Let's NOT argue about BC's

[rscott5028]

There are many such competitions. They are usually man against beast and the elements. Perhaps you have some hard earned trophies/adventures that you'd like to share?

Those contests are beat to death over in the Hunting category rather than the Ballistics forum.

thanks,
Richard

 

[nheninge]

How about the trophy that almost was....


New Mexico, Feb 2011.

Spotted barbary sheep 1445 yards, conditions..."shiiiit" elevation 6500' night before last night. Stalked to 600 only to have him disappear at last 20 min. Placed myself in better position next night hoping he wasn't spooked.

Next night: conditions "shiiiiiiiiiiiiit" , Glassed hill for 1.5 hours. Glassed clean. 20 min before dark he stood up an holy shiiit there he was. 378 yards 1 canyon away and he didn't see me. x ray goggles would have been the only way to see him.

Problems:
13 degrees (hydro pack, hands, and even the wine was frozen)
Shooting from protected wind position across canyon (10 mph current position)
Ballistic software input quit functioning (touchscreen)(sorry sean)
Rangefinder quit working d/t sun angle directly in line with target
projected station pressure 25.1. Actual = 23.12
quartering away animal d/t wind
questionable shooting light if waiting on last night of hunt

Shot with best guess and missed 6 inches left d/t incorrect wind reading.


On searching for blood, kestrel read 40+ mph at target. More than enough to miss a quartering shot.

Tell me how in the H E double hockey sticks how this has anything to do with fussing over G7 BC's. I missed a 378 yard chip shot (after plinking 1000's all day long). Guess I am not a LRH guy after all... Guess I should spend more time arguing about BC's...................................................!!!!!!!

 

[groper]

Because a real LRH guy might miss the same shot in perfect conditions, simply because they were working with inaccurate information in their predicted trajectory... wouldnt THAT be MORE frustrating than simply missing same shot in poor conditions you couldnt possibly compensate for? Worth arguing about IMHO...

This little fella wasnt so lucky... 308win @ 657yds... me my buddy got 37 in total in 2 days hunting, i think the minmum distance was about 250yds...

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I'm not saying BC's aren't important, but dang can this website beat a dead horse, and not just till it's dead, but until it is earthworm food by the time the dust settles. Probably not uncommon among websites.

What I am saying is that so many members wantonly fret on pious details that in "hunting" probably do not make a difference. Ballistic programs, no matter how good (sorry all) should be validated, then...user beware. Who cares if you have to adjust MV/BC to achieve "nirvanic orgasm" if the curve fits your real field data. Predict that path, then see if it fits the real world. Different station pressures, angle of incline, unknown distance (yes rangefinders fail) etc.

I love competition, but there aren't many competitions that make you climb 2000 feet of elevation, puke and rally, then shoot at exactly 1000 yards, and then pack the basterd you unfortunately hit (that ran all the way to the bottom) back up again in the dark back to a cold camp in a blinding snowstorm. Sound like fun? So how much does competition mean now? Armchair quarterbacks are NOT just for the NFL.

Hey dude, don't take this personal, because it ain't personal, but don't try to impress me with this stuff. I've worked outside in all kind of Montana winter, blowing snow and cold everday. I'm talking 40 mph winds in below zero F weather in windy Livingston MT and this winter on roof tops in Bozeman. Last cow elk I shot 2 years ago was zero out. Went back the next day and cut it up in 10 below zero and drug it out 3 miles.

So my question is.... what's yer point? You missied the shot. What does that have to do with BC's? There is a concept known as limitations, and when one exceeds one's limitations... well I'm sure you get it. If your RF and ballistic software craps out on you, then it's up to you to determine if you can judge the distance, windage, etc., and make the shot. If you miss, then you screwed the pouch, which only proves the need for accurate range info and ballistic output... doesn't it?

I think you found yourself in the wrong thread. The argument thread is the other one. See ya there gun)

 

[Topshot]

One of the things that I have found that alters a way that a rifle will shoot is the way it rides on the rear beanie bag under recoil.

On a typical hunting style rifle stock, the area where the beanie bag contacts the stock has quite a downward slope.

If the rifle is permitted to come back under more or less, free recoil, the stock tends to slip back and downwards. The barrel then tends to rise and the shot will go high.

If the rifle is loaded up with a bit of forward pressure into the recoil pad and bipod, by the shoulder. Then the stock tends to come back straight into the shoulder and not slip back and downwards on the rear beanie bag. The barrel also does not rise as it does under free recoil and a better sight picture is maintained.

With my 14lb .338 Edge I have found the the difference between the two hold methods makes a change in POI between 1 MOA and 1.5 MOA at 1000 yards.
This is a significant change in apparent trajectory, that has nothing to do with B.C. and everything to do with marksmanship.

Throw into the mix that the 100 yard zero is obtained from off a bench rest which is different again to shooting off a bipod and things can get complicated quickly and assumptions can be made that may not be correct.

 

[BryanLitz]

...
With my 14lb .338 Edge I have found the the difference between the two hold methods makes a change in POI between 1 MOA and 1.5 MOA at 1000 yards.
This is a significant change in apparent trajectory, that has nothing to do with B.C. and everything to do with marksmanship.

Throw into the mix that the 100 yard zero is obtained from off a bench rest which is different again to shooting off a bipod and things can get complicated quickly and assumptions can be made that may not be correct.

Very astute observation; worth noting.

 

[Michael Eichele]

TopShot and Litz,

I could not agree more.