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="Petey308" data-source="post: 2613402" data-attributes="member: 106845"><p>Right. Transparency is key and not being misleading. Barnes are indeed not a high BC bullet either. There are indeed inherent factors that make a mono less aerodynamic, especially if made to perform well terminally for hunting applications. </p><p></p><p>I have ZERO issue with Hammers, or any other bullet, being low on BC compared to other bullets. It is what it is. The terminal performance is priority one, with getting it accurately to POA/POI being a very close second priority. </p><p></p><p>BC factors into priority two, but doesn't really matter if the bullet doesn't behave acceptably regarding terminal ballistics. </p><p></p><p>What this boils down to is, BC is what it is and that's whatever. What would be more helpful to the consumer is a more accurate figure to start with so their initial decision on what bullet they choose is more accurately made, and their time developing and truing that load is spent productively and efficiently. </p><p></p><p>No one wants to buy a bullet that looks good on the website, then work up a load and have to go through several components to find out the advertised BC is way off, the bullet is now not going to be as effective to as far as they thought, will require more wind drift correction, etc, etc. </p><p></p><p>There are many manufacturers that are guilty of misleading BCs. Hammer was just the one that stood out in the OP. I have several examples from ALCO that are a worse example of inaccurate published BC. That's been frustrating too, even knowing about it before buying them. </p><p></p><p>I get your point you're trying to make too, [USER=63925]@Muddyboots[/USER] with the startup companies. Not all startup companies are using estimated BCs though. Hopefully it's ok for me to tag [USER=112571]@mcdil[/USER] and say that he's been using methods to gather the BC for his bullets rather than just calculated estimates. So it can be done by startup companies. Im glad to hear CE is starting to gather actual BCs for their bullets too. </p><p></p><p>I feel like this is maybe coming off as a dig on Hammer, and I truly don't mean it to. I'm just making points and using them as an example is all. I sincerely mean no disrespect to anyone or any company.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Petey308, post: 2613402, member: 106845"] Right. Transparency is key and not being misleading. Barnes are indeed not a high BC bullet either. There are indeed inherent factors that make a mono less aerodynamic, especially if made to perform well terminally for hunting applications. I have ZERO issue with Hammers, or any other bullet, being low on BC compared to other bullets. It is what it is. The terminal performance is priority one, with getting it accurately to POA/POI being a very close second priority. BC factors into priority two, but doesn’t really matter if the bullet doesn’t behave acceptably regarding terminal ballistics. What this boils down to is, BC is what it is and that’s whatever. What would be more helpful to the consumer is a more accurate figure to start with so their initial decision on what bullet they choose is more accurately made, and their time developing and truing that load is spent productively and efficiently. No one wants to buy a bullet that looks good on the website, then work up a load and have to go through several components to find out the advertised BC is way off, the bullet is now not going to be as effective to as far as they thought, will require more wind drift correction, etc, etc. There are many manufacturers that are guilty of misleading BCs. Hammer was just the one that stood out in the OP. I have several examples from ALCO that are a worse example of inaccurate published BC. That’s been frustrating too, even knowing about it before buying them. I get your point you’re trying to make too, [USER=63925]@Muddyboots[/USER] with the startup companies. Not all startup companies are using estimated BCs though. Hopefully it’s ok for me to tag [USER=112571]@mcdil[/USER] and say that he’s been using methods to gather the BC for his bullets rather than just calculated estimates. So it can be done by startup companies. Im glad to hear CE is starting to gather actual BCs for their bullets too. I feel like this is maybe coming off as a dig on Hammer, and I truly don’t mean it to. I’m just making points and using them as an example is all. I sincerely mean no disrespect to anyone or any company. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hammer ballistic coefficient tests...
Top