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.
Phorwath,
Do you not regard the following statements from Michael as various forms of personal attacks?
I tend to think Bryan's assessment of the Berger bullet was a bit overly optimistic (
http://www.bergerbullets.com/images/...00_Win_Mag.pdf ),
Struck a nerve as we've been here with Michael before.
My colleagues and I have often cited Bryan's books and papers favorably in areas where we are in agreement.
Then you get the following.
Since Bryan became the ballistics guru for Berger, his BC measurements of Berger bullets really cannot be considered "independent" like they can when he publishes measurements of bullets from Nosler, Hornady, Sierra, etc.
So he is a capable scientist with all brands but Berger?
We have also independently measured BCs of a number of Berger bullets and found that in most cases, Berger's numbers are overly optimistic.
This implies that we are lying or that Bryan doesn't know what he is doing. He lists four bullets in his post. Do you regard that amount as "a number of"? We list 90 different bullets on our website.
We are not ready to release our results yet on Berger's 230 grain .308 bullets, but given the documented history of the .338 debacle and the bullets we've tested previously not meeting their specs,
Really!? Debacle!? We found conflicting results in a later test and changed our data to match the facts. This is a debacle?
is anyone really going to be surprised if these extraordinary BC claims are not validated by independent sources?
This is not a personal attack? My last name may not be Berger but I take this very personally. Where are the facts? Oh, that's right, they're classified.
I would recommend that ABM get independent verification of Berger BCs before repeating Berger's marketing claims.
ABM's ballistician is Bryan. Berger's ballistician is Bryan. I don't even know how to process this statement.
These factors will undoubtedly combine to reduce the gap between the 220 SMK and the 230 Target Match Hybrid in the WEZ analysis.
So again does Bryan have it wrong or is he a liar?
One may further consider that our independent measurements of Berger ballistic coefficients has consistently yielded BCs 8% to 15% below Berger's published values. If the published BC of this bullet is also overly optimistic by 8% to 15%, the performance gap between the 220 SMK and the 230 Target Match Hybrid will be reduced even further.
Is this an attack if it isn't true? We have data. He claims he has data.
The new info from Bryan seems to indicate you'll lose some BC in the higher BC bullet if you run a 1 in 10" barrel, but that you'll still get to 0.718 BC in the OTM bullet.
Bryan is not suggesting you lose BC in our recommended twist rates but rather have the potential to improve BC. This is a misleading statement.
If you really have your sights set on a BC of 0.743, the best available advice from Berger is to increase your rate of twist.
Can anyone show me evidence of the inaccuracy of the BC Michael is claiming? We don't see it. Other's who use this bullet don't see it.
When all is said and done, I'd be surprised if the 230 grain Bergers have much ballistic advantage at all over the 208 AMAX and the 220 SMK, so I do not think it would be worthwhile to spec a faster twist barrel for the one claiming a BC of .743.
Based on what? He said he'd be "surprised if". Are we that capable of getting it wrong?
Eric seems to keep trying to frame this discussion in terms of scientists who disagree with each other, when I think it is more about a bullet company that cannot consistently produce bullets consistent with their product specifications.
I don't know what you do for a living Phorwath, but if someone said something like this about what you do would you take it personally. I sure did. This is pure ********.
This really seems like more of a manufacturing problem than a scientific debate.
Maybe I'm a hot head. I'll admit it. I'm also the guy in charge of manufacturing. A guy who has never made a bullet is telling me that I have a problem doing my job. I am taking this very personally.
Our view is that even very good products could be even better if tested and pressed to actually meet their specifications rather than considering "close" good enough.
I need Michael Courtney to tell me that I need to do a better job making bullets like I need a hole in the head. How many championships are won by shooters who used Berger? How many records are held by shooters who used Berger? So I can make good bullets but I can't meet our specs. Seriously!?
I have not said that most Berger bullets are off by at least 8%. I said most of the ones we've published our measurements on are off by that much. I have an open mind regarding the accuracy of Berger's BCs that we have not measured.
Which is the vast majority of them obviously. I won't say that we don't have a few FB bullets that need closer review but the varmint bullets are not our priority. Anything with a BT has been thoroughly tested.
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?
Coming from an admitted non-participant.
I've never shot an F-Class match.
See?
All of these are quotes from Michael's posts. At what point is it appropriate for me to say enough is enough and get ****ed. I did get personal in my last post but I'll offer that it was in defense of mine and Bryan's work rather than some unfounded personal attack on Michael. What we do is very important to us. It is not an academic pursuit but a real world blood, sweat and toil effort. What level of quality and consistency would bullets made by Michael achieve? Maybe he should try it and see how easy it is. I suspect the tone of his posts would change.
We do work very hard to get it right. In spite of what Michael suggests.
Is it clear that Michael is blameless in where this conversation has progressed? If it is then I apologize for my passionate and irrational behavior. Seemingly, I have no factual justification for my position.
Regards,
Eric
