I am not sure that it is worth the trouble for me. If the advertised bc's are getting me on target, I'm good. If I am running a little high or low, then a slight adjustment in the program should get me on. As long as my drop chart matches my impacts, what diff does it make?
Because if you're committing two "wrongs" (or more) to make a "right," sooner or later it will catch up with you and bite you in the ***.
For example, if you get an opportunity to hunt in a different location with a large difference in elevation from where you developed the dropcharts....it's unlikely you'll be able to go weeks in advance and fire hundreds of rounds to come up with brand new dropcharts from scratch for the new location--you'll need to rely on ballistics programs. If you're fudging to make them work at your current location, expecting the fudges to work at a new location is pushing your luck.
Or say you have a problem with your scope . It happens. Things break. If you replace your 1/4 MOA scope with another 1/4 MOA scope all your data you've collected over that past few years should still be valid, right? Well, maybe, maybe not. If you measure you will be sure.
Sounds very interesting Jon, do you have a link or pic of this instrument?
HERE you go. It's really simple and it will pay for itself. Here's a few shots of what it looks like:
So with a Mil reticle it 10 Mils should cover 36". Crank the knob 10 mils it should go 36". If it does something different, then it's off. At least now you know. If your MOA scope takes 36 MOA to go 36" then you know it's not really MOA but IPHY. If it takes between 34.25 and 34.5 to go 36" it's dead on. Don't worry be happy. If it's something different, then it's just off and you'll need to correct for it in the ballistic programs. The scope is still usable, you just need to adjust your charts.
It's also very valuable for checking things like reticle cant--if you crank in a bunch of elevation and it moves laterally, that may explain mysterious wind or "spin drift" problems you may have thought you had which caused misses at long range.... "Dead clicks" near the top of your elevation travel? Better to know where they start before you waste a bunch of ammo and barrel life wondering why you can't hit the **** target at long range.....
Anyway, the scope is such a large part of the equation of hitting at long range I feel people would save themselves so much time, frustration and money by simply checking the operation of theirs when so many scopes frankly don't perform correctly. So it goes without saying, if it's being used as a precision instrument to aid in measuring the BC of a bullet, you really need to know it's calibrated correctly.
So, in theory, you should be able to do this without firing a shot. Right? Set your measuring stick at a known distance, lock your rifle down, see how far the clicks move on the stick. Then do the math.
Yup, that'll work. A simple yardstick at 100 yds is quick and easy and will do the trick:
Hold the rifle steady and click away. It helps to have another person if you don't have a vice or something to lock the rifle down with. Anyway, back to bullets....
My question is why no one is mentioning the Barnes bullet as an option for loads in this thread.
Low BC's, that's all. They aren't bad bullets and can get the job done at long ranges...especially using rounds like the RUM--it can fling a brick through the air so fast it'll perform impressively out to ranges few "normal" hunters would dream of shooting (which is sort of what we've been talking about).
But this being a LRH site, when you're talking about bullets with BC's below .5 there are simply much better tools for the job. Sometimes it takes a while and many rounds downrange for people to figure that out. All I can do is lead the horses to the creek....
Yup, I think they would do better to improve the shape of their 180 bullet to get a better BC in a 10 twist which is standard in 90% of the factory rilfes.
Yup. Their old XBT/XLC's with smooth sides and secant ogives actually had higher BC's than their new tipped bullets. The pudgy round noses and grooves took away more than the plastic tips added.
