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
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
What's Wrong With .30 Caliber? By Bryan Litz
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="Kevin Thomas" data-source="post: 263249" data-attributes="member: 15748"><p>Hey guys,</p><p></p><p>Actually, the use of the G1 drag model IS an attempt to standardize BCs within the industry. As Bryan has so aptly described, it's far from the ideal for most of the bullets we use. It is, however, something that everyone can relate to; you can check a Hornady against a Speer against a Sierra against a Berger, and they're all speaking the same language. This became normal practice way back in the late 40s early 50s when ED Lowery developed the G series of drag models. At that time, about the only folks discussing BCs were ballisticians. Stop and think back about the blank stare you'd have gotten even 10-15 years ago trying to discuss it with fellow shooters. Since they went "mainstream" the adherence to the G1 is merely an attempt to keep it simple, if you will. </p><p></p><p>As far as determining BCs, there's another kettle of fish. Problem is, many manufacturers don't have the facilities for determining an accurate BC. Over the years, you'd be flabbergasted to learn how someof those BCs were derived. Ever heard of the Coxe/Beuglass tables? They're listed in Hatcher's Notebook, if you want to see them and read about how they're used. Essentially, it involves visually holding a bullet up against an increasing series of ogival outlines and figuring out which "matched." From there, you had the values for a series of equations for the ogive, the meplat diameter, the boat tail, etc., that would give you a "BC" as gthe end result. Needless to say, the results could be off substantially. Hate to tell you how recently that method wasused by even some big industry names. Doing actual Time of Flight firing, or Doppler Radar testing are the only real way to determine the values, and that takes time, effort and money. The industry is getting there, more by the increasing sophistication of today's shooters than anything else. It's still a long road, but we've come a long way.</p><p></p><p>Hope this clears up a question or two?</p><p></p><p>Kevin Thomas</p><p>Berger Bullets</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kevin Thomas, post: 263249, member: 15748"] Hey guys, Actually, the use of the G1 drag model IS an attempt to standardize BCs within the industry. As Bryan has so aptly described, it's far from the ideal for most of the bullets we use. It is, however, something that everyone can relate to; you can check a Hornady against a Speer against a Sierra against a Berger, and they're all speaking the same language. This became normal practice way back in the late 40s early 50s when ED Lowery developed the G series of drag models. At that time, about the only folks discussing BCs were ballisticians. Stop and think back about the blank stare you'd have gotten even 10-15 years ago trying to discuss it with fellow shooters. Since they went "mainstream" the adherence to the G1 is merely an attempt to keep it simple, if you will. As far as determining BCs, there's another kettle of fish. Problem is, many manufacturers don't have the facilities for determining an accurate BC. Over the years, you'd be flabbergasted to learn how someof those BCs were derived. Ever heard of the Coxe/Beuglass tables? They're listed in Hatcher's Notebook, if you want to see them and read about how they're used. Essentially, it involves visually holding a bullet up against an increasing series of ogival outlines and figuring out which "matched." From there, you had the values for a series of equations for the ogive, the meplat diameter, the boat tail, etc., that would give you a "BC" as gthe end result. Needless to say, the results could be off substantially. Hate to tell you how recently that method wasused by even some big industry names. Doing actual Time of Flight firing, or Doppler Radar testing are the only real way to determine the values, and that takes time, effort and money. The industry is getting there, more by the increasing sophistication of today's shooters than anything else. It's still a long road, but we've come a long way. Hope this clears up a question or two? Kevin Thomas Berger Bullets [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
What's Wrong With .30 Caliber? By Bryan Litz
Top