The goal is to get that bullet there as efficiently as possible, which is where BC becomes important - you will have more retained velocity at the target, which will reduce your vertical.
And that is where that money bullet style shines - which actually is more or less a modern rendition of the Metford bullet (or should I say nose).  Don't forget the Brits continued LR shooting long after the discipline became more or less extinct in the US, and that Metford bullet had become the reference there.

MV isn't important, weight isn't important, time of flight and retained velocity out there is.  A better BC will also reduce wind drift.  No, it won't be a dramatic difference, but any improvement is a plus.  Especially if it means a difference between being on or off target.

I think you are using "falling asleep" in a way I don't understand or have not heard it used before, or not. I understand it as the bullet settles down and flies with-out wobble. Please define. Thanks.

I have a fast twist 40-70 SS I have never been satisfied with. Shoots very well and throws one or two out. I have had the rifle almost 20 years and never considered trying it in a match. I keep trying different things and then tuck it away. This, after a truck load of powder and lead through it. It lives at the back of the safe.
Now, I am back at it again. New long bullet 1.515" long  .

"Falling asleep" had been explained to me as when the bullet drag reduces velocity to the point where the yaw point of concentricity starts to spread open until it finally wobbles. 
Or the point where the yaw is no longer stabilized over a long distance due to a decline in velocity.

I see others use it as as where the yaw point of concentricity closes with distance from the muzzle. 
Or the point where yaw becomes fully stabilized from the affects of velocity.

Appears there are different definitions for it.

So I will no longer use that term and explain the situation instead.

Chris I am not disagreeing about the success of using tight twists. 
I was trying to focus to others the need to increase velocities to stabilize certain types of bullets when you do that. 
Also to bring out discussions I had with Paul Jones that the most important factor for long range shooting  was a more balanced center of gravity of a bullet to reduce the yaw so declining velocity from drag was not as important.

But yes you can successfully use the other option of blowing more BP to increase velocities to stablize the wider yaw of pointier bullets instead of reducing the yaw by selecting a more dynamically stable bullet.

It is a benefit for some people to be aware of these options or opportunities before they invest in equipment and proceed to do their range testing.

The angle of yaw and the tightness of the cone of concentricity when the yaw is stabilized has the most effect on accuracy from wind drift.

And that is also part of the benefits of using tighter twists and heavier bullets.
Heavier bullets having a greater kinetic energy are less prone to wind drift.
But why not minimize wind drift further by selecting a better dynamically stable bullet as well?
I believe Dave Gullo has done that.
That is what the discussion is about - not about not using tight twists and heavier bullets.
And by doing so you may not need to use as much BP.

Yes a Money bullet with enough velocity does as about as well as a Creedmoor.

The question here is which is less susceptible to wind drift?
Is the velocity stabilized Money bullet with a bit more yaw and a slightly larger concentricity cone or the more weight balanced Creedmore with lesser yaw angle and a tighter cone of concentricity more accurate in the wind?

So how do you evaluate wind drift impacts when testing one bullet against another at the range?

I would go out on extremely windy and gusty days and shoot a number of 30 shot groups on paper with each bullet.

The large group sizes will demonstrate which is more susceptible to wind.

This process of choosing the best equipment to also minimize wind drift is how I improved my accuracy in the Schuetzen game and it also applies more so to long range shooting according to Paul Jones.

So yes do go to the range for your testing and compare bullets of the same weight that are a Money nose versus a Creedmoor versus a PJ Creedmoor where he has moved the center of gravity further forward.

And then test them for accuracy (IN THE WIND) to determine which are less susceptible to the wind.

If you are happy with your Money nose everything is great.
But some of us explore opportunities for even better accuracy which means selecting the bullet that is least susceptible to wind drift.

Long range with my .40-65 I got my Money bullet to be more accurate past 400 to 500 yards by increasing the velocity.

However I could shoot my PJ Creedmoor bullet in the .40-65 more accurately at a lower velocity (with 5 grains less BP) at long range than the Money bullet because it was less impacted by wind drift.

True, but the difference between e.g. a 16 or 18 twist is irrelevant.   The rate of spin is such that any imbalance will show  up big time, whatever the twist.
What many fail to realize is that the money bullet xas optimized for long range, specifically reducing vertical.  This means increasing MV and a good BC  which in turn will also reduce wind drift.
So yes, this will require more powder, obviously.

gunlaker wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 9:26pm:


Have to disagree, best proof would be through the use of a machine rest, remove the human factor.