Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hammer ballistic coefficient tests...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="entoptics" data-source="post: 2613214" data-attributes="member: 104268"><p>[USER=110785]@JD284win[/USER]</p><p>I'm astonished that your real world data put the B.C. ~25% lower than whatever method Hammer is using to provide their B.C. estimates, hence my thought that maybe it was a typo. Thanks for confirming.</p><p></p><p>I used LabRadar and JBM to back calculate the B.C., not shot drop validation.</p><p></p><p>[USER=115658]@Hugnot[/USER]</p><p>I believe JBM uses the same "algorithm" it would use to calculate downrange velocity in a normal ballistic solution, but instead solves for B.C. by using your velocity inputs and the distance between them. Essentially it just re-arranges the equation to use inputs of distance/velocity to solve for B.C. instead using inputs of velocity/B.C to solve for a series of distances.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm sorry you "take exception". I have no dog in any fight. I'm simply providing information.</p><p></p><p>I would like to point out a few things that I think you are overlooking in your "apples to oranges" statements.</p><p></p><p>1) The most liked posts in this thread say something along the lines of "verify for yourself". That implies that relatively primitive and low cost methods can be used to arrive at a useful B.C.</p><p></p><p>2) If "all rifles are different" is meaningful at the variances we're seeing (it's not), then one would expect some to report higher than quoted B.C.s, and some to report lower than quoted B.C.s. We don't see that.</p><p></p><p>3) I've seen numerous posts on Hammer B.C.s, arrived at with primitive/inexpensive methodology, and not a single one was actually higher than that quoted on Hammer's product page.</p><p></p><p>4) Many of Hammer's quoted B.C. values (and apparently Cutting Edge, Badlands Precision, et al.) are calculated from "shot drops", yet they aren't collecting Doppler files from a LabRadar in conjunction with an iPhone and Kestrel, despite the low cost.</p><p></p><p>5) With my $750 setup (LabRadar + Kestrel), I've gotten results which are within 8% of every "large long standing bullet manufacturers that have greater resources for a longer period..." I've tested. Most are within 5% or less.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="entoptics, post: 2613214, member: 104268"] [USER=110785]@JD284win[/USER] I'm astonished that your real world data put the B.C. ~25% lower than whatever method Hammer is using to provide their B.C. estimates, hence my thought that maybe it was a typo. Thanks for confirming. I used LabRadar and JBM to back calculate the B.C., not shot drop validation. [USER=115658]@Hugnot[/USER] I believe JBM uses the same "algorithm" it would use to calculate downrange velocity in a normal ballistic solution, but instead solves for B.C. by using your velocity inputs and the distance between them. Essentially it just re-arranges the equation to use inputs of distance/velocity to solve for B.C. instead using inputs of velocity/B.C to solve for a series of distances. I'm sorry you "take exception". I have no dog in any fight. I'm simply providing information. I would like to point out a few things that I think you are overlooking in your "apples to oranges" statements. 1) The most liked posts in this thread say something along the lines of "verify for yourself". That implies that relatively primitive and low cost methods can be used to arrive at a useful B.C. 2) If "all rifles are different" is meaningful at the variances we're seeing (it's not), then one would expect some to report higher than quoted B.C.s, and some to report lower than quoted B.C.s. We don't see that. 3) I've seen numerous posts on Hammer B.C.s, arrived at with primitive/inexpensive methodology, and not a single one was actually higher than that quoted on Hammer's product page. 4) Many of Hammer's quoted B.C. values (and apparently Cutting Edge, Badlands Precision, et al.) are calculated from "shot drops", yet they aren't collecting Doppler files from a LabRadar in conjunction with an iPhone and Kestrel, despite the low cost. 5) With my $750 setup (LabRadar + Kestrel), I've gotten results which are within 8% of every "large long standing bullet manufacturers that have greater resources for a longer period..." I've tested. Most are within 5% or less. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hammer ballistic coefficient tests...
Top