rscott,
The posts in that thread were educational to me also. And while I may bait and feign a little I will be the first to admit my methods are not scientific. I do not need statisitical verification of what my projectiles are doing, if I already know what they are doing by actually shooting. A drop chart in the manner in which I often prepare them served LR hunters a long time before hand held ballistic computers. Where the ballistic computer is so important to me is for calculating the effects that many variables are going to have on the recreation of those shots. If it were not for enviromental variables I would not even use a PC in the field.
What I find to be practical may not be for others, due to time or financial constraints. I guess you are very correct as to relativity. I actually prefer for things to be correct, and to work. If I cannot make them correct, even though I have spent ten times the effort making it correct than I spend on other rifles that are correct and also work, I will settle for what works.
I guess that I should check for errors in the complete travel of my scope, although I seldom use more than 40MOA with that gun. I thought that my ten MOA box test and the fact I have often measured the distance that one click moves groups on long range targets was sufficient maybe not. To that end I am going to pull one of the scopes and mount it on a 30/338 lapua I have almost finished putting together today. I will probably get a chance to wring it out Thursday. I am going to try the G7 with some 210s and some custom bullets for which I have no BC data. I guess it is possible that two NXS scopes could give me the same results with basically the same correction and both be wrong. Since I have basically covered every possible variable multiple times and I am guessing, only guessing that the problem must be in the scope.
As much as I sometimes feign ignorance, most of it is not an act BTW, I do know that the bullets flight is governed by laws of physics. I understand that it is a science. I also understand that the results are only as good as the data input. While I have no desire to understand the inner principles of drag effects on a bullet other than to the extent it effects me. Often I hear people stating loads that defy logic with combinations that I have tried or with combinations that quick load predicts to be 250 fps lower than stated or 25K psi than reccomended. I do understand that maybe there are tubes out there that are faster but 250 fps faster, cmon. I have the ability to look from the outside in, and fully realize that some people will automatically think....he is doing something wrong. Those people are ususally right, but it does not stop one from playing devil's advocate. Some might consider it fihing but it is assuredly for benign purposes only to further the discussion.
In my profession we often rely upon experts. I am sure the Bryan Litz would qualify as an expert in almost in court of the land in the field of external ballistics. I also understand that should the opposing side wish to, they could retain an expert who would criticize his methods and try to rebut his opinions. In the seemingly black and white world of science, there are always gray areas. I think most of those were touched on by some of the guys who really understand this stuff.
I think many people will find that at times after all of their best efforts they are going to find a bullet barrel velocity combo that just is not going to perfectly fall into a perfect catagory created by a lot of zeros and ones. I have only seen tisi one instance of insanity with such a great degree of change required in the BC that I out into my computer to match the actual drops. For all of my efforts I cannot reconcile the problem, even though I have lain awake at nights pondering the problem. And yes I reconize it is a problem, in a way because my work around does take much more effort, but it is no problem as far as the effectiveness of the rifle.
I am coming back from an extended bout with poor health, so I do wear down a little more as of late. Oh well gotta go the paint should be dry and I can get another gun out of my metal shop and over to the reloading/shooting building.
Eddybo,
It's all relative. I've been shooting for 40+ years. Nonetheless, I count myself as a newbie here although I may be an expert next to some other guy.
I appreciate the insight and public scruitiny from all you guys.
I'm sorry this has worn you down. But, it's been educational for me. ..and, much appreciated.
What I find taxing is sorting out the real info from the BS; and the techincal minutia from what's practical.
Internet polls and popular opinion don't make it right.
Too many assumptions on behalf of the shooter is the biggest problem I see with BCs. I think that's pretty much broken down in items 1-10 of Topshot's list.
Thanks!
Richard
