Nosler Revises ABLR BC's

[Mike 338]

That's why I won't use noslers products anymore. Especially when they got rid of my solid base boat tails. That's why I like the Barnes I shoot they don't overstate there bc's, plus they focus on the terminal end first then b c.

Right there are some good reasons expressed.

 

[Mike 338]

And people doubted my results.......

Testing the 142 LR Accubond

Wait for it... hee hee,

"Do you have a degree?" Perhaps fewer people would have doubted you if it had taken you years instead of an afternoon at the range! That's Nosler's story anyway and hey... they have a degree.

 

[alf]

Wait for it... hee hee,
"Do you have a degree?"

Only from the school of hard knocks......that count?

 

[Mike 338]

Only from the school of hard knocks......that count?

In my book, your resume isn't complete without it!

 

[tbrice23]

My bad, it was Hornady ELD-X. Early BC was listed at .675 and later dropped to .660

Yes. My early box of 200gr eldx had .626 g1 bc now it is .597 g1. Nosler is not the only one with mistakes. Hornady had supposedly already doppler tested and still fudged the numbers.

 

[Capt RB]

Yes. My early box of 200gr eldx had .626 g1 bc now it is .597 g1. Nosler is not the only one with mistakes. Hornady had supposedly already doppler tested and still fudged the numbers.

If you use the 4dof solver you can adjust the form factor and the bc trues out to 1100yds in my limited experience. I have done this with the 147eldm, 178 eldm 175smk and 155smk so far. Once adjusted I have been within .1-.2mils which is better than the accuracy of the shooter/rifle combo.
Think about it. You have a solid velocity and a stated bc. The form factor although a known may change due to the rifling effect or other factors due to the deformation from the barrel.
They have a series of videos on the process that make alot more sense than changing things that you have hard data for.

 

[Hand Skills]

That's the problem with BC though, it's not a 'hard' number...

It depends on twist rate and velocity, and it is variable through the flight path. Thankfully (drag curves, form factors, more DoF) the paradigm is moving forward.

 

[Tlr155]

Not possible to do that and achieve the desired BC and low velocity terminal performance. The Federal Edge lists minimum velocity in the 1850 fps range which is about a 40% increase over the 1300 for the ABLR.

Federal edge minimum impact velocity is 1400 fps with the 7mm and a g1 bc, of 610 and a g7 bc of. 310

 

[Tlr155]

Thank you sir. I looked at that page several times and it eluded me. I appreciate you setting me straight on that. Hopefully they'll perform as advertised. It's always good to have more options.....

I've killed 4elk 5 whitetails and 6 mule Deer
With the 155 tlr in my 7 rm from 85-685 yrds
Everyone of them one shot doi I have yet to recover a bullet as they have all been complete pass through

 

[bearcat2]

Nope.

Up until a few years ago BC was a set of measurements and engineering level calculations.

Then computers modeled them starting in the 2000's.

Then a few years ago smart guys shrunk Doppler radar and advanced computer models etc etc.

In the last few years think of the advancements we've seen in Chronograph technology?

If I used some of my drop data from (my younger days) you'd think my 308 175's had a BC of .900!

Too many folks think these companies are so evil and just trying to rip people off.

I work at one of the most advanced technology companies in all the world, Engineer and now Business Development.

Mistakes happen and are very hard to course correct. Especially when corporate culture is ruled by "this is the way we've always done it!"

NO ONE wants mistakes like this.

Young folks make all their purchasing decisions based on online feedback from YELP and Google. --Think about that for a minute.

Chronographs have been around for quite some time. While some equations are involved it isn't quantum physics to shoot a string over a chronograph and get an average velocity (multiple chronographs for verifying your chronographs accuracy if you are publishing data for marketing) then shooting that same load at the same range (same barometric pressure, etc.) at various ranges and verifying bullet drop. From there it is simple algebra plug numbers into equations to figure the bc. It is even simpler to verify a published bc by running your velocity and published bc through the equation and getting bullet drop at various ranges and then shooting at those ranges and seeing if your actual drops coincide with the calculated ones.

Basically these equations were commonly known to shooters, much less production designers and marketers since the time chronographs were available. . . which has been more than "the last few years" they've been around longer than the internet has. So there is really no excuse for a systematic inflation of BCs across the board. If one caliber and weight of bullet had the wrong BC published I could buy a simple "error", typo basically, because an actual computing error should have been easily identified in testing. But to do it to the whole line of bullets? That was intentional false advertising. Or a complete lack of testing, which is inexcusable in a bullet being specifically marketed for long range.

 

[DENWA]

Chronographs have been around for quite some time. While some equations are involved it isn't quantum physics to shoot a string over a chronograph and get an average velocity (multiple chronographs for verifying your chronographs accuracy if you are publishing data for marketing) then shooting that same load at the same range (same barometric pressure, etc.) at various ranges and verifying bullet drop. From there it is simple algebra plug numbers into equations to figure the bc. It is even simpler to verify a published bc by running your velocity and published bc through the equation and getting bullet drop at various ranges and then shooting at those ranges and seeing if your actual drops coincide with the calculated ones.

Basically these equations were commonly known to shooters, much less production designers and marketers since the time chronographs were available. . . which has been more than "the last few years" they've been around longer than the internet has. So there is really no excuse for a systematic inflation of BCs across the board. If one caliber and weight of bullet had the wrong BC published I could buy a simple "error", typo basically, because an actual computing error should have been easily identified in testing. But to do it to the whole line of bullets? That was intentional false advertising. Or a complete lack of testing, which is inexcusable in a bullet being specifically marketed for long range.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong.

Look up Applied Ballistics and Bryan Litz. Best in the world in my opinion, yet keeps send out updated BC's every few months based on new testing and modeling.

Why would these evil marketing folks take a chance when Bryan would call them out day 1 and every serious shooter would know and ruin their brand name?

 

[trhall]

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong.

Look up Applied Ballistics and Bryan Litz. Best in the world in my opinion, yet keeps send out updated BC's every few months based on new testing and modeling.

Why would these evil marketing folks take a chance when Bryan would call them out day 1 and every serious shooter would know and ruin their brand name?

Seems like that's exactly what happened with the ABLR, he did call them out. I also have seen Berger adjust their published BC's on most of their bullets the last few years and the changes were nothing like .730 to .661. It's funny how Nosler put out BC's hugely better than all the competitors in the same category and now after being called out and having to publish honest BC's they're really not best in class.
I've shot Nosler bullets for more than 40 years and still do but that left a really bad taste in my mouth. I know of several shooters that did not have a tremendous amount of experience in long range shooting that bought them based on that BC number and had a really hard time figuring out what their problem was. I believe Nosler lost allot of customers over that issue.

 

[bearcat2]

I can see very minor adjustments in BC, but not closing in on .1 That is huge, and even extremely limited testing would show it to be obviously false. Which of course all serious or even semi-serious immediately noticed. Even if they didn't test, which is fairly inexcusable, I find it hard to believe they grossly inflated the BCs across the whole line by accident.

 

[the444shooter]

I've killed 4elk 5 whitetails and 6 mule Deer
With the 155 tlr in my 7 rm from 85-685 yrds
Everyone of them one shot doi I have yet to recover a bullet as they have all been complete pass through

Where are you racking up that body count? Point me in that direction, lol. I've only dropped one animal (Mule deer) this season with the 155s out of my 7mm, but so far I'm really impressed with them both at the range and on animals.