Berger Bullets Announces Launch of a New Ammo Company

[Michael Courtney]

Michael, while I appreciate your response and your effort to minimize any sort of error in your work, I think you are still missing my point: if there are thousands of very experienced shooters on this forum who are shooting any number of different Berger bullets out well passed 1,000 yards and the BC's are proving to be true for each of them, how can you dispute that?

I really doubt that thousands of shooters shooting Berger bullets are being as careful as needed to validate BCs with drop and that they ALL are finding agreement with Berger's published numbers.

Here is the fallout of one well-known counter example:

Berger Bulletin » Update Regarding the .338 Hybrids

Further, I attend a lot of F-Class and other long range precision matches. Those shooting Berger bullets don't seem any less likely to need vertical adjustments during their sighting shots than those shooting other brands. If there were "thousands of very experienced shooters ... shooting any number of Berger bullets ... and the BC's are proving true for each of them" then why all the need for vertical adjustments?

 

[MMERSS]

Further, I attend a lot of F-Class and other long range precision matches.

Just curious Michael, what bullet do you use for F-Class? I have developed loads for T/R rifles using the A-MAX, SMK and Berger. I mostly load Berger out of the three. All three seem to have similar vertical spreads however the Berger bullets usually perform better against the wind.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Just curious Michael, what bullet do you use for F-Class? I have developed loads for T/R rifles using the A-MAX, SMK and Berger. Mostly use Bergers out of the three. All three seem to have similar vertical spreads however the Bergers usually perform better against the wind.

I've never shot an F-Class match. I won a long range precision rifle match a couple years ago with the 62 grain Berger Flat Base Varmint from in a Rem 700 ADL. This was the first match when my daughter and I both shot, and there was so much going on with us both shooting that I was unable to give her efforts the attention I should have, so it's all about her at the matches now. It was very odd to win the match with such a low BC bullet as it was a crazy day with wind, rain, sleet, snow, and fog. I think the other competitors were over correcting for the conditions (a head wind) and having trouble acquiring a steady sight picture in the 5 seconds. My score was embarrassingly low, but the best that day for the light rifle category under the conditions.

My daughter has just abandoned the 140 AMAX in favor of the 139 Lapua Scenar for F-Class. There's another thread discussing the 140 AMAX failing in flight in a recent match in Donaldsonville. I don't recall her ever shooting any of the 140 Bergers for comparison. I think she ordered the Lapua bullets because she found 1000 of them and she's recently had some good experience with other Lapua stuff. She's happy with them so far, but I don't think she's had a windy match or practice session with them yet.

 

[C.O. Shooter]

Mr. Courtney,

I am curious what it is you do for a job and your accolades? Is this your profession or hobby. I'm not trying to insult! I'm trying to understand. I'm sure you forgot more than I'll ever remember!

Bump

 

[MMERSS]

I won a long range precision rifle match a couple years ago with the 62 grain Berger Flat Base Varmint from in a Rem 700 ADL.

Shooting LR competition sure is fun. Shooting alongside the JR competitors is extra enjoyable. Congratulations on your title and enjoyment with your daughter. I'm also aware of a LR competitor taking more than a fair amount of titles.....to include records. I'm betting he's also loading the Berger for those matches!

 

[Michael Courtney]

Mr. Courtney,
I am curious what it is you do for a job and your accolades? Is this your profession or hobby. I'm not trying to insult! I'm trying to understand. I'm sure you forgot more than I'll ever remember!

It's been said that if you love what you do, you'll never work a day in your life!

My wife and I started a small consulting business in ballistics back in 2001. Over the years we've both held faculty positions. My wife has been employed by West Point and Hillsdale College. I've directed the Forensic Science program at Western Carolina University and served on the Mathemetics faculty of the Air Force Academy. Her PhD is from Harvard; whereas, I suffered from earning a doctorate from the second best institution in Cambridge, MA.

I hope the moderators will not object to a link from our web page, since the question keeps coming up:

BTG

I don't think we've updated the info there in a couple of years, but interested parties can email me for an updated CV at [email protected]

 

[cohunter14]

Michael, not to speak for Bryan, but here is a quote from him earlier in this thread:

The first thing I did when I started working for Berger was to reassess all the advertised BC's (which were based on computer predictions) to the actual measurements I took from live fire and averaged over long range. This resulted in an average 3% to 5% reduction in Bergers advertised numbers.

From everything I can see, he joined Berger in roughly November of 2008. Your post of his article is from June of 2010, so roughly a year and a half since he had been there. I am guessing that is when he found this problem, after going through each bullet to verify BC. Still, that was over four years ago, and it was a 7% difference, which is still below your average finding of 8%-15%. And since it was over four years ago, I am guessing Bryan has been able to go through every single bullet and adjust the BC, if necessary, as he said.

And yes, I am sure there are thousands of people who shoot Berger bullets on this forum alone. Are they all 'careful enough' to be able to validate the true BC? Maybe not. But I can guarantee you that there are plenty that are. Even if people are not extremely careful, it shouldn't be difficult to find an 8% difference in BC, let alone a 15%, as I showed earlier. If the BC's were truely off by that much, I can guarantee you that you would hear all about it right here on this forum.

As far as the vertical adjustments at F-Class matches, I am guessing that those are a result of the shooting condition, not a difference in calculated BC. I think it is safe to say that those folks typically know what their BC is before their match...

 

[Jluck]

Eventually we have to stop feeding the trolls even the higher IQ ones.

 

[Eric Stecker]

To Everyone except Michael,

Peer review is a critical part of the scientific process as Bryan has relayed. However, what Michael is doing is disguised as peer review but is actually something else. There is a lot of "data" flying around and Michael is particularly good at clouding the issue by blending specific fact with what I regard as baffling logic. To sum up, what we have here is not a peer but rather a simple critic.

The analogy that is closest in my opinion is that of the movie critic. The stereotype of the movie critic is that they don't have the actual talent to produce good films but they've learned enough that is related to film making that they deliberately pursue the path of advancing themselves by the tearing down of the artists who can actually make the movies. This somehow makes them believe that they are noteworthy. How many critics can you think of as opposed to those who are involved in making movies? Are those you might think of noteworthy? Not in my book.

To be successful as a critic means that you need something that can be criticized. If the work you review is without flaw or fault then what value does the critic have or what customer does the critic believe he can service. What motivations does this stir in the critic who seeks validation?

In this case you have Michael who is an educated mathematician. This is a noble accomplishment. In the field of mathematics. However, he lacks training and experience in fluid dynamics which is critical to ballistics. When it comes to being a ballistician he is unable to create the work he seems compelled to criticize.

He admits that he works in this field when he is paid first (or rather when he convinces someone that they need to know the ballistic equivalent of how fast ketchup comes out of a bottle). Is this due to the fact that any work he would produce on his own initiative would be met with disinterest? One wonders.

As compared to someone like Bryan who was conducting independent BC studies well before he and I met with no promise of payment from anyone. Bryan pursued this effort purely out of his passion for the work and his genuine understanding of the subject matter.

Michael makes broad, generalized comments about how various areas need to be thoroughly evaluated seemingly ignoring that ballistics is a mature science with natural laws of physics that are well known and documented. I do not need to waste my time finding all the evidence that what Michael calls unclear is in fact thoroughly reviewed. Militaries throughout history have needed an advanced understanding of ballistics since the rifle was first invented. I doubt Michael suggesting that areas of this field need to be thoroughly review is an original idea although the way he puts it makes it seem a revelation.

As with the movie critic he can say literally anything he wants with no worries about being accurate or factual. As with the critic he can stand firm on the position that as the self-appointed watchdog of the industry it is expected that those he criticizes will take issue with what he says. It is not relevant to him whether or not what he says is blatant misinformation he created by twisting facts. What Bryan and I are doing is normal in his mind. To him we are supposed to be mad that he has supposedly uncovered some plot we have to ******** the shooting community.

He has designed no bullets that are currently being used by any manufacture that I am aware of. I have never seen one of his studies distributed as notable or relevant and in my position I see such things when they are. Not to mention the fact that much of the information used in the work is generated by others. He takes the work of others and extrapolates his findings. This suggests to me that he believes he is strong in mathematics but not in live fire testing or he would do his own work.

One of his behaviors that is even more agitating is much like the stereotypical movie critic his comments are made with a smug disdain. Seemingly unconcerned about the fact that his misinformation may cause damage to the reputation of the person or brand he is criticizing.

The greatest shame in this is that Michael is a smart guy. If he could use his powers for good instead of evil then the shooting community would certainly benefit. Unfortunately, he is too immersed in his own agenda to consider that he has value in the community as a genuine contributor rather than serving as a simple critic.

Instead he will continue to criticize those who create when he does not. He will continue baffling and confusing those who don't know better to no good end. He will secure his place as a non-factor in the history of advancing the science of ballistics and the rifle shooting experience when as time passes his various claims are regularly found to be inconsistent with truth.

Regards,
Eric

 

[Jluck]

Eric, I believe most if not all of us see his transparency and I assume the bait put out was for entertainment value, not thinking about potential brand damage. I could very well be wrong.

I'm sorry if any of my actions cause you even a cent.

 

[SidecarFlip]

After all the hoopla and smoke and mirrors, I'm still ordering a couple boxes of 7.62 x 54, 165 grain flavor as backup for my hunting trips. With me, it's about killing an animal not F Class or paper punching......

I was developing a headache just reading some of the posts.

Just say'in.

 

[Pdvdh]

You're painting with a very wide, judgmental paint brush Eric. Which is your right. It's my right to say I think you've outdone yourself in your last response by taking the dialog to an uncharted level of low, personal attack.

I shoot some Berger bullets. Multiple past Threads and Posts on this Forum have demonstrated that a negative statement concerning a member's pet brand of bullet is the equivalent of calling their mother a bad name. So it shouldn't surprise the majority that some Berger brand loyalists will support you no matter how negative you take the communications.

The data Michael generates is accurate and defensible, or the scientific peer review process would identify the flaws.

The Department of Defense values his projects and work product, evidently without regard to whether you believe it to be notable and/or relevant. They hire him. Surely they feel that his studies are notable and relevant. So perhaps the difference is primarily one of perspective: your perspective versus theirs.

Would you post objection if Michael's findings only consisted of positive press? Even if that positive press was in error? From the papers I've read that Michael's co-authored, the testing has involved multiple bullet manufacturers' products. Several of the other company's products seem to have more outliers and a larger magnitude of discrepancy than Berger products. Should none of these findings be made public? Negative product information rarely saw print in Outdoor Life and Field & Stream in days of old. Sponsors and advertisers of the magazines controlled the content of the articles to minimize any negative reporting. Every Ruger rifle Elmer Keith accuracy tested produced accuracy of 1" groups at 100yds, which was considered good in those days. I never lucked into one of those Rugers from that era. I can learn more truth on this Forum in 24 hrs than I can reading all monthly publications from Outdoor Life and Field & Stream combined, for years and years.

And Michael has to design bullets to be significant? Really?

To the best of my knowledge, researchers and scientists have utilized the work of others in their fields to advance science and understanding since written records were kept. Bryan hasn't built upon the prior work and research of others in his career, past and current?

In my last post I suggested "Follow through and show us where his conclusions are built upon twisted facts - fuzzy math - and misrepresent the truth as you know it to exist. That seems a straightforward way to clear up and clean up any twisted facts." You've chosen otherwise. Light on Fact. Personal Attack.

 

[cohunter14]

Multiple past Threads and Posts on this Forum have demonstrated that a negative statement concerning a member's pet brand of bullet is the equivalent of calling their mother a bad name. So it shouldn't surprise the majority that some Berger brand loyalists will support you no matter how negative you take the communications.

Very good point phorwath and, for the record, I want to simply state that I do not shoot Berger bullets. My debate with Michael was simply that, a debate.

Having said that, I do love the fact that the folks from Berger are on this site and are willing to chat with any and all of us. Their reputation does set them apart from a number of their competitors, which is why I brought some of my points up to Michael. Their reputation is also why I recently bought my first box of Berger bullets. I haven't had a chance to shoot them yet, or even load them for that matter, but it makes me want to at least give them a shot. Chances are, they probably won't fit my hunting needs 100%, but I am willing to give them a shot because of their reputation here with shooters. I also trust that I won't have to tinker with the BC to get it to work with my gun, simply based on the reviews on this site.

 

[cowboy]

Now I fully understand why most manufacturers don't participate in these types of forums. It's a NO WIN situation. What's all this have to do with an announcement of a new ammo company.
I know - if you don't like it then you don't have to read it - I'll take that advise.
Carry on.