Interesting report. I was sort of hoping for the explanation to be lift issues but am thankful that we will not have to endure any stability issues due to nose up.
Anyway, thanks for doing it.
However, your report does contain some glaring errors, assumptions and assertions that are not true maybe it just due to lack of attention to detail. One of the major ones is that Eddybo has indicated to me that he may not have been zeroed within the adjustment capabilities of the scope at the zero point. Additionally, we were concerned that you would be unbiased and at the midpoint during the evaluation.... However with the errors we noted I don't know if that is now a true possibility. It seems as though you are "askew from the midpoint.
Additionally, you have not addressed the shooters who have developed similar drop charts and have taken game at extended ranges using the same BC determination method that we used with similar drop values.
The process for performing the tests on the HATS is the same as what we used to test the Sierra bullets as well as others and it is the same one we will use to evaluate the Bergers.
There were zero I repeat, zero issues with determining the drops through the scope... None at all. It is the same reticle that we use to shoot animals with and for some reason it is accurate for that. Additionally, it was accurate for the Sierra 300 SMK testing and validated their BC claims. The major reason to use the reticle vice a ruler or tape measure is to eliminate potential errors due to the aspect of the target board versus the shooter (muzzle of the firearm). You see the tape actually measures along the aspect of the target board where the reticle only sees the bullet impact in the vertical plane.
We have used similar tests to evaluate Lost River, GS Custom and Nosler bullets. The Lost river bullets exceeded their BC claims, the GS custom bullets flew like bricks and did not even come close to their claims..... Additionally when I corresponded with the owner and complained about it, he quickly removed the BC data from his web site... Finally, the Nolser bullets matched their BC claims.
I think we have eliminated every variable except for the electronics in the chronograph.
Just so that you understand, if the hunters who have taken game with the HATS in 265 would have used your coputer generated BC values, none of the animals would have even been hit much less harvested. The values in your report will not yield hits on the target at longer ranges. This is flawed for whatever reason the numbers don't match the the harvest results.
Hopefully the testing of the Bergers may shed enough light on the subject for you to believe the HATS trajectory results.....
Based on your experience, should I be jammed into the lands or experiment with them off the lands for the best performance?
Even better, is there any way to get some of the 338 Bergers to shoot side by side of the HATS to see what the drops would be out of the same gun on the same day under the same conditions with the same scope and shooter? For those with a "scientific" interest, this would be a great evaluation as well as a field test.
Hopefully you are willing to reciprocate and provide the same number of samples that were provided for your experimentation. You have to admit, this would be an interesting evlauation.
Let us know where to send the check for the 338 bullets.
BTW, I posted some tidbits that might help you on load develpement of the HATS since they cannot be approached in the same manner as the thinner J4 jacketed bullets. We did not know if Eddybo included those with his bullet shipment.
Good luck in your shooting.