Great talk, can't wait to for more technical talks like this. I am glad the CX bullet was brought up in more detail, because it really performs. Had issue one season trying ELDx and was like nope, but during ammo shortage I tryed the CX (couldn't get my Barnes) and wow. I have loaded the CX in 6.5cm and 30 06(getting avg. 2760fps with Superformance and a180gr bullet, talk about bringing new life to an old cartridge), with the new 160gr for 7mm can't wait to try then out on my 280ai. Also, not mentioned is Hornady is great to deal with if you have question. E.g 280ai has no load data for 160gr CX, shoot (pune intended) them an email and within a coupld days had the answers I needed.
I would recommend looking at the Hammer Bullets; consistently getting 150-200 fps faster than Barnes with similar weight prior to getting pressure (6.5 Prc- 127 Barnes LRX-3220 fps, 130 CX-3180 fps, 124 Hammer Hunter - 3410 fps)- same brass, powder, primers). For sub 500-600 yards I like added velocity compared to the higher BC. But if looking for higher BC monometals then check out Badlands Bulldozers.
O yea and wtf Hornady has happened to your q c.? Seating depths and powder charges of my last several boxes were all over the place. Especially seating depths
That cx don't expand for shit past 300 yards. Completely untrue statement being told. Sorry guys but that 600 yard cx expansion is terrible. There great for the max point blank range hunter there great. Hornady makes great stuff but they hurt there look by constantly stretching things .
We designed the eldx to be a piece of crap that comes apart, . Thats what we were going for. but it goes straight. Blows lead all through the meat but it goes straight. Wtf😂. Eldx is the most cost effective way to make a bullet not the best design. Thats bs! Its a cup n core bullet w a slight indication of a locking ring. What a joke. Hell the nosler ballistic tip is twice the hunting bullet a eldx is for holding together and killing ability. The eldx is a target bullet basically. People who understand bullet design see right through these lies . Lets call it what it is.
Ok I love Seth and Hornady but that answer about Applied Ballistics is bullshit. Saying AB is a BC based calculator is the same as me saying 4DOF is BC based Calculator. They both have bullet libraries with drag models for many bullets that each company has ran through a doppler radar. Neither company has every bullet possible in there and for the bullets that are not in either library there is an option on both to do a BC based calculation. Applied Ballistics does everything that 4DOF does with the exception of zero angle. I believe that is not offered with AB. I think Seth completely misrepresented his competition here making allegations of what the others capabilities are that he has to know to be incorrect. Sure AB has a BC solver but so does 4DOF. He just cherry picked info to make his product look better instead of offering a true comparison of what one does vs the other. Very upsetting to see from such a well spoken and intentional person. And if I am wrong on this I would love for Hornady or AB to openly discuss what the differences between the two products are, but the statement that AB is just a BC solver is simply a lie.
As I mentioned in the podcast this is all a little above my pay-grade. Is there an expert from the AB side that you would recommend I have on for another perspective?
@@MindfulHunter Brian Litz. He is the founder and I believe the owner of AB. He is also the chief Ballistician for Berger bullets. I love both companies but Hornady has much better marketing but in my mind they do the same thing. They both act like they are operating in a vacuum usually not acknowledging the other. This is the first time I’ve seen such a blatant lie from one about the other. To me their software does the same thing minus the differences I pointed out, but I would love for them to talk openly with each other about their differences and confirm that’s the case and where one might be better than the other or just different for different reasons that I can’t see.
@@MindfulHunter he has his own podcast through a subscription audience called the Science of Accuracy. He also has quite a few books published that take you through the basics all the way into the weeds on the internal and external ballistics. If you do want to learn more it’s a great resource. It is also funny because their ideologies in looking at the data are quite in line with each other focusing on such things as adequate sample size to debunk common reloading misnomers, tuners etc. Also, while AB started with Brian as the Ballastician at Berger and a team USA Fclass champion etc their focus in recent years has been into extreme long range shooting. So look into historical King of 2 Mile champions and you will see his name and his companies name quite literally everywhere. Very smart, used to design rocket modeling for the air force… lol Very nice guy as well, I’ve shared a shooting line with him at Berger Southwest Nationals back in the day.
Great pod cast. Have to rewatch and take a few notes. Thanks for coming on Seth. Seems like you’re doing a really great job.
I’m gonna have to relisten myself .
Great talk, can't wait to for more technical talks like this.
I am glad the CX bullet was brought up in more detail, because it really performs. Had issue one season trying ELDx and was like nope, but during ammo shortage I tryed the CX (couldn't get my Barnes) and wow. I have loaded the CX in 6.5cm and 30 06(getting avg. 2760fps with Superformance and a180gr bullet, talk about bringing new life to an old cartridge), with the new 160gr for 7mm can't wait to try then out on my 280ai.
Also, not mentioned is Hornady is great to deal with if you have question. E.g 280ai has no load data for 160gr CX, shoot (pune intended) them an email and within a coupld days had the answers I needed.
I’m looking forward to potentially switching over. Seems a better all purpose option.
I would recommend looking at the Hammer Bullets; consistently getting 150-200 fps faster than Barnes with similar weight prior to getting pressure (6.5 Prc- 127 Barnes LRX-3220 fps, 130 CX-3180 fps, 124 Hammer Hunter - 3410 fps)- same brass, powder, primers). For sub 500-600 yards I like added velocity compared to the higher BC. But if looking for higher BC monometals then check out Badlands Bulldozers.
Great podcast brother! Definitely no gun nut so was awesome getting some info on the topic
Need to get shit dialled for goat 🐐
@MindfulHunter aha hell ya man! The tikkas been good out to 500 for me up to now👌 more info never hurt thou lol
Yall can do poor mans overlays graphs w tracing paper and little manual recording . Its pretty low budget way to get thr mean group percentage
O yea and wtf Hornady has happened to your q c.? Seating depths and powder charges of my last several boxes were all over the place. Especially seating depths
That cx don't expand for shit past 300 yards. Completely untrue statement being told. Sorry guys but that 600 yard cx expansion is terrible. There great for the max point blank range hunter there great. Hornady makes great stuff but they hurt there look by constantly stretching things .
We designed the eldx to be a piece of crap that comes apart, . Thats what we were going for. but it goes straight. Blows lead all through the meat but it goes straight. Wtf😂. Eldx is the most cost effective way to make a bullet not the best design. Thats bs! Its a cup n core bullet w a slight indication of a locking ring. What a joke. Hell the nosler ballistic tip is twice the hunting bullet a eldx is for holding together and killing ability. The eldx is a target bullet basically. People who understand bullet design see right through these lies . Lets call it what it is.
Ok I love Seth and Hornady but that answer about Applied Ballistics is bullshit.
Saying AB is a BC based calculator is the same as me saying 4DOF is BC based Calculator. They both have bullet libraries with drag models for many bullets that each company has ran through a doppler radar. Neither company has every bullet possible in there and for the bullets that are not in either library there is an option on both to do a BC based calculation.
Applied Ballistics does everything that 4DOF does with the exception of zero angle. I believe that is not offered with AB.
I think Seth completely misrepresented his competition here making allegations of what the others capabilities are that he has to know to be incorrect. Sure AB has a BC solver but so does 4DOF. He just cherry picked info to make his product look better instead of offering a true comparison of what one does vs the other.
Very upsetting to see from such a well spoken and intentional person.
And if I am wrong on this I would love for Hornady or AB to openly discuss what the differences between the two products are, but the statement that AB is just a BC solver is simply a lie.
As I mentioned in the podcast this is all a little above my pay-grade. Is there an expert from the AB side that you would recommend I have on for another perspective?
@@MindfulHunter Brian Litz. He is the founder and I believe the owner of AB. He is also the chief Ballistician for Berger bullets. I love both companies but Hornady has much better marketing but in my mind they do the same thing. They both act like they are operating in a vacuum usually not acknowledging the other. This is the first time I’ve seen such a blatant lie from one about the other. To me their software does the same thing minus the differences I pointed out, but I would love for them to talk openly with each other about their differences and confirm that’s the case and where one might be better than the other or just different for different reasons that I can’t see.
@@williamallan4735 always appreciate different viewpoints. Let me see if I can get him on. Thanks man.
@@MindfulHunter he has his own podcast through a subscription audience called the Science of Accuracy. He also has quite a few books published that take you through the basics all the way into the weeds on the internal and external ballistics. If you do want to learn more it’s a great resource.
It is also funny because their ideologies in looking at the data are quite in line with each other focusing on such things as adequate sample size to debunk common reloading misnomers, tuners etc.
Also, while AB started with Brian as the Ballastician at Berger and a team USA Fclass champion etc their focus in recent years has been into extreme long range shooting. So look into historical King of 2 Mile champions and you will see his name and his companies name quite literally everywhere.
Very smart, used to design rocket modeling for the air force… lol
Very nice guy as well, I’ve shared a shooting line with him at Berger Southwest Nationals back in the day.
@@williamallan4735 👍