I don't recall that video. I would be interested in seeing it.
Was it just one shot each? What are all the missing details? All I know is it was the 199gr Hammer (assuming Hunter) and that it was 200fps faster than the Berger (assuming that's the 215gr bullet being referred to).
For discussion sake, I would like to know if they were fired from the same rifle, or were there twin rifles and were they fired at the exact same time side by side at the same target and point of aim? What was the actual MV for each bullet? Was the velocity of each recorded as they were shot? What is the muzzle velocity extreme spread on the ammo loaded? I would also like to know what the exact wind conditions were. Was the wind variable? What was the distance to the target? What was the target? How was the impact recorded and how do we know that the point of aim was actually where the reticle was when the bullet exited the muzzle? How do we know the person on the trigger didn't negatively influence the rifle and this point of impact? The list goes on and on. Surely the point is made, but these are valid and important pieces to the equation.
It should be obvious by all those questions that there are so many variables affecting the results in a "backyard test". Wind is not constant. Shooter input is not perfect. To get reliable test results, we need to reduce as many variables and negative influencers as possible. We need as much accurate data input as possible too. Garbage in, garbage out, right?
Math and physics do not lie. Just because you see a different result out in the field, it does not mean the math and physics are wrong. It does not mean BC isn't able to calculate hold for wind drift. It means wind isn't constant and your input, and thus output, for hold is only accurate for that particular value of wind. If that value changes, the result will change.
Gravity is constant. Calculating drop is way more accurate as a result. Shooter error and errors to inputs can still mess with that result too though.
View attachment 492128
Hammer at 3100fps, 10mph full value wind.
View attachment 492130
Berger at 2900fps, 10mph full value wind.
As you can see, there's barely a difference to 300 yards in the calculated wind drift. And at 500 yards it's a 1.2" difference between the two. That can easily be swayed, and drastically, just by shooter error, or a change in wind, etc.
It's a 6.9" difference between the two at 1000 yards. If your extreme spread on your ammo is 30fps, that equates to a 1" difference alone in drift at 1000 yards. When you factor in other negative influences, it can compound into a huge difference, even at closer range.
So are we really going to say BC is the problem? Are we really to believe BC just doesn't account for drift? I don't buy it. There are simply too many other highly plausible explanations for the unexpected point of impact.
If you ran that test multiple times, under the same conditions, I'd bet you get many different results. Statistically, it only makes sense. Increase your sample size and let's see what happens. I'll bet there are times you see what is expected based on your ballistic calculator, other times you'd see more drift than calculated, and still other times you'd see less drift than calculated- and by either bullet.
This is not me just trying to argue. This is me disagreeing and offering my explanation as to why I disagree. It also makes no difference who said it. I'm referring only to
what was said.
I welcome further debate on this subject because I find it pretty fascinating. I'm willing to be wrong and learn something new. I'm just not convinced yet. Chapter 5 of "Applied Ballistics for Long-Range Shooting" made a lot of sense to me
.
