Awesome, and thank you, Mark! I really appreciate the transparency and work you did to make that known and published accordingly. It's really helpful to the end user.Alright. Website has been updated on the BC values we have calculated to also disclose the twist rate of the rifle shot behind the radar. So, in summary, we list:
1. The observed G7 (G1 where appropriate, i.e. Haymaker) calculated from a fit curve generated on the radar csv plot file
2. The velocity spectrum where the observation took place
3. The twist rate of the rifle doing the shooting
This is about the best we can do in relation to BC. When we have offerings that we don't have the means to shoot, we will leave the BC listed as an estimate. It will be obvious which are which. Luckily, so far, we've gotten pretty good at calculating estimates, when compared to actual, but that may change as we go up and down in caliber, so we shall see.
One thing I failed to mention in relation to gyroscopic stability in the discussion above. We DO NOT subtract the nose or part of the nose when calculating the stability of our Afterburners. Some ballistics calculators allow the ability to account for this with plastic noses, but we choose not to use that functionality on purpose, and the calculation is considerably more conservative as a result. The weight of the nose itself is almost insignificant, and it predominates around the central axis, so any additions to the mass moment of inertia are almost imperceptible. HOWEVER, from an aerodynamic and structural standpoint, the nose is just as prominent as if it were attached permanently to the bullet. We know ours will shoot with excellent stability in flight. Our concern was completely around terminal stability and performance, and we wanted to be very much on the conservative side in that regard. It's the most important attribute of a bullet's performance. All else is secondary, at least in our view.
I guess this was really part of my explanation around twist rate acceptability for Apex Outdoors bullets in the above response. I just did a poor job disclosing all the reasons why I said it. No doubt, BC will still get higher with a tighter twist rate (that was the other part of the discussion), but it is more a luxury than a necessity.
No doubt info and numbers will evolve over time and I'm glad to hear you will update it as necessary.
I like the idea behind the tips too and I agree with your logic there.