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: 2613637" data-attributes="member: 116181"><p>I find the caveats given by smaller vendors perfectly acceptable, and the numbers they provide more than accurate given the constraints that they can't report on every particular combination of variables.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If you want to be marketed too that's your call. I can calculate and true up my own BCs, as should anyone who's actually shooting long range. Pick design first, then make sure the stats are accurate. I'm not going to change bullet choice just because something else comes out that's a minor percentage point better.</p><p></p><p>The truth is a few points of BC doesn't matter at all. When BC does matter consistency between bullets and wide-band velocity average is more important than the hard number. Picking new-whizz-bang 208.9gn bullet over last year's 207.4gn bullet because of a 0.005 increase in G7 doesn't translate into anything meaningful. Nothing get's past the fact that making a wind call 1mph more accurately or a distance call 5 yards closer to actual outweighs minor BC improvements while supersonic - which is the real kicker. </p><p></p><p>If you run a large enough cartridge to not drop into transonic it's all just paper racing anyways. Wind deflection varies with velocity, which is retained better by heavier bullets. Considering anything heavier than 200 grains out of any decent 308 or 338 cartridge will stay in the supersonic range to past 1000 yards, the actual BC in terms of drop and deflection of a bullet isn't as meaningful a data point even for long range hunting as it's made out to be. Unless I missed where people are sniping animals at 1+ miles consistently, then pretty much any remotely modern VLD and hybrid design will all work well enough that the differences are trivial compared to bullet design for terminal performance.</p><p></p><p>It might be unpopular but I'll say it - buying bullets because of the BC on the box is silly, it's feel-good false precision that isn't going to translate to anything meaningful. The Big Three - Wind, Range, and Velocity still matter exponentially more. If anyone is shooting to the point where BC matters, they'd better know well enough that there are too many factors to condense down to one catch-all number in the advertising material.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="QuietTexan, post: 2613637, member: 116181"] I find the caveats given by smaller vendors perfectly acceptable, and the numbers they provide more than accurate given the constraints that they can't report on every particular combination of variables. If you want to be marketed too that's your call. I can calculate and true up my own BCs, as should anyone who's actually shooting long range. Pick design first, then make sure the stats are accurate. I'm not going to change bullet choice just because something else comes out that's a minor percentage point better. The truth is a few points of BC doesn't matter at all. When BC does matter consistency between bullets and wide-band velocity average is more important than the hard number. Picking new-whizz-bang 208.9gn bullet over last year's 207.4gn bullet because of a 0.005 increase in G7 doesn't translate into anything meaningful. Nothing get's past the fact that making a wind call 1mph more accurately or a distance call 5 yards closer to actual outweighs minor BC improvements while supersonic - which is the real kicker. If you run a large enough cartridge to not drop into transonic it's all just paper racing anyways. Wind deflection varies with velocity, which is retained better by heavier bullets. Considering anything heavier than 200 grains out of any decent 308 or 338 cartridge will stay in the supersonic range to past 1000 yards, the actual BC in terms of drop and deflection of a bullet isn't as meaningful a data point even for long range hunting as it's made out to be. Unless I missed where people are sniping animals at 1+ miles consistently, then pretty much any remotely modern VLD and hybrid design will all work well enough that the differences are trivial compared to bullet design for terminal performance. It might be unpopular but I'll say it - buying bullets because of the BC on the box is silly, it's feel-good false precision that isn't going to translate to anything meaningful. The Big Three - Wind, Range, and Velocity still matter exponentially more. If anyone is shooting to the point where BC matters, they'd better know well enough that there are too many factors to condense down to one catch-all number in the advertising material. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hammer ballistic coefficient tests...
Top