Guys, 
Please forgive sticking my nose "in the tent" what with my newby situation. Duhhhh!
But, What about an Elliptical nose of appropriate ogive length as opposed to either a (pointed) Spitzer or  a flat nose?
beltfed/arnie

Beltfed here is an example of out of the box thinking. The bullet is a 147.0gr. 28 cal truncated bore riding nose breach seated plainbase bullet. Cast 20/1 lead tin alloy, Rifle is chambered in 28-35, self smithed, 12 twist Douglas, 13.0grs 300MP, CCI 200 primers and shot at 200yds with several others like it. Out shot was a sighter for hold off and then 10 consecutive 25's. Target shot during load development outing and pratice and not a match.

I think this might qualify as taking ones head out the sand and opening ones eyes what do you say Frankore?

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

JLouis

Don't know if this is gonna work. 
Attached is a group shot with my Elliptical PP bullet shot out of my 40-65 at 100 yds

Extremely nice shooting beltfed!

JLouis

I built wind tunnel models from the mid 70's to 1980. The company that I worked for, was doing R&D for both the Stealth and Cruise Missle projects, at that time.

That is when I got into wing design for my Formula Atlantic race car. Pictured is the car and the wing I design of it. It's a Delta shaped wing made of fiberglass and tapers in all planes. I learned many things about air flow at that time and have been interested in it and studied it ever since. 

A bullet is nothing more than a round wing and obeys the same laws of psychics. The first thing you need to know, is that there is a huge difference between subsonic and supersonic flight.

At subsonic velocitys the air has to flow around the nose and body of the bullet to have the best BC and ellipical bullets do that best. Any anomaly (such as a flat nose), can cause localized shock waves on the surface, hurting the BC and creating more pressure on the nose.

In supersonic flight, you want as sharp a profile as can be had because you are now pushing that shock wave and the more that you can bend it back, the higher your BC will become because your bending that wave back.

For a reference to this, you need to look at pictures of bullets pushing the shock wave, Lyman has some in there manuals.

Shooting round, flat or ellipical noses at supersonic speeds, create broad shock waves and broad shock waves take more power to push than more > shaped shock waves. All shock waves take more power to push than subsonic, no shock wave flight, if you can maintain the laminar flow.

Trucated nose shapes can be very effective if the angle is low and the flat, very small. High Mach, air planes shuch as the SR71 have a sharp point to their wing profiles.

Wind drift is a direct product of the perentage of velocity lost and doesn't correlate to ToF, especially in subsonic flight.

Now then accuracy is a whole different thing, any stabilized bullet shape can be accurate but, if you think that conditions won't move a low BC bullet more than a high BC bullet, you just wrong. People that say "I feel that" it moves less are just kidding themselfs and need to take a class in physical law.

I would suggest that people that are interested in bullet shape, read up on aerodynamics both above and below the speed of sound.

Frank

Nice post Frank and very interesting all though it is all very basic knowledge in todays world. In these times there are several instances where the law of physics would say it is impossible but it still works. As you know but it might be unknown to others a bullets BC changes with every shot fired it never remains the same or a constant. When reviewing the ballistic system printouts the long spitzer bullets all though having a higher BC they also show a greater BC fluctuation from shot to shot than other less radical nose designs. Knowing that the BC represents the time of flight from muzzle to target which one would have the greater possibility of providing better results / less bullet displacement at the target. These BC fluctuations would also change the bullets wind drift characteristics from shot to shot. This could possibly be why I see less wind drift with the FN bullet as well as more consistency at the target? I also think it unwise when one / the target has proven this to be true as in my case that he should be called a fool. I don't fully understand everything that takes place in a bullets flight as I personaly only care about the results the targets are showing me as they do not lie nor do they care if they do or do not agree with the law of physics so nor do I.

JLouis

Frank first I would like to say that car was pretty Cool! 

In regards to the ballistics printouts no two are the same and one has to shoot and then review a binder full to start to get a taste of what is acctualy going on and not get fooled.
Just like practice or match targets you can shoot one that is extremly good and then several that are not so good. You have to shoot several to see what is really going on and you can't base a rifles overall performance on just that one good target and the same holds true for the printout results. I have found over the years that real good target is often times just a fluke and a false indicator of what is really going on. Most all of us have gone out with a chrongraph and will have a ten shot string with low SD's and ES's and the very next ten shot string shot right after it will have just the opposite and on the high side. Also at times the lower SD's and ES's don't provide the best results on the target as one would expect.

In an earlier post you stated "I don't stay at my home range and shoot target after target, to get what I want." then how do you know what you have?
I have spent years doing just the opposite, I know exactly what I want and then spend countless hours at the range to pursue it.
You also stated in the same post "You can learn a lot by going to other ranges and it's a LOT of fun meeting others and seeing what actually works in our sport.
I agree on the Fun part and meeting people but if you don't already know what works in this sport
before you get there how can you continually make claims on what does? When one adds up your two statements they don't equate to your claims having any creditable Merit?

I have absoulutly no reason to come on here and falsify my findings, they are truthful facts brought about countless hours, experimention and years of hard work by putting an endless amount various bullets through paper at our range using various powder and primer combinations to get exactly what I want. My Joy in life is to come here and share it with the new shooters coming into this sport and it becomes a difficult task while others as yourself are continualy trying to discredit my honesty. 
It all boils down to either what I say is true per my findings or I am person who can't be trusted / a liar who is only here to stroke his ego? I will leave that determination up those who I am trying to help get ahead in the easiest and quickest way I know of to reach success in this sport I so Love.