An honest baseline bc. I can assure you there is no reason for us to be dishonest. Dishonesty is a death nail for business. With that said we have our bc numbers as accurate as we can get them. It does us no good to publish the lowest number we have ever seen from a rifle that tanks the bc and call that the baseline in the same way that it does us no good to publish a bc that is inflated and not possible. We are no diff than anyone else, we want high bc too. We also are fine with having lower bc than bullets that don't work as well in game. We have made those bullets and fortunately we were able to test them on elk before we launched that line of high bc hunting bullets. We had them working consistently in media. If we had not had late season deprivation elk tags we would have taken them to market. We took those bullets out and killed some elk with them. They died slow deaths. If we had taken that line of high bc bullets to market we would have much bigger problems than customers that love our product so much they irritate people because the talk too much about it. We would be struggling right now to shake a reputation for poor terminal performance. I thank God often that we tested on live animals and not just media with those bullets. It very well could have put us out of business. If the day comes that we can come up with a high bc hunting bullet that works as well for terminal performance as our current bullets, that will be cool. I don't think it is possible. We will keep trying.
bc is a fluid number. Diff from day to day and particularly from rifle to rifle.
