Bullets - same part number but different shape

Warning: I'm going to go on a bit of a rant.

On the weekend I noticed that I only had 6 rounds of my favorite handload recipe for the upcoming deer season. This should be more than enough, but not wanting to be stuck without ammo at a crucial moment, I decided to quickly put together some handloads. No problem, I thought. I have all the specs for my load, I have the components, I just need to slap them all together. So I spend a couple of hours and assemble the ammo. Once I finished, I noticed that the powder didn't have any space to move around in the case, which I don't remember from the previous rounds I put together with this recipe. I thought that maybe this was because I full length sized the cases this time (some had been fired in a different rifle), but I could not believe that this would have such an effect on the case volume. So I took the old rounds out and compared them to the new rounds. Immediately I noticed that the bullets were visibly different. The ogive shape is different, the tip is more blunt, and it looks like there is a smaller bearing surface on the new bullets. This results in a longer jump to the lands, less free volume in the case (for the same COL) and will give different ballistics. This is using the same part number, but the bullets I used this time were from a new box I purchased within the last year, whereas the previous rounds were assembled 4 years ago. In the 3 years in between, Hornady redesigned the shape of the bullets, but they kept the same part number.

I find this extremely irritating. In my case, it shouldn't be a safety issue, but I would be very surprised if the two batches group together, which would be an issue for long shots. I will likely now have to re-work the load that I had spent a lot of time and a fair amount of money perfecting. I mean, it's one thing if the company discontinues a bullet, but to keep the same part number on a bullet that is visibly different is wrong. The least they should do is include some sort of revision number (V2.0). Now I understand why some people by components in huge batches! Maybe I'll take the opportunity to switch to a tougher bullet like a Nosler Partition. A huge batch of those is going to hurt the wallet though.

It's not very wise for a company to make a revision to a product without updating or amending the part number, perhaps you received a mis-labelled batch? I work for a large Diesel engine manufacturer and any changes to a part = new part number. No matter how minuscule the change, we always supersede to a new number

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anfield21

It's not very wise for a company to make a revision to a product without updating or amending the part number, perhaps you received a mis-labelled batch? I work for a large Diesel engine manufacturer and any changes to a part = new part number. No matter how minuscule the change, we always supersede to a new number

---

Uh...good point. They were both Boat-Tail Spire Points, but hopefully they are the same weight because that could be a serious problem. I will weigh a bullet tonight.

Don't you just hate having to go to the range to test out ammo...:)

Having worked in a profession called 'Configuration Management' ....that is a No-No....a change requires a new part number. I would have thought would be even more important with a Ammunition manufacture. Worthy Rant !!

The old bullets were discontinued, likely before you bought them off the shelf.

Couple years later, new designed bullets are released but use same part number.

Not a good practice but it's been done with more then just bullets.

I remember when they were discontinued, but I figured that was due to the ammo shortages - they were concentrating on highest demand bullets. I guess they were actually redesigning it. They should have brought it back with a different part number. Imagine if autoparts suppliers did it this way - with the same part number for a part that is different.

I am going to look really hard at the bullets I have from now on, I have some old 200gr Partitions, the plan was to build a load and get new when I need them, may not happen as nicely as I had hoped.

I weighed a bullet from the new batch last night. It is the same weight as the previous batch, so at least I don't have to pull them.

Fox, I'm relatively new to handloading, so I naively thought that a load developed with a certain bullet (same part number) would be good forever. That appears to not be the case. Like I said, now I understand why some handloaders buy powders by the tens of pounds and bullets by the thousands. When you spend a lot of time and effort to develop a load, you want to make sure you can use it for a long time to come.

Anyway, until I shoot these two batches, this whole discussion could be moot. Maybe the difference wont show up until beyond 3-400 yards, which is farther than I plan to shoot at a deer.

I would call Hornady & discuss this seriously.... Any re-design affecting Fit/Form/Function is a major change, and must automatically result in a P/N roll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G.S.

I would call Hornady & discuss this seriously.... Any re-design affecting Fit/Form/Function is a major change, and must automatically result in a P/N roll.

---

I understand what you are saying, but I'll wait to see the results (on paper) so that I have a complete picture. Maybe it doesn't affect the Fit/Form/Function for 95% of the users who use this hunting bullet to shoot game at short distances.

Your call, then maybe is more to the story

I finally got the chance to shoot 2 groups with the old bullet and the new bullet. The 3 shot group with the old bullet was 0.62" at 100 yards. The 3 shot group with the new bullets was 0.86" at the same distance. There was also a small offset in the POI of about 0.5" in elevation and 0.25" in windage. Good enough for 100 yard shooting.
I'll have to rework the load a bit to bring the group size down to where it was before. I think in this case it could be an issue with the OAL - even though they are the same OAL, the distance to the lands is different due to the different ogive shape. Alternatively, I suppose it could be due to the fact that the second batch of brass was full length sized, whereas the first batch was neck sized. Oh well, I guess more experimentation will be required.

Attachment 38077

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rf2

I finally got the chance to shoot 2 groups with the old bullet and the new bullet. The 3 shot group with the old bullet was 0.62" at 100 yards. The 3 shot group with the new bullets was 0.86" at the same distance. There was also a small offset in the POI of about 0.5" in elevation and 0.25" in windage. Good enough for 100 yard shooting.
I'll have to rework the load a bit to bring the group size down to where it was before. I think in this case it could be an issue with the OAL - even though they are the same OAL, the distance to the lands is different due to the different ogive shape. Alternatively, I suppose it could be due to the fact that the second batch of brass was full length sized, whereas the first batch was neck sized. Oh well, I guess more experimentation will be required.

Attachment 38077

---

There can be quite a variation in brass depending on who manufacture it and when. You might even want to weigh your brass. Sometimes there can be quite a bit of variation in wall thickness. In the first world war the .303 Ross functioned well with Canadian made brass, but when the troops were issued the British brass it was lighter walled and over expanded causing the rifle to jam. Thicker walled brass might also account for the effect on the powder capacity of the cases.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

There can be quite a variation in brass depending on who manufacture it and when. You might even want to weigh your brass. Sometimes there can be quite a bit of variation in wall thickness. In the first world war the .303 Ross functioned well with Canadian made brass, but when the troops were issued the British brass it was lighter walled and over expanded causing the rifle to jam. Thicker walled brass might also account for the effect on the powder capacity of the cases.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

---

The 303 Brit ammo in the ross shot best with Canadian ammo not because of the brass thickness but rather the tolerances held in manufacturing. The Commonwealth ammo would not chamber in many cases, this was not a concern for the Lee Enfield rifles because they built in massive chambers to be able to chamber dented and dirty cases, this was designed around the problems found when fighting the Zulus, the .577/450 cartridge with its foil case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

The 303 Brit ammo in the ross shot best with Canadian ammo not because of the brass thickness but rather the tolerances held in manufacturing. The Commonwealth ammo would not chamber in many cases, this was not a concern for the Lee Enfield rifles because they built in massive chambers to be able to chamber dented and dirty cases, this was designed around the problems found when fighting the Zulus, the .577/450 cartridge with its foil case.

---

As a bit of follow up on this:

• From: The G.O.C. 2nd Can. Inf. Brigade.
• To: D.O.O. 1st Can. Division.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7)]Ammunition:
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7)]With reference to your letter dated 12th instant, asking for a report on the ammunition, etc., at present in use, the Officers Commanding Battalions of this Brigade have reported that the Small Arm Ammunition of British Manufacture (Kinoch) does not work as well in the Ross Rifle as the ammunition of Canadian manufacture. They find, after firing a few rounds, that the shells seem to stick in the bore and are not easily extracted, in fact, more than the ordinary pressure must be applied. It seems that the cartridge case is slightly smaller than those of Canadian manufacture and on expansion fits the bore so tightly that the difficulty mentioned above takes place. This seems to me to be a point where the most rigid investigation is necessary, as a serious interference with rapid firing may prove fatal on occasions.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7)]A.W. CURRIE, Brigadier-General. G.O.C., 2nd Can. Inf. Brigade.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

As a bit of follow up on this:

• From: The G.O.C. 2nd Can. Inf. Brigade.
• To: D.O.O. 1st Can. Division.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7)]Ammunition:
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7)]With reference to your letter dated 12th instant, asking for a report on the ammunition, etc., at present in use, the Officers Commanding Battalions of this Brigade have reported that the Small Arm Ammunition of British Manufacture (Kinoch) does not work as well in the Ross Rifle as the ammunition of Canadian manufacture. They find, after firing a few rounds, that the shells seem to stick in the bore and are not easily extracted, in fact, more than the ordinary pressure must be applied. It seems that the cartridge case is slightly smaller than those of Canadian manufacture and on expansion fits the bore so tightly that the difficulty mentioned above takes place. This seems to me to be a point where the most rigid investigation is necessary, as a serious interference with rapid firing may prove fatal on occasions.
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.7)]A.W. CURRIE, Brigadier-General. G.O.C., 2nd Can. Inf. Brigade.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

---

I never heard that before, it does not really make sense either, if they are small and fired in a larger chamber they are just being fire formed, the only reason they would not relax and be able to be extracted is if the pressure were higher or if you had a chamber that was rough and would catch the brass. I know that the No 1 rifles had massive chambers, what most people consider a "headspace" problem but those people do not understand what headspace is on a rimmed cartridge.

I have a bunch of different military cartridges, I think most of them are Canadian though so they would all be good for the Ross.

Really taking this off topic though.