Hammer ballistic coefficient tests...

[flyguy1]

Again, I ask, are you guys actually shooting stuff at 600 yards without actually shooting your rifle at 600 yards? Just dialing it in? That seems crazy to me.

You can do all the calculations you want. Better shoot a lot if you want to hit stuff.

 

[Petey308]

And still… the point seems to be missed. It's not about not needing to true the BC. It's about buying a product with an expectation and then when you actually do true it (because everyone should), you find out it's much different than published, and in the wrong direction, and now your anticipated max range and wind drift are not what you were hoping and what you based your purchase off of.

That's the whole point. It's been beaten to death, I thought, what the point was here. It's not about needing to true the BC or not, or what the actual BC is. It's about expectations vs reality.

It's just information shared here too. Take it or leave it and do with it what you will. That's how I see it anyways. It's a good topic of discussion on a "long range hunting" forum in my opinion.

 

[Pdvdh]

And still… the point seems to be missed.

There's a difference between missing the point, and choosing to ignore it.

 

[cohunt]

And still… the point seems to be missed. It's not about not needing to true the BC. It's about buying a product with an expectation and then when you actually do true it (because everyone should), you find out it's much different than published, and in the wrong direction, and now your anticipated max range and wind drift are not what you were hoping and what you based your purchase off of.

That's the whole point. It's been beaten to death, I thought, what the point was here. It's not about needing to true the BC or not, or what the actual BC is. It's about expectations vs reality.

It's just information shared here too. Take it or leave it and do with it what you will. That's how I see it anyways. It's a good topic of discussion on a "long range hunting" forum in my opinion.

No matter what brand the bullet is-- would you personally rather that no BC be listed at all? Then there would be no "expectations"? -- just a question

I know that on some factory ammo they actually list a "drop chart"--- none of their drop charts have ever lined up with my real world experience

How much BC variance is acceptable in your mind? Where do "we" draw the line?

I understand the point you are making-- but we have no "velocity" data either-- we are guessing/speculating/extrapolating those numbers too until we actually settle on a powder/primer/brass. We have no idea on accuracy or terminal performance untill tested either.

Your max distance depends on all those variables above- not just bc.

I agree that a closer number helps us "guess" , so it would be nice to have less error factors but we can't have everything handed to us for free -- we still have to do the leg work to our own standards.

One guys expectations are gonna be different than another's.


I would love to just punch numbers into an app and dial my scope and be done with it having 100% confidence --- but I know that no matter who makes the bullet, powder, gun, chronograph, ballistic app-- there will be slight differences in the data and it needs to be proven on the range . Heck you can use several different ballistic apps with identical data entry and still come up with different shooting solutions

 

[RockyMtnUT]

I agree that a closer number helps us "guess" , so it would be nice to have less error factors -- we still have to do the leg work to our own standards.

I agree also, closer numbers help us. It is also nice to have less error factors.

 

[scdogman]

Trying to understand your post;
"Brian Lutz"... does that mean "Bryan Litz"? The ballistician that authors the Applied Ballistics books?

The Hammer Hunter you refererence is the .284 177gr Hammer Hunter, correct? I see Hammer Bullet's website assigns a "G7-BC=.313 estimated" to that specific bullet.

Presuming the info I've supplied in question form, above, is correct;
You've posted that you "... don't understand the doubting of the numbers. The numbers are on par with Brian Lutz's calculated g7 results ..."

0.313 is 32% higher than Litz's 0.237 value. And 29.9% higher than your bullet drop-based value of 0.241? You feel the ~31% differences are on par with each other, correct?

Come on man.

It's listed as .313 per the site.

Brian L. Gets .237

That's 25% lower.

 

[Pdvdh]

0.313 (Hammer value) divided by
0.237 (Bryan Litz value)
equals 1.321.

Mathematically, this does mean the Hammer BC value is 32.1% higher than the Litz BC value. This is the fairest way to calculate and express the percentage, if you believe the Litz value to be the most accurate value. The Hammer value exceeding the Litz value by 32.1%.

You stated the two BC values are "on par". I could be a ballistician myself, if a 32.1% error is on par. Same if my error allowance is 25%.

 

[scdogman]

Do you really not understand that .237 is lower than .313? Bless your heart.


I stated the OP's numbers were on par with what Brian L. got.

Both differ from .313

You divide the other way. .237/.313.

 

[Pdvdh]

Do what want. But you're no mathematician.

A practicing magician, perhaps?

 

[scdogman]

So if you work a job and should get paid $313, but you are paid $237, do you think you were overpaid? 1.321 or overpaid 132%

No you would state you paid 237/313 76% of want you were owed. Or you would say I was underpaid by 24%.

 

[RockyMtnUT]

 

[codyadams]

I'm not taking any sides, however the math scdogman is using is correct. .237 is 76% of .313, making the difference 24%. Make of that what you will. Honestly the only reason I'm still following this thread is to see how bad it's going to get and if it will get shut down.

Carry on.

 

[Petey308]

I'm not taking any sides, however the math scdogman is using is correct. .237 is 76% of .313, making the difference 24%. Make of that what you will. Honestly the only reason I'm still following this thread is to see how bad it's going to get and if it will get shut down.

Carry on.

I anticipate it'll get worse. I've said all I have to say, multiple times though, so I'm out. It's just beating a dead horse at this point.

 

[Pdvdh]

Not my job to teach mathematics. Lesson concludes with this post.

scdogman has calculated the percent difference of the Litz value from the Hammer BC value. Cody finds that method correct. Fair enough...
If the .313 Hammer BC is the correct BC, you can divide .237 by .313, and then argue the Litz BC is 75.7% the value of the .313 Hammer value. The Litz value is indeed 24.3% different, less than, .313. IF the Hammer BC is correct, the concludion is the Litz value is a 24.3% error from the correct value. All appropriate IF the Hammer value is correct.

But scdogman's post relied on the Litz BC values as the "standard" for comparison, when stating "I don't understand the doubting of the numbers. The numbers are on par with Brian Lutz's calculated g7 results with all his fancy high tech equipment." And... "Brian gets .237 and my 700 to 800 yards drops gives me a 0.241 g7."

If the presumption is the .237 Litz value is the correct value, or the most correct value, the .313 value constitutes a 32% error from the most correct value. And I've presented the correct calculation of that percent difference, albeit the percent error, of the Hammer value from Litz's .237 G7.

IF the .237 Litz value is correct, Cody and scfogman have calculated a 24.3% difference from something. A 24.3% difference from an errant value? A 24.3% difference from a wrong value? That means something to someone?

On the other hand, if the standard for performance is "The numbers are on par", does any percent difference or percent error, calculated correctly or incorrectly, really matter?

Begs the comment "Whatever"...
Whatever your pleasure...