I place the same value in "projected" BC's that I do in "projected" twist-rates.
It is better to stay away from them, unless you happen to be running PRODAS, or an equivalent. Even then, it is better still to derive a value empirically.
My numbers, when released, will not be fodder for speculation.
Carefull there i thought the same thing after carefull testing in a sterial range for several months and several customers using them i would not be jeered at either but as you can see that is not the case.
No matter what you do there are still those that will scream it can't be and their buddy will climb a tree and sware to what they said..
I empathize with your dilemma, it is not only the numbers, but the methodology which is killing you.
Anecdotal reporting is fine for in-house speculation. You really need to submit to less subjective testing procedures, and peer review, before publishing. The Las Vegas meet would be a good opportunity.
I under stand but at this point i dont see any time for me to get away.
I am so far behind now i don't think i'll ever get caught up and with orders pouring in every day there is no end in sight.
Plus getting other calibers on line is a never ending struggle,having new barrels chambered and mounted, tweaking tooling and making new punchs and dies its a never ending chore..
The customers come first.
I think i will be very well represented if eddybo makes the shoot..
Jon was asking how I arrived at twist requirements. While there are some mathematical means of generating minimum parameters, such as Bryan's referenced formula, the bottom line is that actual testing is necessary.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?" Thomas Jefferson - Notes on the State of Virginia