whiskey three precision

[Michael Courtney]

Michael, these are a far cry from mediocre bullets, once again coming in here trying to drum up buisness for yourself at the expense of others does not shine a bright light on your buisness......

Pretty sure we got this, everyone expects the BCs to be high as has been pointed out weve been through this with other bullets tested on the same software. The independent testing will roll in and people will buy or not, perhaps someone may even buy some bullets and pay you to test them, wouldnt hold my breath, if you keep chiming in here like you did against Berger, bryan, and eric.

Our clients pay us because of the accuracy and dependability of our science, not because we play well with others. We have all the science on our plate that we can handle right now, and were just discussing yesterday whether to hire help to accommodate a new opportunity.

In the DoD world, you have to be painfully honest in all situations and you have to be willing to offend aspiring DoD contractors. Otherwise, you are just screwing the taxpayers.

People who want an independent assessment of COTS products will pay us for testing of promising products, because our test results are absolutely dependable and our services are more cost effective than failing to get independent testing or hiring other parties. Try contacting SWRI for a quote to evaluate the ballistics of a given long range bullet, including full velocity dependent drag curve accurate to 1%, stability analysis, and terminal ballistics over the entire supersonic velocity window.

These conversations may be uncomfortable for certain vendors, but we are ultimately reducing their liabilities if they heed our warnings and endeavor to publish more accurate information. In the long term, we're reducing work for ballisticians by keeping suits out of court under the False Claims Act.

I'm not on here trying to make a name for myself or scrape up business. I am on here encouraging vendors to be more accurate in their specs to ultimately protect the industry from lawsuits that would be detrimental to the entire industry and their customers.

 

[Pdvdh]

Pretty sure we got this, everyone expects the BCs to be high as has been pointed out weve been through this with other bullets tested on the same software.

"We" must not include Whiskey. Because I'm quite sure Whiskey hasn't gotten it. Not from me, not from Bryan Litz, not from Michael Courtney, not from Michael Eichele, not from you...

The sole negative comment I've posted about W3P bullets is that the advertised BC values are too high. No other negative statement about his bullets has been typed in any of my Posts. My other statements about this bullet design have been more positive than anything, based on my personal use of this bullet style and manufacture in my .300 Win Mag.

However, if W3P does "get it", then one is left with the conclusion that the W3P business model includes the continued advertising of bullet BC values higher than have ever been documented before, in the weight and caliber bullets being advertised.

 

[Pdvdh]

funny coming from the MAIN contributor to the old thread being shut down. Playing nice doesn't involve threats....mud slinging....defamation or any of the sort. Which I have not done....but you sir will be addressed and put in check and called out when you spew garbage. Again.....keep it classy...and intellectual. We know you can ....you just haven't bothered to do so. I have and don't have to stand for slander....or defamation. If I'm wrong prove me wrong till then ...let's continue with an intelligent conversation and get to the meat and potatoes of what we are doing as compared to the main stream who have left the custom bullet market as a hobby. We bring what you and elkaholic were up to to a new level....sorry!

You must be totally oblivious to the content and character of your Posts.

I have stated that your advertised bullet BC values are inflated. It's been quite a while now, and you've provided no time of flight or velocity measured evidence to support your BC values. Not even any MVs with long range drop measurements. If my stating that your advertised bullet BCs are inflated makes me all these evil things, what will it make you when your advertised bullet BCs get deflated? Answer: something worse than your description of me.

Btw....calculated BC's aren't false....depends on who's software you are runnimg...Miller's rule...Bergers...ect...ect.

If you're claiming that Berger's software for calculating bullet BC values is good software, then I have to point out that Brian Litz, the man most likely responsible for that software, has already classified your advertised BC values as exaggerated. A fair question would be, are you operating the software correctly?

Michael Courtney has told you that no other bullets on planet earth of similar weight and caliber have attained the BC values you advertise. Are any of the elite customers you have using your bullets more qualified than these two gentlemen? In response to this evidence, you've never paused to take a breath. Your counter-position is buy our bullets and test them ourselves.

Why would I, or anyone else, buy bullets to "prove" something that two of the most knowledgeable ballisticians / researchers in this country have already resolved? If you won't stop and pause after Litz and Courtney point out the obvious, you wouldn't believe others' test data anyhow. You've as much as said you wouldn't accept BC test data from Litz.

You're the one selling the product and you're the one advertising BC values against all odds. You prove it if you want to clear the air.

To be clear, I never said anything else negative or derogatory about your bullets. Only that the advertised BCs error on the high side, which will be demonstrated when the bullets get delivered to members that either measure time of flight, measure velocity at two or more ranges, or measure MV and shoot extensively enough downrange to generate confident measured drops.

You still "don't care". Your "don't care" attitude is your promotional disaster for a significant number of common folk - whether you care about those potential customers or not.

If you do "get it", resolving the BC controversy could be as simple as stating "Our current advertised BC values were generated with computer program(s) and mathematical modelling based on bullet dimensions, shapes, and weights. We'll continue to evaluate the BC values we advertise for our bullets, and will update those values as measured BC information becomes available for evaluation."

 

[IdahoRedneck]

"We" must not include Whiskey. Because I'm quite sure Whiskey hasn't gotten it. Not from me, not from Bryan Litz, not from Michael Courtney, not from Michael Eichele, not from you...

The sole negative comment I've posted about W3P bullets is that the advertised BC values are too high. No other negative statement about his bullets has been typed in any of my Posts. My other statements about this bullet design have been more positive than anything, based on my personal use of this bullet style and manufacture in my .300 Win Mag.

However, if W3P does "get it", then one is left with the conclusion that the W3P business model includes the continued advertising of bullet BC values higher than have ever been documented before, in the weight and caliber bullets being advertised.

Not much to disagree with here and im not interested in shutting this thread down either. My take is W3p is growing to fast, not a bad thing for them, but their brrad and butter is not Long Range Hunters, hence the secrecy, hence the whatever attitude.

Ive been followin em around on facebook and other forums and their hands are full.

And while it sounds like im defending them that is not my intent, I just have seen that their bread and butter is not LRHunters, however,their trying to fill a niche, there too. I think one if Johns biggest mistakes was interpretting you and elkaholics comments as those of people trying to reverse engineer thier bullet, as we all know rich has made and used extensivley for years with great success in a hunting application.

Not a couple posts back he appoligized for the wishy washyness, and im gonna take him at his word.

I expect that once he figures out why all the pointed questions from a bunch of folks lookin for hunting bullets, he'll sit back down to the table and not be so defensive, but I cant say I blame him much.

Perhaps the bc question will be answered and corrected.........

From what ive seen its a good bullet, and I still wish W3p the best even though ive been in quite a few ****in matches with john on his facebook side. He just dont play well with others either I decided. Haha

 

[Whiskey 3 Precision]

Not much to disagree with here and im not interested in shutting this thread down either. My take is W3p is growing to fast, not a bad thing for them, but their brrad and butter is not Long Range Hunters, hence the secrecy, hence the whatever attitude.

Ive been followin em around on facebook and other forums and their hands are full.

And while it sounds like im defending them that is not my intent, I just have seen that their bread and butter is not LRHunters, however,their trying to fill a niche, there too. I think one if Johns biggest mistakes was interpretting you and elkaholics comments as those of people trying to reverse engineer thier bullet, as we all know rich has made and used extensivley for years with great success in a hunting application.

Not a couple posts back he appoligized for the wishy washyness, and im gonna take him at his word.

I expect that once he figures out why all the pointed questions from a bunch of folks lookin for hunting bullets, he'll sit back down to the table and not be so defensive, but I cant say I blame him much.

Perhaps the bc question will be answered and corrected.........

From what ive seen its a good bullet, and I still wish W3p the best even though ive been in quite a few ****in matches with john on his facebook side. He just dont play well with others either I decided. Haha

love ya Dan......sorry I don't play nice sometimes....
I've just been burnt a few too many times and I'm trying not to make it a habit......my experience in the military hasn't helped matters either with all the shenanigans that I have seen through the yrs...

sorry Dan.....nothing personal.

 

[azsugarbear]

Jeez guys, I disappear for a few days to get some elk scouting in and then return to find this thread starting to 'blow up' again. I think everybody has had their say and we pretty much know which members stand where.

How about this:

We voluntarily limit future posts on this thread to those members have have actually received and tested Whiskey Three bullets?

Like most here, we have had our share of disappointing BC claims. But hey, maybe this time they might hold true. I see the name of many posters who I have come to know and trust. Let's call a truce until we hear from them and their actual results.

This is a great forum with great members. Having any thread shut down on LRH does not reflect well on us, nor on our ability to play fair. Either the proof will be in the pudding, or it will not.

 

[Whiskey 3 Precision]

Jeez guys, I disappear for a few days to get some elk scouting in and then return to find this thread starting to 'blow up' again. I think everybody has had their say and we pretty much know which members stand where.

How about this:

We voluntarily limit future posts on this thread to those members have have actually received and tested Whiskey Three bullets?

Like most here, we have had our share of disappointing BC claims. But hey, maybe this time they might hold true. I see the name of many posters who I have come to know and trust. Let's call a truce until we hear from them and their actual results.

This is a great forum with great members. Having any thread shut down on LRH does not reflect well on us, nor on our ability to play fair. Either the proof will be in the pudding, or it will not.

agreed.....great idea

 

[Michael Courtney]

We voluntarily limit future posts on this thread to those members have have actually received and tested Whiskey Three bullets?

Like most here, we have had our share of disappointing BC claims. But hey, maybe this time they might hold true. I see the name of many posters who I have come to know and trust. Let's call a truce until we hear from them and their actual results.

This is a great forum with great members. Having any thread shut down on LRH does not reflect well on us, nor on our ability to play fair. Either the proof will be in the pudding, or it will not.

On 23 September, W3P posted this on their FB site:

All of our 6.5mm guys ......heads up this is our 142 grain 6.5 mm RBT and FB projectiles with the new hardened aluminum ballistic tip. 1:7 twist is optimum for this setup......G1 B.C. of 1.75 at 3200 fps according to the software. Pretty sexy little beast.....

What you propose is that W3P basically have a blank check to publish and advertise extraordinary marketing claims on bullets that have not been tested (no BC measurements), but that forum participants can only express skepticism if they've bought bullets.

I do not think one needs to actually shoot these bullets to express skepticism in these extraordinary BC claims. Claiming a G1BC of 1.75 for a 142 grain 6.5 mm bullet is just absurd, and one need not pay W3P money for the right to say it.

 

[azsugarbear]

On 23 September, W3P posted this on their FB site:

All of our 6.5mm guys ......heads up this is our 142 grain 6.5 mm RBT and FB projectiles with the new hardened aluminum ballistic tip. 1:7 twist is optimum for this setup......G1 B.C. of 1.75 at 3200 fps according to the software. Pretty sexy little beast.....

What you propose is that W3P basically have a blank check to publish and advertise extraordinary marketing claims on bullets that have not been tested (no BC measurements), but that forum participants can only express skepticism if they've bought bullets.

I do not think one needs to actually shoot these bullets to express skepticism in these extraordinary BC claims. Claiming a G1BC of 1.75 for a 142 grain 6.5 mm bullet is just absurd, and one need not pay W3P money for the right to say it.

I understand completely. I'm not proposing a blank check here. W3P has been called out repeatedly on this site re: their advertised BC's. If memory serves me correctly, the OP started this new thread with a question about W3P bullets. Rather than launch into a new debate, I simply referred him to the old thread so that he could see for himself.

This past weekend, I was out scouting elk for a late November hunt. While sitting on the rim of a huge, steep bowl, I found a bull bedded near the bottom in some thick stuff about 1,300 yds. across from me. He appeared to be a good bull, but I was not willing to put in the huge effort of going down to take a better look at him. Besides - that elk probably would not be in that location two months from now anyway.

In time, another truck pulled up and three more hunters got out (they had muzzleloader permits for the current hunt). They started glassing from the same vantage point, and eventually found the bull I had been looking at (bummer). They started debating how big he was. Some thought he would go 340, while another felt he was pushing 370. Bear in mind - nobody had glass high than 15 power.

At first I listened intently because other opinions help me to consider things I might not have picked up on. But it eventually became hilarious as these two hunters debated back and forth their side of the argument for over thirty minutes. Everything was hashed and re-hashed. Finally the older gentleman spoke (I assume it was their Dad). He said. "Well, I guess one of you boys is gonna have to crawl down in there and get close enough to prove the other wrong" Then he looked over at me and winked. He knew neither of those boys was going to go down in there.

The difference between that situation and the current W3P debate is that we actually have several LRH members that have moved beyond the debate. They have started down that steep incline to get a closer look. Rather than continue to beat a thoroughly whipped horse, I am suggesting we quietly watch the progress of those members and patiently wait for their reports.

Like you, I find certain W3P claims to be incredulous. However, proof trumps theory in my book. A dead elk on the ground at my feet with horns that I can measure will always get the nod over an opinion - even when that opinion may come from the most authoritative elk guide in the country.

The way I see it, one of three things is going to happen:

1) Our members will get the bullets and prove the BC numbers to be inflated.
2) Our members will get the bullets and prove the BC's to be very close to W3P's stated BC's.
3) Our members will never get the bullets to test in order to accomplish the above.

Even if the final outcome is number three, it will still be the proof most LRH members will need to put this to rest.

 

[Augustus]

Well, these bullets may be really good and I applaud the ones making the bullets and those who want to test them; however, it is not necessary to shoot a 6.5mm 142 grain bullet to determine whether or not it has a G1 BC of 1.75. God put an amazing organ inside our cranium to prevent one from performing endless exercises in futility.

 

[Michael Courtney]

I understand completely. I'm not proposing a blank check here. W3P has been called out repeatedly on this site re: their advertised BC's. If memory serves me correctly, the OP started this new thread with a question about W3P bullets. Rather than launch into a new debate, I simply referred him to the old thread so that he could see for himself.

That makes a certain amount of sense, until one considers that new BC claims continue to roll out of the bullet maker.

Given the history of the discussion over the past few months, it would make more sense to me for the bullet maker to begin measuring their own BCs in house. We've described a simple method for doing so in several of our papers. This method requires two chronographs, a tape measure, a Kestrel, and a bit of care at the range.

Depending on the care exercised and the bullets themselves, this method can yield BCs with an accuracy of 1% to 10%. Given the apparent magnitude of the BC inaccuracies being generated from the bullet maker's computer estimates, even a BC measurement with a 10% uncertainty would be welcome.

The expected range of G1 BCs for 6.5 mm bullets in the 139-142 weight range is 0.550 to 0.650. A claim of a G1 BC of 1.7 for a 6.5 mm bullet in this weight class demonstrates an obvious error on the part of the one making the claim.

As new claims emerge from a bullet maker that are as obviously in error as this one, skeptics are with the realm of reasonableness to express their skepticism in an ongoing manner, commensurate with the flow of new absurd claims.

Let's see if the bullet maker answers with a reasoned and timely plan for providing more accurate product information, or if they keep dodging the issue or deflect attention using ad hominem attacks and other rhetorical fallacies.

 

[Cold Trigger Finger]

So, can anyone that has received W3P bullets post some.pics of them? Possibly standing next to other brand bullets commonly used for LR shooting.?

 

[IdahoRedneck]

So, can anyone that has received W3P bullets post some.pics of them? Possibly standing next to other brand bullets commonly used for LR shooting.?

230 w3p Tac-pm rbbt, 230 berger hybrid target.

 

[Edd]

I know what the BC of that Berger bullet is supposed to be, what is the BC of the other one supposed to be?