Eric Stecker (or anybody else)

Gentlemen, I did not mean to imply that anyone "was first" and I apoligize for the confusion. I was simply offering the experience that worked for me to handle the said problem (at least in my case).

Besides, I thought Al Gore invented the Meplat Trimmer???:p
 
"nobody is ever the first . . ."

Charles:

Oh, but there is ALWAYS somebody who was first . . . however, as long as time continues, there is NEVER anyone who is last. But, one constant truth remains -- those who are the "latest" will claim to be the "best".

Thin Jacket Jim
 
Dumb Ass Me . . .

Tony Shankle said:
Gentlemen, I did not mean to imply that anyone "was first" and I apoligize for the confusion. I was simply offering the experience that worked for me to handle the said problem (at least in my case).

Besides, I thought Al Gore invented the Meplat Trimmer???:p
Click to expand...

Tony:

Sorry about the tone of my post. Sometimes it is difficult to remember that the "tone" is easier seen in the eye of the reader than the poster. I worded my post incorrectly, and my "tone" left a lot to be desired. On the other hand, your response was right on. My bad. :eek:

Jim
 
Let me echo Jim's remark -- Tony was offering a potential solution, not a claim.

I'll stick with my "nobody's first" notion, in spite of the illogicality of it. It is logical if you ignore particular solutions (tooling) & look at problem solving as a phenomena.

For example, Dave Tooley's meplat trimmer was, as he'd allow, a modification of Gary Sinclair's at-the-bench neck trimmer. I'll bet dollars to donuts that Ferris Pindell's little lathe that Jim uses was a modification of a lathe some people use to use to bore jackets back in the days when jacket wall consistency was a real problem.

And would it all have happened without the data gathered by Larry & Ken Oehler, which prompted Tooley to get his own 43 & do further testing?

Well, probably, along an entirely different path.

For me, Jim's post that there is some evidence the thicker jacket bullets generally, right now, don't seem as accurate is enough. Valuable information for me, even though I don't yet repoint bullets.

And note the "some evidence." For all we know, there may be some evidence running the other way. If everything was crystal clear, we wouldn't need lawyers (sorry, Jim). And if there is an issue, you can bet Berger Bullets will work on it -- after all, the thick jackets was their attempt to solve another "sometimes" problem, and we should all be grateful for the effort, as it will likely lead somewhere.

He said it in another thread, but I'm with 4Mesh on a lot of this stuff. The "flavor of the month" approach, simply copying what won last month, taking the limited successes of popularity, or using a small part of a larger theory, doesn't get us much. This isn't what Jim Hardy has done, or Dave Tooley, or most likely Tony Shankle, and I didn't mean to imply it did.

Rather the opposite, how interconnected everything is.
 
Guys

I wasn't the first to trim meplats. Never claimed to be first. That was done at Williamsport by several shooters long before I did it. I just pursued it and applied some science to verify results.

Not sure any of us could be first with much of any thing. We travel in pretty good company.

Dave
 
Can you shoot the difference?

Charles:

As you know, a lot of the "tinkering" we do is because it makes us "feel" better about our loads. It will be interesting if we can actually shoot the difference between the thicks and the thins.

I have blown up five bullets -- two during a sighting period at Hawks Ridge and three during the record run. It was my light 300 WSM throated for the 187 BIBs out of my 12 twist. I was shooting N-560 and the BIBs. My spotter told me he saw the puffs and I immediately reported to the line shack that I would not have five on. This was a two match weekend and I won my next relay with the same gun (something like a low 5.0xx) shooting a compressed charge of H-1000. I have never blown a jacket due to speed.

I want to shoot the Thicks for all the reasons you stated. Berger has made a giant effort in preventing blown bullets during competition. It would sure ruin my day to blow a bullet on an X ring break at Camp Perry. The Thins just seem to be "better" at this time -- but maybe not as safe.

BTW, I had something interesting happen to me lately regarding a Palma chambering. Al Warner did the work and the barrel threads, the chamber itself and the crown look like glass. This is when it gets interesting. During break-in, I had NO copper foulding whatsoever. I only have 100 rounds through the gun at this time, but NO copper -- even with a borescope. I have had chamberings clean up well in less than ten rounds but never one like this.

This got me thinking. Could it be that the craftsmanship of Al Warner left no "edge" of any kind for the bullet to grab and copper in the throat or near the crown? Could the relative lack of such craftsmanship (good, or great but not exceptional glass smooth), contribute to blown bullets?

Just food for thought,
Jim
 
Hi Jim,

Eric wanted you to know that he is aware of your post. He is out of town and does not have internet access at the moment, but will respond as soon as possible.

Thanks!

Michelle
 
For Dave Tooley,

I remember you describing the 'off center' bullet holes (as Charles mentioned above) at the SHOT show and it reminded me of a thought...

The observation is that the bullet holes from trimmed bullets appear as if they were made from a bullet that's flying with less yaw than untrimmed bullets. I can't say I've ever seen the two types of holes side-by-side, but have heard this description from more than one source.

The common interpretation of that observation is that trimming the meplat causes the bullet to fly with less yaw (bullets axis makes smaller angles to the flight path).

Here's an alternate (maybe BS) explanation :).
What if the trimmed meplat bullets only make holes that appear to be better centered because of how the neat-flat-tip with sharp-edges punches thru the paper? A bullet with a ragged tip can puncture the paper in a non-concentric (for lack of a better word) way and make the hole look like the bullet wasn't well centered when it passed thru, even though it may have been flying with zero yaw.

Here are some things that support the above explanation:

If in fact the non-trimmed bullets are hitting the paper at yaw angles, there would be more evidence than just an off center puncture. The entire hole would be ob-longed. Is that the case (for those who are familiar with these holes)?

Secondly, if the untrimmed bullets really are flying with significant yaw angles (significant enough to see visually in a bullet hole) then the drag for those bullets would be noticeably higher than trimmed bullets. In other words, if trimming bullets caused them to fly with less yaw than untrimmed bullets, wouldn't you expect them to exhibit an (effectively) higher BC? Maybe the excessive yaw only begins to happen late in the flight as the bullet slows down, and so it doesn't travel with large yaw long enough to have an effect?

I guess it's not really important as far as decision making goes. It's universally agreed that trimming meplats uniforms BC and reduces vertical dispersion at the cost of reducing BC (even if slightly).

I'm just skeptical of the notion that untrimmed bullets fly with significant yaw.
Does anyone have any observations to support or refute this?

This may not affect the decision to trim/point/or do nothing, but it may help us gain a more accurate understanding of how bullets fly.

Always curious ;)
-Bryan
 
Trimmed meplats . . .

Bryan:

You have made an interesting observation. I remember the very first trimmed meplats I prepped with David's tool. They were 300 grain SMKs. I clipped them pretty good because the points were terrible and I already had plenty of BC -- I just wanted more uniformity of BC in an effort to reduce vertical at 1000. I first tested these at 100 yards -- yes only 100. But, they punched very clean holes like a .38 wadd cutter. Not very scientific, but it runs with what you have said about the trimmed meplats cutting a better hole on the target.

Jim
 
Hi Jim,

I'm not surprised at the observations you noted, and wouldn't dispute most of them. The two lines are held to the same QC specs, but there are some differences in the jackets, as you've seen. Eric can address these issues far better than I, but I can make some general comments that may be useful. To begin, it's far easier to maintain concetricity with thin jackets than it is with thicker jackets. This is why most match bullets tend to have thin jackets. While the Target designs are now made with a thicker (relatively speaking) jacket, it is still a fairly thin jacket compared to most manufacturer's hunting designs. There's a balancing point in there somewhere, between thin enough to draw well, and not thick enough to always withstand the flight to the target. After some extensive testing and analysis, we felt the need to thicken the jackets of those bullets used in competitive venues. That's the genesis of this entire change. Now, thicker jackets can be held to the same tolerances as the thin, but it's considerably more problematic. Deep drawing gilding metal does some funky things. When the nose is closed on a hollow point, you're not actually drawing the metal, but the forming process is something akin to a draw. Over 20+ years of production, I've seen noses come out just about as even as if they'd been uniformed. That's fairly rare. On the other hand, I've seen far more that were as lopsided as a CBS commentator. This, mind you, was with another manufacturer who draws their jackets about as thick as the new Berger Target jackets. Yes the thicker jackets do "move" more during final forming, and that manifests itself in precisely the ways that you've described. You want to see a real headache, take a peek at how conventional hunting designs behave when they're drawn and formed like this. The ultimate nightmare has to be FMJ, which generally have massively thick jackets. They're terribly hard to draw, they're extraordinarily difficult to keep any degree of concentricity, and they're a real bear to get consistent accuracy (and then, nowhere close to what most match shooters would call "acceptable accuracy" at that).

I'm sure Eric will have some better insights than I can offer here, but I can assure you, producing top quality bullets and keeping our customers satisfied is our Number One priority. We do appreciate the feedback, and again, hope the changes here haven't caused too much consternation.

Kevin Thomas
Berger Bullets
 
Thick v. Thin

Kevin:

Thanks for your response. I am very pleased with my Berger bullets in my 284Shehane and in my Palma rifle. I would love to shoot the Thicks for all the reasons that have been posted.

I am very aware of how difficult it is to work with the thick jackets, just as it is more difficult to manufacture a top shelf competition flat base bullet like the 187 BIB for example. In my NRA legal Palma gun (not the one set up for the 155.5), I found the 185 VLD to shoot great and the 185 BT to shoot even better -- about as good as the BIB and that is really saying something.

Like everything else, it seemst that whether a competitor shoots the Thins or the Thicks, there is always a trade off. No bullet company is working on accuracy developments like Berger, and Berger team will really benefit from "drafting" you and Bryan. It is a very exciting time when "issues" can be openly discussed in a venue where everyone is working to improve. Your team is doing everything for the hunter and competitor that can be done -- and the progress is ongoing. You are to be commended.

BTW, the 155.5 Thicks are "dressing up" rather well. I will keep you informed on how they shoot when compared with the Thins.

Thanks again for your candid response, and I look forward to Eric's reply as well.

Jim
 
Last edited:
My apologies for taking so long to respond. I was testing non-lead core bullets and getting my gear ready for the Super Shoot.

The most important point I want to make up front to Jim's post and to anyone who observes similar concerns is that we are absolutely committed to the rifle shooters complete satisfaction. If you have bullets that are outside our tolerances (which are listed on our website) please let us know so that we can understand what has happened and resolve the situation.

Having said that my understanding of your post Jim is not that you believe you have bad bullets but you want to better understand what you are observing. If this is incorrect and you want to have these bullets reviewed for replacement then email me directly at eric.stecker@bergerbullets.com.

Going on my assumption that you seek understanding, I need to say up front that some characteristics of the difference between the standard and thicker jackets cannot be discussed. I believe we have learned something significant when it comes to bullet failure which gives Berger an advantage over our competition.

I can discuss that the tooling used to make all of our jackets has OD tolerances that can produce noses that are thicker than other lots. This is true with both the standard and the thicker jackets. The area of the jacket that was made thicker in the thick version is not at the nose. Even though there are reasons why the Target bullets may appear to have thicker noses it is not as much a result of the thickness of the jacket in this area as one might think (lube plays a role as well).

I believe that if there were a comprehensive review of many different bullet sizes and from many different lots the population of noses that appear to be thicker would include a significant number of bullets that are made with the standard jacket.

Now to speak to the point of how the Target bullets shoot vs. the Hunting (or bullets made on standard jackets). I echo Kevin's comments that making thicker jackets and then making bullets on thicker jackets provides additional challenges. However there are three truths that allow us to produce equally precise bullets with thicker jackets.

1. The amount that the thicker jackets are thicker is small enough that the effects are minimal.
2. The increased thickness is only in a portion of the jacket not the entire jacket.
3. The tolerances for the thick jacket and bullets made with these jackets are exactly the same as our standard thickness jackets.

The last one is most significant when it comes to jacket concentricity since those who are good with the calculator can see that the same TIR requirement for a thick jacket (even slightly thicker) makes it more concentric (percentage wise) than a jacket that is thinner.

I'll sum up my response to Jim (and others on this subject) by sharing that we receive a tremendous amount of feedback about how Bergers are shooting. For every report that the Target bullets aren't working well in a given rifle we get 5 reports (guestimate) that they are shooting great. Additionaly the tremendous increase in orders we are receiving for these bullets is another strong indicator that they are working well for many shooters.

I believe strongly that those who are struggling when switching from bullets made on standard jackets to bullets made on thicker jackets are just the right tweak away from getting the Target bullets to work well in their rifle.

Slugger,

When our VLD bullets were first identified as working well on game we did a massive amount of testing in media first. It was only after the media tests showed promise that we shot them on game (several hunters were already using them for game hunting). We conducted tests in WV (wild hogs) and New Zealand (goats, deer and red stag) and WY (antelope) taking 38 animals at many different distances and with several different bullets in all calibers 6mm and up.

Each animal was thoroughly examined to determine the performance and most importantly the consistency of the terminal performance. Once we knew that game hunting with Berger VLD would produce humane kills we started to promote these bullets for hunting.

The solution to the bullet failure issue came after these tests were concluded. After the bullets were made and tested to see if we had solved the bullet failure issue we did expand the testing to include shooting into media (just as we did with the original testing of the VLDs).

In media the thicker jacket bullets do not perform the same (produce the same type of wound channel) as the Hunting VLD. At this point the Hunting VLD was regarded by most that use it as the quickest killing game bullet available. This consistent feedback combined with the fact that the Target (thick) bullets performed differently in media were the major factors in our decision to not test the Target bullets on game. We decided that if the Target bullets could be no better and may in fact not perform as well there is no reason for us to promote them as an option for hunters.

When I am asked "will your Target bullets work on game?" my answer is that they performed differently in media than our Hunting bullets so they were not tested on game. Many of us know that any bullet put in the right spot with the right amount of speed will kill an animal. We are committed to providing the best option that produces the most consistently positive results over the greatest range of distances, impact velocities and game sizes. To get this result from Berger we recommend that you use our Hunting VLDs but if you happen to use our Target bullets I'd like to hear the results.

Regards,
Eric
 
Last edited:
Thick & Thin

I would like to address a couple items related to this thread. Like Jim, “Law Dawg”, I had one bullet go AWOL on me a year or two ago for all the reasons Eric has mentioned in other posts and I don’t want another in England this July at the F-Class World’s. My 800 rounds are loaded with thick jackets. I have been shooting thick jacket 6.5mm 140 VLD’s since Eric made the first ones and have been very happy with them.

I do some of the normal selection/precautionary sorting before I seat my bullets, but nothing different. While I have two different pointing dies I do not point. Why? More work and my Berger’s have pretty small meplat’s already. My team mates on the US Team are going to shoot a variety of thick and thin jacket Berger’s. And I know who will win…
the guy or girl who can read the wind best over two days of L-R shooting.

Regarding the testing Charles E mentioned; that was done in 2000 and written up in the June 2001, PS Magazine, Testing Bullets at 1,000 Yards.

Quote “One item I noted while looking at the raw data was that the Hornady bullets (A Max's) had a smaller SD and ES in the 1,000 yard BC's than the other brands.
What does this indicate? It could mean that bullet-to-bullet, the A Max with its uniform tip turns out to have a more consistent flight path as far as speed retention goes. Does this mean higher scores? Who knows at this stage of testing? To get higher scores the bullets have to shoot smaller groups and buck the wind. The A Max perhaps does show what is possible with a more uniform shape. Those ragged meplat's have got to go!”

And they have gone! Dang, I would love to duplicate that test again knowing what I do now.

P.S.
Charles E,
A very minor point, there is no 'W' on my last name. As my wife is fond of saying, I am a ME, not a Mew:)
 
Larry, I am sorry. I will remember, no "w". I've been on a crusade to get people to remember there is no "e" on Randy Robinett's last name, and that I am a "son", not a "ston."

Now, back to bullets . . .
 
According to Harold Vaughn, both in print and in talking with him in person, yaw within reasonable limits has no significant effect on BC.

Has anyone shown differently?

al
 
Thick v. Thin

Eric:

I appreciate your post. However, we differ in that I am not seeking an understanding of what I am seeing because I know what it is, i.e., the lot of 155.5 Thicks do not produce the same numbers as the Thins. What you are actually telling me is "why" it is that way, and I appreciate that as well. But, the bottom line is that on this lot, there was no comparison with the Thins. Having said all that, they may shoot just as good, but I don't know that yet. Just as it is more difficult to make a top shelf boat tail bullet vs making a top shelf flat base, I suspect (without knowing) that making a great bullet out of a thick jacket is more difficult than making the same bullet on a thin jacket -- at least it "appears" so in this instance. So, I pose this question: if a given lot of Thicks have more variation (than the standard jacket) in base to ogive, OAL, meplat size and the dreaded Junke numbers, does any of that reveal itself on the target at 1000 yards?

Larry:

I know the F-Class team is shooting the 140 Berger VLDs and I knew that you were shooting the Thicks -- and the reason why. The Berger 6.5 140 grain VLD is probably the most beautiful bullet on the line with very uniform meplats. I can understand why you would not want to bother closing the meplats on this bullet, but I need to tell you that correctly prepped and closed meplats on this bullet will make you smile on the target at 1000.

In fact, I will be glad to prep and close the meplats on 100 for you so you can compare. If you want to give it a try (like Jason Baney did with the 106 Clinch River), then e-mail or PM me for my shipping info. I will ship back on my dime. You are welcome to post the results on this board. If they don't shoot better, then your 140s will be the first to fail. If you are "pleased", I will cowboy up and prep all of your bullets for the F-Class Nationals -- free for a world class shooter.

Favor center,
Jim Hardy
 
Last edited:
Jim,

When you say that the 155.5 made on the thick jackets do not produce the same numbers I interpret that you are referring to dimensional measurements not score or group sizes. If this is correct then please share with me the numbers you are finding with these bullets. We typically have these discussions directly but for the sake of others reading this post we can go through this process on this forum.

If what you observe is outside our tolerances then I will ask for you to send some of the extremes to us so that we can measure them on our equipment. If they are outside our tolerances when measured on our equipment we will send you a new lot and let you keep the bullets you have for foulers, practice or paper weights.

By requiring that we measure them on our equipment we are not suggesting that your measurements are wrong. It is important that we understand what made it through our process. If they measure outside our tolerances on our equipment the process internally is different than if they don't (people here can be severely reprimanded or even fired). Additionally, (this is not meant for Jim directly) we have found that a large number of reports are the result of inconsistent measuring devices and methods. In fact, Bryan is working on a thorough evaluation of all current bullet measuring devices and methods. The results from this evaluation will be published when it is completed (and it will be quite an eye opener).

The point that I want to make clear is that the result you are observing has less to do with thick vs. thin than it has to do with the realities of manufacturing. We do our best to make the most consistent bullets in the world. I would like to say that every single lot we make will be precisely the same in every way but this is not reality. Long before the thick jackets were created (frankly ever since Walt started making bullets) feedback was received that a given lot does not measure as well as another lot. Why this is true is part of the focus of one of our most important ongoing projects.

After solving the bullet failure issue we turned our attention to what we are calling the "rifle to rifle performance" project. It is true that for a given shooter some lots perform better than others in some rifles. The reason for this is a real challenge since this result is not consistent within a given lot or for all shooters. What I mean is that if a lot gets reported by one shooter as not performing well I will get other reports that say this lot shoots great. Just because they don't work for one shooter doesn't mean they are bad bullets however we still want to understand why this one shooter is experiencing poor results.

It is my opinion that this project will be the most impactful project on all rifle shooters in our lifetime. If we can identify the root cause of this result and then create a solution all rifle shooters will be affected. (The highly successful 4 COAL test for VLD bullets resulted from this project) Given the massive number and complexities of possible combinations of components this will be no small task but we are working on it and expect to find a solution.

Those of you reading this may be saying "what does this have to do with Jim's post?" Well, the connection is that Jim is observing something on the bullets that he believes will negatively impact results (and he may be right). We know that even though it seem counter intuitive bullets that appear to have negative charateristics can shoot very well. We also know that the opposite is true in that bullets that seem to have no significant negative characteristics are reported as not shooting well for a given shooter. How this is possible is the focus of our latest project.

Note: There is no question that consistency is the key to precision. The questions that are raised are:
Where is and how wide is the line between what characteristics will always shoot well and what will never shoot well? What characteritics of the bullet move the results toward or away from that line? In what range can these characteristics exist and have no effect on performance? Are there characterisitics that produce opposing effects making something that appears inconsistent very consistent? How do these characteristics react with different combinations of consumable (ex. powder) and fixed (ex. action) components?

Jim asks a great question when he says "does any of that reveal itself at 1,000 yards?" There are shooters who are quick to say "of course it will". They will even provide a list of characteristics that are important and are not important when it comes to performance.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of these characterisitcs are results of conjecture based mostly on anecdotal evidence rather than extensive scientific testing. Or they may have done some amount of testing but these results are limited to their rifle and component combinations. It is my strong opinion that the important characteristics and the degree in which they exist and impact the results is not as certain as some will suggest.

This is where I go back to our satisfaction gaurantee. If anyone is not happy with the performance of their Berger Bullets all they have to do is let me know at eric.stecker@bergerbullets.com. We will go through an evaluation process (that may take some time) but I can assure everyone that in the end you will be completely satisfied.

Regards,
Eric
 
Last edited:
Thick v. Thin

Eric:

Wow! Please do not misunderstand. I SHOOT BERGERS. I am very happy with the product and have set a 600 yd NRA prone record with them as well as a Sr. Division NRA 1000 yd prone record (the first record lasted about 30 days and the second was broken in February by Bud Solis in the AZ long range championships). I am not saying the Thick jackets are not good bullets, I am saying that the pre-shoot numbers are NOT as good.

As an example, a certain lot of 155.5 (I will keep that lot # to myself :) varried a max of .003 base to ogive on a digital Buhay bar/.001 dial/granite base comparator. The OAL also varried no more than .003 on digital calipers. The Junke numbers (for what that is worth -- another issue) run about 6, which is very good. The bullets in that lot pointed up beautifully because they were so uniform before I began the process. A small drill bit I use as a pin gauge indicates a uniformity of meplat closure. They all looked (almost) exactly the same at the tip of the meplat and at the transition to the meplat (I have a large bullet board that I place the pointed bullets in base down so that I can view and compare the array from the top). They sounded the same when closing and they felt the same while closing. They shot 200 cleans at 1000 under poor light conditions with X counts in the teens. They shot 1.5 minutes BETTER than the "other" top of the line "Palma" bullet. In short, there is no question in my mind that the 155.5 Berger is the best "Palma" bullet on the line -- out of the box or prepped. I will leave out the numbers on the "other" bullet as that is a sensitive topic at this time. But I will say that the Bergers did not have to be sorted.

Now, Lot 1564 Thick measure about .016 to .024 longer than another Lot of standard J4 jackets, Lot # 1812 (not the coveted Lot spoken of). Just as a reference, the Pindell closing die adjusted for a full closure on Lot 1564 would only barely touch the meplat on Lot 1812. The variations go on from there.

I do not mean to imply that the Thicks in question will not shoot as well at 1000, i.e., group, score, waterline vertical. I don't yet know. But, if I had the array of numbers in front of me prior to the purchase of a certain Lot of bullets, I would take the Lot with the best numbers to shoot. If I did not discriminate on the pre-shoot numbers, I would be telling myself that NOTHING MATTERS but the Indian pulling the trigger. That is an ongoing theme in Long Range prone (unfortunate) but NOT in F-Class where the smaller target DEMANDS precision. As an aside, Long Range prone used to influence F-Class. Now, with the smaller target, more prone shooters are understanding the need for precision loading, and F-Class has had a significant influence on prone. Of course, the 1000 yd BR folks have known this all along. BUT, if I had blown up a bullet in a big match -- all bets would be off, and I would go Moly or Thick or both, and sort if I had to. A blown bullet sends you home in a mood that is not appreciated by your spouse or the family pets.

I respectfully have no desire to return bullets to Berger. They are just fine. The Thicks are just NOT as uniform as the Thins -- in my testing. I also, respectfully have no desire to turn the table on myself (not that the table was ever turned on Berger) by having to account for all the specs of my measuring gear, etc. This is really very simple stuff as measuring various lengths is fundamental and most shooters on this board have the gear. Heck, I noted that Lot 1564 Thicks had several bad folds out of the 1000 -- the first 100 of Lot 1812 had two in the first box yet the numbers in that Lot were better than the 1564 Lot.

The observations I shared were my observations from pretty intense inspection. However, the same could be duplicated by anyone. The only point I am trying to convey is that "I" have seen a difference in the end product of the Thicks v. Thin with the Thins winning. Is it a distinction without a difference? With the 7mm pills, there is a difference in performance at the target. With the 155.5 or any other Thicks, I don't yet know.

If any of my comments have been taken as criticisms of Berger, that would be a wrong assumption. I have only pointed out my meager findings. I know Charles E. very well and he is VERY discriminating and you have to PROVE issues to him. His approach is healthy as he considered my findings as "some evidence" in making his decision between Thicks and Thins. He will do his own testing no matter what anyone says!

In short, if the collective "we" do not bring up issues for consideration, then we are subject to be drinking the "cool aid" on a leap of faith. I want to see someone else take a "drink" before I follow. So, until someone like John Whidden, Mid, Michelle, Sherry, Nancy, Bryan and a Joel Pendergraft say that the Thicks shoot as well FOR THEM as the Thins, I will have to take my own findings as "some evidence" that will make me go Thin.

The ongoing efforts of Berger and yourself to answer tough questions and educate the shooting community has no equal -- and none of us have ever seen this before. I hope my one-man-findings are food for thought and help in the overall scheme of things. My intention was to leave a "mark" based on my findings, not a "stain" based on the same. To the extent that I have fallen short, I need to stay off the stink'n shooting boards with MY limited
opinions.

Two quick questions (I can't help myself as I don't know the answers):

1) If the Thicks weigh the same as the Thins, where is the "other stuff" displaced to make the same weight?

2) Is that displacement of the "other stuff" a factor that manifests itself on the target at 1000 yards, i.e., can you shoot the difference?

Keep up the great work,
Jim Hardy
 
Last edited:
Jim,

I believe we are having a serious miscommunication. I truly appreciate your comments as they provide me with an opportiunity to address concerns that others may have but don't speak up. There was no point where I thought you were being negative towards Berger. I am completely open and comfortable discussing concerns as it is from these things that we can learn the most.

My comments were meant to help as best I could and to provide information that others may seek as well. I did have a little trouble sorting out whether or not you wanted to have these bullets reviewed for replacement but this is a process that we go through with a desire to satisfy rather than prove the shooter wrong. Asking for your dimension was not meant for us to get into a debate over them but rather to serve as an education for us all.

I believe at this point we are in agreement that all is well. I can understand your reservations and hope that you find examples of success that are sufficient enough to make you more comfortable. I can also appreciate that it is hard for many (including myself) to take as gospel the words coming from the one who makes the product without some confirmation.

This is the primary reason why all our magazine ads are testimonials from others and why we list other shooters in our brochure and website. I recognize that Bergers cost more and I personally don't think anyone should shoot them if they don't believe that they are worth it.

There are no worries on my end. Now on to your questions.

1. The thick jackets are slightly heavier than the standard jackets. Since the weight of the bullet is the sum of the lead core and the jacket we use slightly less lead. Lead is more dense than copper so it is not an equal amount of lead volume decrease as compared to the volume of copper increased. The difference is realized in the lead core being slightly higher in the hollow point. These differences are not tremendous but that is where the "other stuff" goes.

2. I can't answer this question. I will say that the lead in the nose is much closer to the axis of the bullet which means it has less influence on precision through potential imbalance than an imbalance in the bearing surface area of the bullet. Frankly, the effects of lead level in the nose on bullet stability related to yaw, center of gravity and such characteristics is Bryan's realm so I will leave it to him to share his thoughts on the subject.

Regards,
Eric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top