The Maker Bullet project

[rebel]

This problem was resolved by dellet and myself with help from the fellows here on the forum, in conjunction with Paul, from Maker bullets.
SOLVED. I'm not incorrect as we think out loud here. Please stop posting here man, trust me, your not making friends.
Move on.

[dellet]

Here comes a deep thread resurrection...

Long story long for some background, got my first suppressor last year (Liberty Mystic X) First host was 5.5" 9mm AR. Disappointed in sound of anything run through it. Was new to the whole action/port noise experience.

Next Host was 16" .357 Handi-Rifle. WOW! Hollywood quiet with handload of Titegroup powder & 180g XTP. See testing here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d-uEAOg7VE

Next Host was 8.3" 300blk AR Once again disappointed in sound levels of anything that would cycle. So...

As a lefty and looking for a really quiet repeater I built a NON-gas 10" 300blk pump action AR as host for the Mystic. Talked to Paul at maker and decided to try 190g Rex.

Been working up loads and here's the question for Maker bullet shooters...Is the Maker an inherently noisy bullet in flight due to length/shape/construction? I've run from 920fps to 1040fps with my go to Titegroup powder and while all clearly subsonic I can't tell much difference in sound with any. It seems like a downrange sound but not like a sonic crack. Not at all Hollywood quiet like the above noted 180g xtp .357's

Looking for experience and insight before I burn through too many bullets or powders

They are a bit noisy in flight. Basically because they are about as aerodynamic as a loaf of bread. Think of it like the difference between the sound of cutting air with a sword vs a wooden dowel.

I would doubt its a stability issue, but it’s always worth checking. At 900 fps these were stable out to 175 yards in a 1/10 twist in both an AR and Bolt action.

As far as comparing to the.357, 180 xtp, I can’t say not a bullet I have shot suppressed. It quieter than a 500 grain .511 bullet in flight if that helps.

[dellet]

Thought about that bang, and actually had a couple of holes that may have happened. But I think the issue here is long bearing surface. Bounced this off txr and he agrees. Yeah there are bullets that have a longer oal, but less bearing surface. This creates drag, which results in lower fps. My customers MV was 950. I knew that was slow so built a round that clocked faster figuring that would stabilize. Getting the bullet to that speed was a feat in itself, then to have one pop super.......finicky.

Less bearing surface creates more "drag?"

And: no need to guess if a bullet is stable out of a given burl:
http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmstab-5.1.cgi

Rock on and have fun.

Unless it has a flat base, then that calculator is worthless.

[rebel]

I guess we can add ballistician to the list of talents?
Glad to know, I can't hit a bull in the ass, need all the help I can get.

[ggilmoreinbox]

Here comes a deep thread resurrection...

They are a bit noisy in flight. Basically because they are about as aerodynamic as a loaf of bread. Think of it like the difference between the sound of cutting air with a sword vs a wooden dowel.

I would doubt its a stability issue, but it’s always worth checking. At 900 fps these were stable out to 175 yards in a 1/10 twist in both an AR and Bolt action.

As far as comparing to the.357, 180 xtp, I can’t say not a bullet I have shot suppressed. It quieter than a 500 grain .511 bullet in flight if that helps.

1/7 twist on my 10" 190g Maker so far confirmed stable mz-50yds 925-1040fps so don't think the noise is coming from stability. I suspect it's the shape. Definitely not very aerodynamic but still... my flying brick .357's don't exhibit same symptom. Wonder if air is "ripping" /"whistling" through the slits of the Maker???

[dellet]

Less bearing surface creates more "drag?"

And: no need to guess if a bullet is stable out of a given burl:
http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmstab-5.1.cgi

Rock on and have fun.

Unless it has a flat base, then that calculator is worthless.

That is totally incorrect sir. The calculator doesn't ask for nor cares about the actual over all type of bullet shape. It merely works off the given bullets BC. Which is why it asks for BC, only. Very efficient, and wise to boot.

The formula on the JBM calculator and the one used by Berger are both based on a boat tail. Using a flat base bullet in either calculator will show more twist than needed for a flatbase bullet. Showing it as unstable when it is not.

The Miller stability formula is most accurate for boat tail bullets, and typically underestimates stability for flat based bullets. In other words, if this stability calculator indicates low stability for your flat based bullet and barrel twist, it’s because the formula is not accurate for flat based bullets.

[dellet]

Here comes a deep thread resurrection...

They are a bit noisy in flight. Basically because they are about as aerodynamic as a loaf of bread. Think of it like the difference between the sound of cutting air with a sword vs a wooden dowel.

I would doubt its a stability issue, but it’s always worth checking. At 900 fps these were stable out to 175 yards in a 1/10 twist in both an AR and Bolt action.

As far as comparing to the.357, 180 xtp, I can’t say not a bullet I have shot suppressed. It quieter than a 500 grain .511 bullet in flight if that helps.

1/7 twist on my 10" 190g Maker so far confirmed stable mz-50yds 925-1040fps so don't think the noise is coming from stability. I suspect it's the shape. Definitely not very aerodynamic but still... my flying brick .357's don't exhibit same symptom. Wonder if air is "ripping" /"whistling" through the slits of the Maker???

That will be part of it. When we went through different designs, changing the number and shape of the pressure grooves was part of the process. It’s been a few years so memory is bit clouded. They move a lot of air.

Shoot a few AMAX, SMK’s or really any jacketed bullet if you want to compare a slick bullet. But the Lehigh 194’s would be somewhere in between for noise.

[bangbangping]

[dellet]

That is totally incorrect sir. The calculator doesn't ask for nor cares about the actual over all type of bullet shape. It merely works off the given bullets BC. Which is why it asks for BC, only. Very efficient, and wise to boot.

The formula on the JBM calculator and the one used by Berger are both based on a boat tail. Using a flat base bullet in either calculator will show more twist than needed for a flatbase bullet. Showing it as unstable when it is not.

The Miller stability formula is most accurate for boat tail bullets, and typically underestimates stability for flat based bullets. In other words, if this stability calculator indicates low stability for your flat based bullet and barrel twist, it’s because the formula is not accurate for flat based bullets.

Call Mr. Brian Litz at his own company, Applied Ballistics.

That’s a tough choice, call Brian Litz at Applied Ballistics, or trust the ballisticians at Berger Bullets.

Which do you consider more of an expert?

[dellet]

Call Mr. Brian Litz at his own company, Applied Ballistics.

That’s a tough choice, call Brian Litz at Applied Ballistics, or trust the ballisticians at Berger Bullets.

Which do you consider more of an expert?

That's really funny, and very revealing, of you. Litz IS chief Ballistician for Walt Berger's company, though Brian is putting most of his actual days into his own company now, that I referenced above. So yes, per you're comment: I imagine this is a most trying choice to make. And my obvious answer to "which do I wonder more of an expert" is simply, "yes."

Brian is a really nice guy, and considered to be the best ballistician to come along since it was a recognized science. He wears a (railroad) engineer's hat everywhere he goes.

Its not good for the overall of members or the board for you to try to underhandedly lash out at, or get back at me in such guises.

You might consider running Berger’s 115 and 150 grain fb bullets through their calculator and see if the numbers make sense.