Did Hornady discontinue the GMX? new CX?

Shadow9mm

New member
So I just watched a review on Hornady CX. I had never heard of it before so I looked it up and its is a solid copper tipped bullet. I was slightly confused at it seemed pretty similar to the GMX. I went to look at the GMX and it is no longer listed on Hornady's website.

I'm fairly sure the GMX was discontinued, anyone got anything solid. My google search did not turn up much...

It looks like a re-brand, or a a tweaked re-design, supposedly "extended range performance". BC seems worse, .308 180g GMX was G1 .485, new CX 180g is only .469.... Not what I would really want for extended ranges.

Also, Solid copper bullets are longer for their weight. Why do a fair number seem to have poor BC's compared to jacketed long range hunting bullets?
 

nhyrum

New member
I think poor bc on solid copper bullets is, since the copper is less dense, often times I think they're length limited, so they're usually limited to making them either single feed only or a shorter and stubbier version that can still fit to a certain mag length

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 

RC20

New member
I have a hard time keeping up with Hornady and what an A vs E vs G and what it does in what caliber.
 
Shadow9mm said:
Also, Solid copper bullets are longer for their weight. Why do a fair number seem to have poor BC's compared to jacketed long-range hunting bullets?

BC equals the sectional density divided by a shape factor. So either the less dense material is reducing the sectional density or they are not shaping them for aerodynamics that equal the same-weight cup and core bullet. The addition of the bands on the sides could possibly cause some additional shockwave formation, which would drain energy from the bullet in flight. But I haven't seen a shadowgraph of one, so I don't really know.
 

FrankenMauser

New member
My source for Hornady 'insider' info says the change was due to a materials procurement issue. But, he has given me bad information in the past. So, I chalk this up as nothing but rumor. That being said, this is what he claimed:
They're using a different alloy, which required a new tooling design.
New alloy + new tooling = perfect opportunity to market it as the newest wonder bullet.
 

campfire bwana

New member
I am sorry, but BC and sectional density are two completely different and entirely separate values. Assigning a BC value in an inertial state as you suggest (meaning a ballistic coefficient value calculated without movement) is completely false.
A ballistic coefficient is assigned to an object in motion only. Longitudinal motion coupled with gyroscopic motion. In the hand, the ballistic coefficient of a rocket to the moon is a big fat zero. Your suggestion is akin to saying that to measure a football field you'd have to enter the weight of the grass in order to have a proper sense of the length of the field...What you're saying is false. A sectional density is a relationship of the square of the diameter in inches to its weight in pounds. REGARDLESS of its shape. A wooden dowel ten inches long flat at both ends with a .308 diameter...weighing 200 grains is identical to a spitzer botail bullet 30 caliber bullet weighing 200 grains or a round nose 30 caliber bullet weighing 200 grains.............The sectional density is the same in movement as it is in an inertial state.
The ballistic coefficient is a value that is only and strictly assigned in motion and is zero in an inertial state. This reply is to UncleNick.
IN SHORT: IF A BULLET WEIGHS 180 GRAINS AND IS OF THE SAME CALIBER AS ANOTHER BULLET WEIGHING 180 GRAINS AND IF BOTH BULLETS ARE MADE OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS, ONE IS PURE COPPER AND IS VERY LONG AND THE OTHER IS CUP AND CORE AND IS SHORTER BUT THEY ARE OF THE SAME CALIBER...... THEIR SECTIONAL DENSITY IS IDENTICAL !!!!
 
Last edited:
From Berger Bullets:
How Sectional Density and Form Factor comprise BC

In words, the Ballistic Coefficient of a bullet is it’s sectional density divided by its form factor.
 
Campfire bwana,

A BC is a measure of how well a bullet coasts through air. The higher the BC, the less deceleration due to drag force it experiences at any given Mach number in any given air density. For any pair of bullets with the same diameter and profile, drag due to shape is the same at all matching velocities in the same atmospheric conditions. However, if one bullet with that profile is made from a material twice as dense as the other, it will have twice as much mass, and as a result, that matching drag force will only be able to slow the double-mass bullet half as quickly. This means the double-mass bullet coasts twice as far between any two given velocity values as the single-mass bullet does, and thus has twice the ballistic coefficient of the single-mass bullet. It also means the double-mass bullet has twice the sectional density of the singly-dense bullet. This is how sectional density relates to BC.

Note that nowhere in that discussion did I have to specify a particular velocity to find the relative BCs because we knew the shape-dependent drag would match at all velocities in a given set of conditions. Indeed, the reference projectile system of BCs developed by the Gavre Commission in the 19th century and later modified with numerous reference projectile shapes by the US Army Ballistics Research Laboratory takes advantage of shape similarities even when they are scaled to different diameters. All the BRL shapes are modeled to be one inch in diameter and to have a weight of one pound. This means they all have a ballistic sectional density of one. Thus, when you shoot a smaller bullet of the same shape, the difference in the rate at which it slows between two given velocities as compared to how quickly the reference projectile would slow is proportional to its sectional density divided by the reference projectile's sectional density. Since the reference projectile's sectional density is one, and any number divided by one is itself, you can skip the division and the smaller projectile's BC for that reference projectile's drag curve is simply equal to its sectional density.

Thus far, all I have discussed are matching bullet shapes. When the shapes don't match, the small bullet's sectional density has to be divided by a shape difference coefficient called the form factor to account for the mismatch in shape-dependent drag. Since different shapes don't have the same shape drag vs Mach number curves, in order that the BC of a bullet relative to a reference projectile of mismatched shape does not wander too far off the reference drag curve, the form factor has to be adjusted for different velocity ranges, and thus the BC changes at different velocities. This results in the tables you see of multiple BCs for different velocities spans. This may be what you meant about having to have a bullet in motion to define a BC.

If you look in the Wikipedia entry for ballistic coefficient, you will find the math that matches what I have described, but you do have to stick to the ballistic definition of a BC and not wander off into the aerodynamics definition.
 

ballardw

New member
Ballistic coefficient discussions always lead me to wonder if anyone is considering designs where there isn't any atmosphere to create drag. We have a Space Force. They should have space guns and bullets.
 
Wadcutters? Round balls from a smoothbore! The musket's value is revived!!! And there's nothing like a vacuum to dissipate black powder smoke, so maybe...:D
 
Top