I just read Thads' article.
Here are some of my greatest hits from the Barnes' ballistician:
In addition, our competitor claims that if you canít put the bullet in the right spot, construction means very little. This logic is completely flawed.
So the 'claim' that shot placement is important is flawed?
Here's another one:
Anyone who says he or she can place a perfect shot at six or seven hundred yards under field conditions every time is either misinformed or stretching the truth.
Obviously he's not in touch with some of you guys!
And one of my personal favorites:
As far as the accuracy of Barnes bullets being called into question, I myself have fired and hunted with bullets from nearly every manufacturer in the business. I canít say Iíve ever shot better groups than Barnes bullets have produced.
Again, I've been all around the country shooting in national level contests of long range rifle accuracy. I've never seen or even heard of anyone using Barnes bullets in contests of accuracy (score shooting) or precision (benchrest). .50 caliber being the exception.
He claims the performance data given in his original article was not unsafe. Remember when he compared the retained downrange velocity of Barnes bullets to other bullets, and it implied a freakishly high muzzle velocity was required? Well, it turns out that his trajectory was calculated for 7,000 feet altitude! This wasn't mentioned in the original article. Anyone who uses tricks like this (calculating trajectories in non-standard conditions and not giving the conditions) is either trying to deliberately mislead or is simply ignorant.
As for the terminal performance debate...
Unlike Thad, I'm not compelled say that Barnes bullets 'don't work' or 'aren't lethal' on game, or even 'don't work as good' as other options. Their bullet is a weight retaining penetrator. Berger is an expanding/fragmenting bullet. These two types of construction offer different options
for the hunter. Both are lethal, some are better suited to different applications. This is the classic ford/chevy debate and I'm not interested in an opinionated discussion about what I or someone else 'likes' better.
It is aggravating to see someone trying to make deterministic
matters like the benefits of superior external ballistics into a trivial matter of opinion though.
Statements about Barne's BC measuring procedures were made. The only thing that I came away with is that they have a 300 meter indoor facility and claim that they cannot repeat BC measurements within +/- 5%. I think this was a round-about response to being called out on their advertised BC's being high. They're not actually that much higher than I've measured (my measurements were over longer range; 600 yards vs 300). My understanding is that the Barnes BC's used to be very much inflated, and they were brought down to more realistic values only in the last few years. They should be commended for moving in this direction.
Frankly I'm not all that excited about this response. Those who are serious about long range shooing and hunting know better than to get their information only from vendors. You know how to weigh the options, consult multiple sources, and consider all the variables when selecting bullets for your application. The fact that Thad chooses to host his articles from the safety of the Barnes website where his statements cannot be challenged says a lot to me about the confidence he has in being able to support his statements.
As always, I'm willing to engage this and other forums on discussions pertaining to bullet performance.