D
Deleted member 46119
Guest
I don't understand how this is not a personal attack that should get you banned.
Well, I'll all I can do is put on my tutu, shake my pom poms and cheer...
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
whiskey three precision
- Thread starter TheFishBox
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
- Status
Well, I'll all I can do is put on my tutu, shake my pom poms and cheer...
Broz
Well-Known Member
RockyMtnMT
Official LRH Sponsor
Michael Courtney
Silver Member
I'm really more interested in bullet makers doing a better job providing accurate specs on their products. This provides a better service to both shooters and better insulates the industry from lawsuits.
Everyone would benefit from bullet makers accurately measuring their BCs and publishing accurate BCs as soon as new products are advertised, than advertising new products with exaggerated BCs for a time and then later responding to customer concerns and finally measuring the BCs.
Eric Stecker seems to have the same view, having written:
A BC is not a marketing tool and should not be inflated (intentionally or by using inaccurate means to calculate BC) for the purposes of selling more bullets. Some will say that inflating BC is smart business but frankly, we do not agree. A BC is an important number with physical meaning that's used to calculate the trajectory of a given bullet which enables shooters to reliably engage targets at long range. The BC should allow a shooter to hit their aim point each and every time. There are many factors that influence the location of bullet impact but an accurate BC number is an essential component in achieving the most successful shooting experience no matter which brand you shoot. The bullet makers owe it to the shooters to provide them with truly accurate information about the performance of their product and that's what we're committed to.
Don't need no victory lap, just accurate BCs.
D
Deleted member 46119
Guest
It's not the message, it's the method.
Courtney's method is well... Caustic. Has been for a long time. In undergrad and grad school and on forums. Here, he never quoted a BC study/qualification he was paid to do but could only quote a materials and QC study on primers. The subject was BC qualification not primers. His wife is the PhD in materials so is the "we" he uses actually his wife's work?
Phorwath's method is bullying. Early on he accused me of bullying but as do many, he was accusing someone else of what he perpetrates. I don't know how he found out about my pom poms but it should have stayed private.
I don't think it's "right" to "force" anyone into capitulation by caustic or bullying methods. It's a form of terrorism.
Do I think accurate BC numbers are a good thing, of course. But what is accurate? Accurate BC numbers is as difficult to quantify as accuracy in shooting. How much "accuracy" is enough. I have been frustrated by provided BC being below my actual. I sure don't use them for anything other than a starting point. One particular, popular bullet, adjusting velocity for the predicted vs actual from 300 to 700 yards resulted in being way off at 1000 yards. Redoing the numbers and adjusting the BC by raising it put the predicted elevation adjustment inline with the actual elevation elevation at all distances.
It was supposed to be funny, not cause you to run laps.
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
Since this is yet another thread on Michael Courtney I though this was a good read. Debunking Courtney's stability myths
Phorwath's method is bullying. Early on he accused me of bullying but as do many, he was accusing someone else of what he perpetrates. I don't know how he found out about my pom poms but it should have stayed private.
I don't think it's "right" to "force" anyone into capitulation by caustic or bullying methods. It's a form of terrorism.
My primary method is pointing out you're wrong, after you attempt to silence others' communications in the Threads on these Forums, because their expressions don't conform to your personal preferences. Now your concern is terrorism? My my. You've come a long way.
Back to the point. You were wrong. 0.010" doesn't equal 0.0001". It's exactly 100 times longer. You claim Mr. Courtney uses misquotes to further a cause, and misquote another member in the effort to justify your claim. Very classy.
I"m not accusing you of misquoting. I'm proving it. But accusing you of bullying? You're proving that.
Cold Trigger Finger
Well-Known Member
You guys must spend a lot of time listening to yelling republican radio and tv. Give it a rest for a bit until some bullets can be tested would ya.
D
Deleted member 46119
Guest
Like I said.....
IdahoRedneck
Well-Known Member
Big and greens on it,
Another for your reading pleasure concerning the great Dr Courtney, with those smart enough to engage him, start around page 2........
Which Published Berger BCs Are From Predictions Rather than Measurements?
Another for your reading pleasure concerning the great Dr Courtney, with those smart enough to engage him, start around page 2........
Which Published Berger BCs Are From Predictions Rather than Measurements?
Michael Courtney
Silver Member
Berger eventually admitted they had not measured the BCs of the flat based bullets, changed the claims on their web site, and committed to measuring these BCs and posting more accurate numbers as they become available.
With some of the mud slinging and ad hominem attacks and inaccurate information floated by so many parties, it is odd that one gets accused of making personal attacks merely by quoting them and pointing out that the advertised claims are likely inaccurate.
D
Deleted member 46119
Guest
Yeah.
Let me put on my tutu, get my pom poms and give a cheer for you. You won the pedantic battle and lost the war..
- Status
