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="QuietTexan" data-source="post: 2613581" data-attributes="member: 116181"><p>Consumers would be better served pick bullets based on design - expansion and weight retention/shedding. Either the bullet expands appropriately at impact velocity or it doesn't. Once it does, does it retain an appropriate amount of weight to penetrate or not? The real lies aren't in the BC printed on the box, it's the myth than all the new whizz-bang high dollar bullets actually do anything different, and if they are different that it's actually better.</p><p></p><p>The BC data that's published is just noise, it doesn't actually mean anything. In the tacti-cool world we live in where sleek, sexy high-BC sells to the masses the majority of shooters paying a premium for the hotrods would be better served with old, un-sexy short and fat bullets anyway. But the fact that these masses can't tell any differences even with the large discrepancies in published data is proof that for the vast majority of hunting shots <u>BC gives an illusion of false precision.</u></p><p></p><p>BC being off on the box is no more meaningful than variances in FPS or bullet weights being off from what's printed on the box. Does it matter if one CoreLokt is 180.3gn and the next is 179.7gn? Nope. Does it matter if box FPS is 2850 and it really chrono's at 2820? Nope. Does it matter if BC on the box is .325 and it's really .285? Nope. Not one of those three things, severally or combined, will move POI enough to induce a miss when shooting at a 6-8MOA target inside 500 yards.</p><p></p><p>How many negative reports of explosive impacts are going around about the ELD-M and ELD-X line? At the same time how many guys shoot Berger's specifically because they have low weight retention? That's a mismatch of expectations in design right there. Don't want low weight retention? Don't shoot the bullet advertised with 50-60% weight retention inside 400 yards like the ELD is, choose something with a locked or bonded core. Don't complain about the bullet doing exactly what it was designed for, it was a poor decision on the shooter's part to select it in the first place. <em>But it has high BC! It's sleek! It's sexy!</em> Says the masses who got sold on a data point that doesn't matter.</p><p></p><p>Guys aren't shooting Hammers or CE because they have awesome BC, it's because they're a fracturing petal shedding design where the expansion design can't be matched by a cup-and-core. So those two monos designs don't even consider BC in the first branch of the decision tree to use them or not. It's a moot point as to does a Hammer or a Hornady ELD-X have better BC on paper, the differences in design make direct comparison meaningless.</p><p></p><p>Where BC does matter, in terms of bullet-to-bullet consistency and in terms of transition to going in to transonic performance from Mach 1.5 to 1.2, the box BC isn't worth the ink it's printed with because the key metric of barrel twist isn't accounted for. Gyroscopic stability plays a non-negligible role in consistency of BC, so unless the box is going to start carrying velocity and spin rates to go with BC it's insufficient information.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="QuietTexan, post: 2613581, member: 116181"] Consumers would be better served pick bullets based on design - expansion and weight retention/shedding. Either the bullet expands appropriately at impact velocity or it doesn't. Once it does, does it retain an appropriate amount of weight to penetrate or not? The real lies aren't in the BC printed on the box, it's the myth than all the new whizz-bang high dollar bullets actually do anything different, and if they are different that it's actually better. The BC data that's published is just noise, it doesn't actually mean anything. In the tacti-cool world we live in where sleek, sexy high-BC sells to the masses the majority of shooters paying a premium for the hotrods would be better served with old, un-sexy short and fat bullets anyway. But the fact that these masses can't tell any differences even with the large discrepancies in published data is proof that for the vast majority of hunting shots [U]BC gives an illusion of false precision.[/U] BC being off on the box is no more meaningful than variances in FPS or bullet weights being off from what's printed on the box. Does it matter if one CoreLokt is 180.3gn and the next is 179.7gn? Nope. Does it matter if box FPS is 2850 and it really chrono's at 2820? Nope. Does it matter if BC on the box is .325 and it's really .285? Nope. Not one of those three things, severally or combined, will move POI enough to induce a miss when shooting at a 6-8MOA target inside 500 yards. How many negative reports of explosive impacts are going around about the ELD-M and ELD-X line? At the same time how many guys shoot Berger's specifically because they have low weight retention? That's a mismatch of expectations in design right there. Don't want low weight retention? Don't shoot the bullet advertised with 50-60% weight retention inside 400 yards like the ELD is, choose something with a locked or bonded core. Don't complain about the bullet doing exactly what it was designed for, it was a poor decision on the shooter's part to select it in the first place. [I]But it has high BC! It's sleek! It's sexy![/I] Says the masses who got sold on a data point that doesn't matter. Guys aren't shooting Hammers or CE because they have awesome BC, it's because they're a fracturing petal shedding design where the expansion design can't be matched by a cup-and-core. So those two monos designs don't even consider BC in the first branch of the decision tree to use them or not. It's a moot point as to does a Hammer or a Hornady ELD-X have better BC on paper, the differences in design make direct comparison meaningless. Where BC does matter, in terms of bullet-to-bullet consistency and in terms of transition to going in to transonic performance from Mach 1.5 to 1.2, the box BC isn't worth the ink it's printed with because the key metric of barrel twist isn't accounted for. Gyroscopic stability plays a non-negligible role in consistency of BC, so unless the box is going to start carrying velocity and spin rates to go with BC it's insufficient information. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hammer ballistic coefficient tests...
Top