Originally Posted by jmason
James- I can understand that it's difficult not to take Bryan's findings to heart since you have your blood, sweat, and tears involved in the data you've provided. I think your seeing the glass as half empty though. The HAT is 35 grains lighter than the SMK and has a HIGHER BC (based on his modeling). If that's not a bonus I don't know what is. If there's a trend here the heavier bullets later to come would be even more impressive. You should be embracing this data and asking Bryan if you could use it for marketing, not finding errors in it.
Who cares if his modeling doesn't predict the same drop values as you (and others) have witnessed? This is a never ending battle for you until a wide enough cross section of people actually use your bullets and provide the validation you are getting beat up for (like the Wildcats). The fact that Eddybo has seen similar results to yours is good proof to me. It should be for others as well as I know his word is valued by others here. The ridiculing will never stop for you untill some others use them. I guess what I'm trying to say is try not to be on the "defensive" so much. I clearly can understand why you are but it's not neccessary. Please don't take offence to this message as none was inteneded. I think that comming from me you already realize that though.
Thanks for your interest.... For those of us who write and have read many evaluation reports on a myriad of subjects, it really doesn't take much more than a skim through the document to notice the accentuation of the negative the omission of some facts and the errors in some of the facts stated..... Nothing against Bryan (Berger), but I do refer you to the post that Kirby made earlier.... If you think that he can do this in an unbiased manner, you are kidding yourself.... In the interest of full disclosure, I have about 300 HATS bullets in my posession and I have over 4500 Berger bullets in my posession. I have them to use in the 6.5 and 6mm barrels for both 600 and 1000 yard matches..... I also Have 3000 Sierras for the 6mm as well and for the same purpose. Additionally, I am not currently compensated by any bullet company.
Professionals who write reports (on both personnel and material products as well as engineering processes) and read them can spot what I am talking about..... Sometimes the omission speaks louder than the postitive or the negative....
Remember, this started for him (Berger) to "prove" his initial theory. It was not started out as a middle of the road evaluation report from an unbiased authority. This type of report is akin to negative advertisement and you really have to know the answers before you read the document.....
Had other shooters not experienced what I have seen, then reading this report would make one wonder and question real life results.....
Again, if a shooter or customer uses the data in the report, he WILL NOT impact his intended target. The error is so large that with a 400 yard zero you will miss your targets at 600 yards. This is a specific example of how this report can lead folks astray and away from reality. The computer and evaluator is not as close to reality on this as they should be to draw conclusions without firing projectiles.
I realize that this is not the final version since ALL the data is not available yet..... For an evaluator to publish on the a report on the internet and draw conclusions prior to all the data being available is not an unbiased approach to an evaluation.
If I had done this when I was a Nuclear inspector in the Navy and for the Navy, I would have been fired from my job vice promoted..... When one authors documents that are puported to be written in an unbiased manner and without biased information and from an unbiased position, you will not see omissions such as you see here. Additionally, you will not see information reported in a skewed manner. Furthermore, when folks ask questions that could lead to the revealing of some standards that are not accepted in the evaluation process they should not be ignored....
For a layman it is hard to understand this, but for folks who have been in the evaluation process for many years, this sounds more like an attack on both the product and the data vice an evaluation of the same.....
It is strange to me to how folks could expect any report from Berger bullets (or any other company) to be less than negative on the subject of another bullet maker who has a product that some companies do not have available to them.
I would like to write an evaluation and deficiency report of Bryan (Berger's) report, but it would not be taken as unbiased and therefore I will not do it. Brian's (Berger's) report is more of a deficiency report than an unbiased evaluation report of a product from purely a "scientific" interest as intially claimed..
When I write my report on the Berger tests along side both the Sierras and the HATS, it will not be 15 pages of information that contains information that is in error. It will be one page and it will state the atmospheric conditions, firearm and scope geometry, the speed of the projectiles tested, the group sizes of the projectiles and their relative impact points on an object at a fixed distance. All on the same day using the same equipment and the 8 windflags will be out for use by the evaluator.
Almost forgot, one of the parts of Brians (Berger's) report that I consider to be valid is the fact that the bullets tend to fly like conventional projectiles.... We have seen this and we agree with it. After all, this is how all the hunters who used these bullets last year to take their animals accomplished their one shot kills..... We have no reports of any wounded animals that got away or lost animals. Had the HATS not flown predictably, then the targets would have been missed and/or maimed without recovery.
Finally, if Bryan (Berger) had not chosen to attack the data and the data collector in an effort to explain the trajectory reports or had chosen to include and address all information available prior to drawing a conclusion, and woulld have offered full disclosure information when requested, then you would not be reading this.....
If it is spring time and it is not raining, it is probably not a warm spring rain running down your back.