Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics


Reply

BC Article- Link

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #15  
Old 02-08-2010, 11:41 PM
SPONSOR
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 521
Re: BC Article- Link

Well said Jon!!!

I'm not encouraging the conflict with Chas here, but I've wanted to say EVERYTHING that you said in your post so many times in situations where people blow off ballistics as some kind of un-knowable magic (again I'm not addressing Chas, but others who've demonstrated this belief in other conversations).

With your permission, I'd like to use your post as a reference in the future to direct those people to because I don't think it could be said any better (or with any more intensity).

-Bryan
__________________
Bryan Litz
Ballistician

Author of: Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting
And: Accuracy and Precision for Long Range Shooting

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-09-2010, 05:56 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mukilteo, WA
Posts: 1,091
Re: BC Article- Link

Thanks Bryan, et al., I'm glad you liked it. Feel free to use that post wherever and however you like, Bryan. The more that read it the more worthwhile all that typing will have been.

Chas, buddy, I'm not sure what more I can do for you. My ability to explain things and make people understand has its limits. I've led you to water as best I can. You're going to need to take the next step here. One final tip--when it comes to learning about exterior ballistics for long range shooting, read a lot more BL and a lot less JB.

As for dragging up even more JB quotes, you might want to focus on why the ones you have already got you into trouble before making matters worse. In other words, stop digging. He lost that debate badly--embarrassingly so. Quoting things he said in the middle of it to which I already responded and beat him over the head with serves no purpose here. I have a lot of respect for JB and his knowledge on many subjects. When he writes something about ballistics and people ask questions, I will set the record straight in an effort to help those people but I'd like to do it as much as possible without dwelling on him. I'd rather answer specific questions on the subject matter than answer quotes from somebody because the quotes make it personal to that person.

In other words, instead of arguing about what he did or did not say or mean, forget about that. Focus on the subject matter. What specific things about ballistics have I said that you believe to be incorrect? Ask me about those and leave the personalities out of it. I'll try to help.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-09-2010, 02:51 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,538
Re: BC Article- Link

[QUOTE=Jon A;360030]

Chas, buddy, I'm not sure what more I can do for you. My ability to explain things and make people understand has its limits. I've led you to water as best I can. You're going to need to take the next step here. One final tip--when it comes to learning about exterior ballistics for long range shooting, read a lot more BL and a lot less JB.

As I stated in my previous post "I get the impression that you want to debate the validity of the article with me...not sure why as I have no dog in that fight." Not sure how I can be any clearer than that. My only purpose here is to clear up any confusion on what the author wrote (his actual words)" If your going to talk about what a person said then don't misquote them. You made statements and when asked where the author said that you weren't able to point to it.


As for dragging up even more JB quotes,

I didn't, you did...see #5 2nd to the last paragraph...you wrote " And to give you another idea of where he's coming from, he has said elsewhere no scope used to hunt big game should have any sort of exposed turrets or parallax adjustment. If he doesn't need or want them for the type of hunting he does, that's fine. But it illustrates he isn't exactly a long range shooting/hunting enthusiast, much less authority." And once again you misquoted what he said and once again convienently ignore acknowledging that and setting the record straight."

And to make matters worse you then accuse me of bringing it up. That's the beauty of a document trail...go back and read #5 you brought it up. I then asked you in #6 can you provide the article/writeup. You responded "That was posted on another competing board so I probably shouldn't link" I suggested to send me the link in a PM and you did. I opened it and here's what JB wrote: "Wny anybody would complicate a serious big game scope with exposed turrets and ANOTHER turret for parallax is beyond my understanding. Bottom line you misquoted the guy.


Quoting things he said in the middle of it to which I already responded and beat him over the head with serves no purpose here.

Once again you said it so show me proof cut and paste where I beat him over the head. I think you did that pretty well in #5.


I'd rather answer specific questions on the subject matter than answer quotes from somebody because the quotes make it personal to that person.

Makes it personal to that person...exactly why when you say the author siad this or that...then maybe you should cut and paste what he said rather than using your own words. I'll try to lead you one more time to the water...It's simple: When someone quotes an individual, you use their exact words...actual words...not your words. I think to say the above is rather hypocritical and when it's pointed out that you in fact misquoted the author you avoid acknowledging it, setting the record straight to use your words and mask it by going on and on about bc as if that's what I'm debating...and as previously mentioned I'm not. I understand your tactic...if you pump out enough stuff about bc rather than specifically addressing what I brought to your attention in my previous post then that will give you the cover you need to avoid what this is really about...Your misquoting of JB. Now that may fool the readers into thinking this is a bc debate but, not me.


In other words, instead of arguing about what he did or did not say or mean,

No argument, as I stated in previous posts: Just merely pointing out that the author didn't say what you claim he said. Again his actual words.


forget about that.

That's convienent and rather hypocritical coming from someone who uses the words like: set the record straight. So come on Jon set the record straight have you misquoted JB or are you going to go on and on about bc for cover?


Focus on the subject matter.

For me it's been about you misquoting and misrepresenting. Now you may not like that and can disengage from here anytime you like or give us more bc or step up to the plate and admit you misquoted and misrepresented or who knows what.


What specific things about ballistics have I said that you believe to be incorrect?

That's a valid question and I understand why you would be curious since a careful read of everything I wrote will reveal I never agreed or disagreed with anything you wrote about bc or for that matter what the author wrote...And that's been my point...it hasn't been about bc for me...it's been about your misquoting and misrepresentation, heck you even accused me of bringing up more JB quotes when the record shows you did. Not me.

Incorrect-nothing. I have neither the expertise or interest in debating bc but, I do know how to read and quote and write w/o making it personal until the other slings the first mud. Which takes me to your next point.


and leave the personalities out of it.

You wrote the following not me: #16 quotes from somebody because the quotes make it personal to that person. Care to explain why then you would quote JB #5 second from the last paragraph. Without running cover behind some long bc disertation explain that one. While is sounds righteuos, self serving and might fool some...I don't buy it as the documented record of your words dont syn up. So by your own words that would be making it personal.

Putting that aside you chose to sling the first mud in #10 with your comment to me about me sounding like a broken record. I even mentioned in #14 "not sure why you feel the need to insult me". You did and never offerred an apology or even explained the need to insult me or even addressed it...so I guess it's ok for you to make it personal. There again in #16 when you intentionally falsely accused
me of dragging up even more JB quotes and beating him over the head. Anyone who starts from #1 and reads to the end of #5 will see you brought the turret bs up which BTW had nothing to do with the bc article and you misqouted the guy. And then for some reason you've repeatedly accused me of being wrong about bc when I never even shared any of my knowledge or the lack thereof anywhere here.

Jon, So in fairness you stepped over the line a ways back and several times. So up until this post I played nice, was respectful, never slung any mud, never told you you were wrong, made any false accusations about you and BTW never misquoted or misreprented anything you or anyone else here has said.

I given you ample opportunity in previous post to address things I've commented on and set the record straight but, hasn't happened and doesn't look like you will. While you may want to discuss just bc the fact of the matter is anything one writes is fair game including misquotes, misrepresentations, mud slinging, false accusations and so.

So the balls in your court and you can specifically address each of the above and any in my previous posts here and stop ducking it with another bc disertation as I never debated that with you or anyone else...only pointed out inconsistencies between what you said the author said and never gave any opinion for or against, right or wrong on bc. Stick with the record, if your going to say I said something then cut and paste what I said rather than your perception or reading into my words and prefacing it with I said this or that or he said this or that. That's what started this whole thing.

Have a good day.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-09-2010, 04:54 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pocatello, ID
Posts: 366
Re: BC Article- Link

I am by no means taking sides in the debate at all just adding my 2 cents. I would have to agree with Jon on external ballistics. For us to even come close shooting at various ranges we have to trust our ballistic calculator. It is true that actual feild data may and I say may be different than what we get on the computer. But we need a starting point. B.c's are very much important to a LRH. We can not rely on a factor hoping our barrel will make the bullet that we are using yaw better so that we can shot flatter. These barrel are not the norm and can not be relied on. A bullet with a higher b.c will in fact shot flatter and have less wind drift at extended ranges that we can predict and varify with feild data. Just my .02

Darrin
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-09-2010, 04:56 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montana
Posts: 1,404
Re: BC Article- Link

If this thread was not started in the context of bc's, then I was very lost from the start.

Chase, c'mon man, chill. I don't think anyone was looking for a contest to see who pees furthest. We are all here to discuss the merits of long range hunting. The science and laws of physics are real. That's all Jon was saying.

Steve
__________________
To hunt... or not to hunt...? What a stupid question.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-10-2010, 05:38 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mukilteo, WA
Posts: 1,091
Re: BC Article- Link

Chas, this is ridiculous. If you have a question, please just ask it. In English, please. Your posts are convoluted and incoherent. Out of all that garbage you posted above, about the only thing I can get from it is you're accusing me of misquoting him on the turret thing.

You are correct. I paraphrased from memory that particular comment, from a conversation that was nearly a year ago. I did not go and look it up so I could cut and paste it word for word. Happy now? The meaning and the intent was not changed--he does not use the equipment we use and does not understand why anybody would. He does not do what we do. Therefore, he may not be the foremost expert on the subject matter. It's really simple and not an insult to him, just a fact.

You asked the question of what it was in the article that was incorrect. I'm sorry you are emotionally unable to handle the answers. But there really isn't anything I can do about that. I can't make you learn. If all you care about is semantics over substance, please stop wasting my time.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-15-2010, 12:15 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,538
Re: BC Article- Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon A View Post
Chas, this is ridiculous. If you have a question, please just ask it. In English, please. Your posts are convoluted and incoherent. Out of all that garbage you posted above, about the only thing I can get from it is you're accusing me of misquoting him on the turret thing.

You are correct. I paraphrased from memory that particular comment, from a conversation that was nearly a year ago. I did not go and look it up so I could cut and paste it word for word. Happy now? The meaning and the intent was not changed--he does not use the equipment we use and does not understand why anybody would. He does not do what we do. Therefore, he may not be the foremost expert on the subject matter. It's really simple and not an insult to him, just a fact.

You asked the question of what it was in the article that was incorrect. I'm sorry you are emotionally unable to handle the answers. But there really isn't anything I can do about that. I can't make you learn. If all you care about is semantics over substance, please stop wasting my time.
I'll give you credit where credit is due. At least you didn't duck behind a bc disertation...so i guess you got that message too. Instead you opted for the old "I'll pretend it's convoluted, incoherent, garbage, semantics and don't understand" smoke screen. Bad stategy, you know you comprehended well what I wrote...your an intelligent person...You demonstrated that intelligence here in the record with your excellent spelling, grammar, word utilization, comprehension of a not so simple subject as bc and so on .Unfortunately, I know your intelligent so the smoke screen doesn't pass as we say in the business world the litmus test. Nice diversionary tactic but, staying on point here I gave you ample opportunity and time (note the time that passed since my last post to you) to address each item and you chose to only address one partially.

It appears you have no problem critiquing others and setting the record straight to use your words and so on...except when it's done to you. Ducking and choosing not to set the record straight. Oh well.

Jon, as far as your last line. I have no control over your time, only you do so don't blame me. Your not the victim, you have full control as to whether you choose to read and respond here. If nothing else own that. I have control only over my time and as such I choose not to waste anymore time trying to get you to step up to the plate so I'm going with "No email Notification"

Unforetunate the tone of our exchanges have come down to this but, as outlined in my previous post you chose to go their first. I'm moving on, over it and sensitive to any bruising your ego may have taken. As such, as Bill O'Reilly would say "I'll give you the last word".

Last edited by Chas1; 02-15-2010 at 12:16 PM. Reason: no email notification
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: BC Article- Link
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Link to Long Range Bowhunting article Len Backus Bowhunting 1 06-21-2011 03:27 PM
Broken link bwaites Website & Forum Support 4 01-14-2008 07:29 AM
PLEASE take a look at this link and let me know what you think skip AI Equipment Discussions 10 10-05-2005 09:05 AM
Wildcat bullet link? rost495 Reloading 6 08-18-2005 06:56 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC