape some of that softened surface off. I can't recall ever seeing anything that looked like that on a recovered bullet. Has anyone else?
The main source of heat from air friction is from compressing the air in front of the bullet at supersonic velocities. I've seen in a couple of places that aircraft skin temperature is cooled by the air as fast as it is heated up until about Mach 1.2. After that, you start to get a net temperature rise because the air boundary layer gets thick and heat can't be carried away as easily by it.
If you pull bullets from a capturing medium like sawdust, they are hot but you can bounce them in your hand and not be burned. Most of that heat is probably from friction with the barrel. By the time you pull the bullet out of the medium, the copper has spread it from the bearing surface over the rest of the bullet surface and from there it goes more slowly into the less heat conductive lead (about 11 times less). The polyoxymethylene acetal plastic and its copolymers used in bullet tips are about are about 200 times less heat conductive than copper, and heat will move into them correspondingly more slowly. Their melting point is mostly over 330°F and they are rated for service without deformation to just above the boiling point of water. I am not convinced air friction can get even the surface of these tips that hot in the time the bullet flies, but the calculation is complicated by the aerodynamics of the shape of the bullet so it's difficult to be certain. The difference in kinetic energy of the bullet from near to far is more than enough to account for heat to melt a bullet, but even though it is ultimately lost as heat, most of it is carried off by the laterally expanding compressed air that makes up the shock wave cone.
Velocity loss during flight will steadily reduce the gas compression and temperature ahead of it. My expectation is the heat could only penetrate the tip surface. There would be no time to carry it to the core. So I would expect impact with soil or a capture medium to scrape some of that softened surface off. I can't recall ever seeing anything that looked like that on a recovered bullet. Has anyone else?
Heating from air friction is only significant when you get a shock wave i.e. above the speed of sound so that could be a factor when you consider the bullet is traveling at super sonic velocity. Above the speed of sound the air can't get out of the way fast enough which results in a shock wave at the front of the object. This shock wave increases the pressure and therefore compresses the gas and increases its temperature.
Last edited:
Most of those Hornady rifle bullets are being run well above the speed of sound and above the Mach 1.2 cooling/heating break-even point (for aircraft) that I mentioned. So it deserves consideration. I just don't know how much and remain unconvinced it is the correct explanation for what Hornady observed. It's just interesting that they saw a BC drop that went away with the higher melting point material if I have their story right. I've not called to confirm it.
I doubt that anyone could really answer that one Nick and really does it make a difference? The bullets either shoot well or they don't. I realize this is the internet where everyone likes to argue angels dancing on the head of a pin but I am at the point where simple and effective is the best. At this point if my ammo shoots well so be it, if not I tweak load, seating depth or primer brands until it does
On paper the Nosler RDF's shoot be the best bullets on the market but I could not eliminate flyers and everyone I know that has tried them had the same experience.
I wanted to try the Hornady's out last year but they were always out of stock and now I have 150 Berger 80's and appx 600 80 SMK's both of which group well to burn through first
On paper the Nosler RDF's shoot be the best bullets on the market but I could not eliminate flyers and everyone I know that has tried them had the same experience.
I wanted to try the Hornady's out last year but they were always out of stock and now I have 150 Berger 80's and appx 600 80 SMK's both of which group well to burn through first
Alas it is not just the shock wave, but where on the bullet does the shock wave occure?
If you watch a fighter jet, the shockwave doesn't appear untill about the cockpit.
Speed of sound being roughly 660 mph at sea level on standard day. 59 degrees f, 29.95 hg, 30% humidity.
Going by that, i'm guessing the shock wave to be closer to where the ogive meets the shank.
If you watch a fighter jet, the shockwave doesn't appear untill about the cockpit.
Speed of sound being roughly 660 mph at sea level on standard day. 59 degrees f, 29.95 hg, 30% humidity.
Going by that, i'm guessing the shock wave to be closer to where the ogive meets the shank.
Hornady has dropped A Max and only making couple.
https://www.hornady.com/bullets/a-max#!/#product-line
https://www.hornady.com/bullets/a-max#!/#product-line
std7mag said:
That's happening as the plane speeds up toward Mach 1. It happens because air diverted around the shape of the cockpit has to travel a longer distance than air moving along the sides, so the air over the cockpit is moving at supersonic speed before the body of the plane is. That creates a shockwave because air moving that fast can't move away as fast as more air comes into place. As the plane speeds up further, more of the air passing over its surface is supersonic and the pileup moves toward the rear of the plane, creating the stern shockwave. But when the plane body passes Mach1, a second shockwave, the bow shockwave, forms up in front of it due to the direct nose pressure wave, and that typically has the most energy in it. Indeed, shadowgraphs will show the stern shockwave often isn't all that dense right at the bullet surface, being fed a bit off to the side, so the bullet or plane doesn't see much extra heat from it. The bow, though, gets the full brunt of the temperature rise, being right in the hot compressed air.
On the Concorde, flying at Mach 2.04, the greatest heating was at the pointed nose. Scroll down this page to see an illustration of the skin temperature distribution. The nose hit 127°C. Everywhere else was less. It's because the front of the nose is closest to pushing the air straight forward, creating the greatest compression in the bow shockwave. It was moving at about the speed of a 170-grain 30-30 bullet.
The differences between the plane and the bullet are the supersonic bullet is already going above the speed of sound when it plunges into the air from the muzzle blast sphere. It gets both a bow and stern wave immediately. However, the bullet is not in the air as long as the airplane is, so it doesn't have time to for the bow shockwave temperature to be fully transferred to it. Indeed, it is constantly losing speed, so the temperature gets lower.
Attachments
kilotanker22
New member
Here is a link to an interesting pdf file written by Dave Emery. (If I can attach it) he goes on to explain in more detail what's happening. And temperatures involved. He also explains that for many hunting bullets with modest BC numbers are not affected as much. And at distances less than about 400 yards it's not really a factor.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hornady.com/assets/site/hornady/files/resources/ELD-X_ELD-Match_Technical_Details.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjX4e-736zgAhXrTN8KHQBnDr4QFjAJegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3B8-3q4m5icfuyCzSRuMpu&cshid=1549650400093
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hornady.com/assets/site/hornady/files/resources/ELD-X_ELD-Match_Technical_Details.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjX4e-736zgAhXrTN8KHQBnDr4QFjAJegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3B8-3q4m5icfuyCzSRuMpu&cshid=1549650400093