Eric Stecker (or anybody else)

C

Charles E

curmudgeon
Went to the Berger site to look up the newer, thick-jacketed bullets, but with my thick head, I couldn't determine which were which.

I've an 8-twist Shilen ratchet-rifled barrel, which (1) should be gentler on the bullets, but (2) lets you push them harder. It is a pretty good barrel chambered in 6.5/270 Improved, and I'd like to try these bullets if I can get the catalog number (or the name of a dealer who'd understand "thick jackets").

TIA,

Charles
 
Charles,

Go to
http://www.powdervalleyinc.com/
and look at "bullets" then choose "Berger" and scroll down the list until you find the 140 gr bullets. You can choose 140 gr. "Match Target VLD" or "Match Hunting VLD". (oriiginal sentence deleted due to erroneous information offered.)
Similar choices are offered for many of the Berger bullets.

Jay, Idaho
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thick jacketed bullets are for target and the old style VLD's are now the hunting bullets. The boxes are marked as such so no confusion.
 
+1 the "target" bullets are the thicker jackets. The hunting bullets are the original, thinner jacketed bullets.

JeffVN
 
I had heard (always a risky source of information) that the thick jackets were only available in 6mm and 6.5mm.

Berger lists 3 140-grain 6.5 target bullets:

26406, 140 MT/BT,
26401, 140 MT/VLD, and
25409, 140 MT/BT Long Range.

OK, I figure the 401 is the original VLD design, and the 406 is a fairly-high-number tangent ogive. But what is he 409? Secant, or tangent ogive? Different length jacket? Different boat tail angle? Big-block Chevy?

I suppose it is moot, as the 26401 and 26409 are shown as "out of stock," but it would be nice to know.
 
Thick vs. Thin

I am sure Eric will straighten this out shortly. But the only way I know to tell the difference between thick and thin is the thick jackets have the statement on the top label, “Recommended for Targets Not Suitable for Hunting”.
 
Hey Guys,

Sounds like most of you already have the details on this, as several posters have already nailed it; the bullets designated as "Target" are made with a, new, thicker jacket, while those marked for "Hunting" are the original, thinner jacketed bullets we've always made. Same QC specs are held on both, and the newer bullets with the thicker jackets shoot just as well as the older, thinner jacketed bullets. Like any component switch, we recommend backing the load off and redeveloping it when moving from one style to the other, but other than that, there's no other difference. There is no separate data and their flight characteristic should be identical.

If there are any other questions about the new designs, we'd be happy to discuss them.

Kevin Thomas
Berger Bullets
 
Charles E said:
I had heard (always a risky source of information) that the thick jackets were only available in 6mm and 6.5mm.

Berger lists 3 140-grain 6.5 target bullets:

26406, 140 MT/BT,
26401, 140 MT/VLD, and
25409, 140 MT/BT Long Range.

OK, I figure the 401 is the original VLD design, and the 406 is a fairly-high-number tangent ogive. But what is he 409? Secant, or tangent ogive? Different length jacket? Different boat tail angle? Big-block Chevy?

I suppose it is moot, as the 26401 and 26409 are shown as "out of stock," but it would be nice to know.
Click to expand...

Charles,

Specifically, the bullets you cited here are the new, thicker jacketed target bullets. There is absolutely NO truth to the rumor that these are only in 6mm and 6.5mm. We currently list Target bullets in .17, .22, 6mm, .25, 7mm and .30 caliber.

You'd mentioned the 26401 specifically, and this is one of our thick jacketed Target designs. We also have the 26504, which is externally identical; same diameter, weight, ogive, BT length, meplat diameter, BC, everything. The sole difference between these two is that the 26504 is a Hunting bullet, and is made with the original jacket dimensions. Just one example here, but there are parallel examples in most of our caliber/lines. Eric knew there would be some confusion when he decided to make the change, but felt that the overall benefits to the shooter would outweigh the initial problems. Can't fault him on that one, and I think it was a good move. In the meantime, if there's any question about such things, we're always happy to chat with customers.

Kevin Thomas
Berger Bullets
 
140 MT/BT Long range

Charles E said:
25409, 140 MT/BT Long Range.

But what is he 409? Secant, or tangent ogive? Different length jacket? Different boat tail angle? Big-block Chevy?
Click to expand...

Charles,

The 26409 which I am looking at right now is a beautiful long nose, tangent ogive BT, thick jacketed bullet that is about the same length as the 140 VLD. It is a very slick looking projectile. According to the Berger site it has a higher BC than the VLD, and looking at it I can believe it! They shoot just as well as the VLD’s in my rifles during the testing I have done.
 
Thanks Larry, I figured it wasn't the big block Chevy.

My usual suspects (Sinclair, Powder Valley) show "out of stock." Anybody know where some might be located?
 
So much for the simple elegance of putting either "thick" or "thin" on the label (and in sellers' catalog descriptons). Why some so readily reject one-syllable words is a poser.
 
26406 or 26409

Kevin and Larry hit it on the head. There is one item that wasn't addressed which is the 26406 6.5mm 140 gr Target BT. This bullet has a conventional tangent ogive and was intended to be an alternative for those who didn't find success with the VLD.

Shortly after the introduction of this 140 gr Target BT we were successful with the new long tangent ogive design on the 30 cal 155.5 gr Target BT Fullbore. Since the 6.5mm was another caliber in which this long tangent ogive design can be successful we added to the Long Range line with the introduction of the 6.5mm version.

Basically:
26406 = 6.5mm 140 gr Target BT = .712 tangent nose length = .559 G1 averaged BC
26409 = 6.5mm 140 gr Target BT Long Range = .834 tangent nose length = .618 G1 averaged BC

The 26406 never really had a chance to shine before the 26409 was introduced. Even though the 26406 is a good shooting bullet the high BC of the 26409 will likely lead to low sales of the 26406 which eventually leads to discontinuation (don't worry we won't stop making them until you stop buying them).

Regarding using the words Target and Hunting instead of Thick and Thin I agree that THick and Thin is more simplistic (which I think is better). However, we sell a lot of bullets to those who do not engage these forums. To the "general" rifle shooter descriptions like Thick and Thin stirred up a mess of confusion.

Once I started explaining that we did this to solve the bullet failure issue they immediately said "what bullet failure issue!?" I recognized pretty fast that the best answer for the biggest number of shooters was to go with Target (which is thicker) and Hunting (which is our standard thickness).

Hope that clears it up. Thanks to Kevin and Larry for your input.

Regards,
Eric
 
Last edited:
Eric, that is a very good answer. We'uns tend to ferget that it's the general populace, hunters, that support the industry NOT the few thousand competitive shooters!

al
 
Al and Eric:
This 'un didn't ferget that, Al. Just add "thick" or "thin" to whatever other less precise -- re: the jacket -- description is used.
Local store ordered in better than 1500 of the 30 cal. 210s (most will be bought for hunting). But they are the "match" bullets because the (quite knowledgeable) guy that orderd them had ordered the "match" bullets the last two times. He thought he was ordering the same thing. If he'd seen "thick," next to an order number, it'd at least hung him up for a while. I believe a lot of folks are going to shoot thicks at big game without knowing they're using thicks. Might work fine, I don't know. But it could fuel another "shooting match bullet at big game" maelstrom (as opposed to the normal storms and dust-ups).

"To the "general" rifle shooter descriptions like Thick and Thin stirred up a mess of confusion." As have the changes in BC numbers. But "thin jacket intended for hunting and target" and "thick jacket intended for only target" would obviate some of the confusion, i believe.

Don't get me wrong. I shoot 140 thins in 6.5 and 210 thins in 30. I order a minimum of 1000 at a time and do some sorting. Have killed deers and elks with the 210s. Nothing waaay out there -- yet. I simply think essential differences should not be hidden in the stock numbers or descriptions that may tend to obfuscate things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All of them are "match" bullets. "Match" applies to both the thicks and thins.

Sure we want to know the difference (which has been discussed elsewhere on this site in depth) but how can it be any more simple than "Target" and "Hunting"? The biggest problem is with most of the dealers and their confusion or at least that is where I ran into a problem. Maybe a "white paper", or note, or even a phone call to each dealer would have helped but hindsight is always 20/20.

BTW, I killed a deer at 1006 yards with the thick 210 and it didn't seem to notice the jacket thickness but did complain for a very short time about the bullet placement (heart shot).:D Seriously, it had a good exit wound and did a lot of damage. My novice guess is that it would be hard to argue the terminal ballistics between the two.

I am certainly not as knowledgeable as most on this site but I tested the Thicks and Thins side by side and to be honest I couldn't tell any difference in velocity or POI which is what worried me in the first place (I was afraid I mixed them up while sorting).
 
Thick vs. Thin

K Thomas said:
Hey Guys,

Sounds like most of you already have the details on this, as several posters have already nailed it; the bullets designated as "Target" are made with a, new, thicker jacket, while those marked for "Hunting" are the original, thinner jacketed bullets we've always made. Same QC specs are held on both, and the newer bullets with the thicker jackets shoot just as well as the older, thinner jacketed bullets. Like any component switch, we recommend backing the load off and redeveloping it when moving from one style to the other, but other than that, there's no other difference. There is no separate data and their flight characteristic should be identical.

If there are any other questions about the new designs, we'd be happy to discuss them.

Kevin Thomas
Berger Bullets
Click to expand...

Mr. Thomas:

I shoot Berger bullets almost exclusively. Having said that, I have had the opportunity to close the meplats on about 2000 of the 155.5 Full Bore bullets for the Palma tryouts (for myself and another shooter). The last 1000 of these were the "Thick Jacket" 155.5 bullets. Respectfully, I can tell you that the Thicks measured more like green box than yellow box, i.e., the QC was not the same.

The Thicks were approximately .016 longer than the standard. The uniformity of the meplats were not as good. The Thicks did not point up as well because there is simply more material (thick jackets) to close. They varried more in base to ogive. They varried more on the Junke. And, there were four bad folds (very short as well) out of the 1000, and three steel polishing balls were found in the boxes. This was lot 1564.

Please note that in this particular meplat prep (basic) was performed with a setup built by Ferris Pindell. I look EACH bullet straight into the meplat two times -- every bullet. I can see the difference before the meplat is closed, I can hear the difference when closing, and I can feel the difference. I am now up to about 50,000 closed meplats since 2002, i.e., so I have a little experience in this area.

Keep in mind that I have not tested the 155.5 Thicks (nor has the other shooter as of yet), and they may shoot as well. But unless you are blowing up bullets, give me the one with the best numbers as it will just be "better" bullet to bullet.

BTW, my testing with the Thick 180 7mm bullets shows basically the same thing -- the standard jacket (now called "hunting") gives better performance than the Thicks. Not only are the "numbers" better, but so is the accuracy. I can close the meplats better, which will give me a more uniform BC resulting in a better waterline vertical at the target. Additionally, the thicker jackets will give you a little more pressure (have to back down the load) because the thicker jackets require more effort to engrave. So, the numbers are not as good, the accuracy is not as good, and the pressure is accelerated, and you have to back off for less FPS. In a contest of Thin vs. Thick, just as in life, Thin wins.

Just my $.02 observations,
Jim Hardy
 
Last edited:
Jim,

I ran into the same problems when I meplated and pointed my "thicks" and found a great solution that worked for me. I got one of Kevin Krams inside reamers (not sure exactly what it is called) but it comes with his meplat setup. This little tool not only deburs the inside of the "hole" but if set a little deeper it cuts a bevel on the jacket at the tip. In short, it thins out the area you are closing/pointing and lets you get a smaller hole/more tip. You can almost close it totally when you chamfer the inside. I even called John Whidden and told him he should sell Kevin's tool with his pointing die.

My two cents but I hope that helps.

P.S. I didn't try this on any bullet except the 210's.
 
Are the Target only bullets that bad for hunting? Or is it a matter of they haven't been taken to New Zealand yet for proper testing. Isn't it likely that they will fair just fine or will they be far more erratic in performance?

Any ideas!! I haven't used anything but the originals myself.
 
Kevin Kram's tool

Long story short, I was doing the inside the meplat uniforming and thinning of the thick jackets on .338 300/320 grain SMKs long before Kevin had his tool. Ferris Pindell made me a mini lathe for this purpose -- in 2002. Kevin does indeed make a nice tool (I have one), but he is not the one who came up with the idea.

David Tooley (and Scott Fletcher) were the first to trim the meplats. Great for accuracy but with a loss of BC. David and Scott reclaimed the BC with poly inserts from the green box company. I reclaimed with the meplat pointing die. All of this started with David's IMMEDIATE success with 187 BIBs and the trimmed meplats. Everything after that is an one form or another of a copy or an innovative improvement. Fact.

I promise you that John Whidden knows all about prepping the meplat. He uses a very special one-off tool that he uses under power -- not for sale. John is great at thinking outside the box.

Jim
 
I've learned -- the hard way -- that nobody's ever the first. AKA "if you stick your chest out, it's hard to breath."

Having said that, My memory of how it all started was when Larry Bartholome & Dr. Oehler tested a lot of bullets, at both short range and 1,000 yards, using an Oehler 43 chronograph & the microphone target that gave you a plot of the shots.

Larry sent Dave a copy of the raw data, & he made a copy for me. I noticed that groups with a shot plot that had vertical didn't always come from velocity variations; the SD/ES for velocity on some of them was pretty good. What they did have was a fairly high SD/ES for BC, data that is available from the 43.

Punching the numbers for BC variance through on a ballistics program (Pesja's) showed the correlation with vertical dispersion even when velocity variance was quite low. Of course, it would also explain some variance in wind drift, but there was no wind data, so that as to be ignored.

I got all excited & called Dave, & he punched the numbers too & got the same answer. We had also noticed that the A-max bullets in the test seemed to all have pretty good SD for B.C., & Dave came up with a way to put plastic tips in bullets. A lot of work, and Dave had to make some tooling.

As I remember -- getting to be a chancy saying -- Dave already had the meplat trimmer. He had made this as an experiment to reduce yaw, noticing that trimmed bullets seemed to print point-on more than untrimmed bullets. And of course, as things turn out, the evenness of the meplats also has a strong bearing on the drag (B.C.) of a bullet.

I don't know any formula showing whether or not meplat timming affects affects yaw, all we have is the targets. But there are formula's (the JBM site, for example) that show its effect on drag.

So whether or not Dave was the first, I can't say for sure. But he was the first I know of amongst us practitioners of modern 1,000 yard benchrest, and probably highpower to boot -- Dave made the tool Tubb sold for quite some time.

Anecdotally, you have to have precision tools. There was a report by the BIBs man (Randy Robinett) that his friend Terry Meyer had re-pointed (closed up) some 13-caliber (as I remember) secant ogive bullets made in a Pindell die. These were short-range 60-something-grain 6mm bullets. There was some evidence (not proof) that this repointing actually hurt drag (B.C.), and is believable, since a 13-caliber secant ogive bullet is pretty pointy anyway, and Pindell was never one for large meplats. Likely the repoint die of unknown origin in this case actually made a slight shoulder on the bullets; the wrong way to go.

So not to say don't repoint, just be sure you understand what you're getting into.

FWIW
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top