Nice review on your experience and very valuable especially for those who don't take the time to see what's going on when data doesn't match to actual field results.
However, some things I'l like to recall, since I posted them many times before in the past.
1) You cannot fudge numbers without paying the consequences. "Bending the curve" will not made up for an inaccurate ballistics engine. How many times will you have to repeat the process for any new load ?
2) Good input will make for good outputs...and the other way around.:confused:
3) The basic problem is not the use of G1/G5/G7 BCs. They are what we have at hand, what the manufacturers turn out. The problem lies in the ballistics predictive model most programs uses, especially at longer ranges when bullets go through the transonic range.
Not my idea to start a thread ( fight ??
) on ballistics models, but fortunately enough we have new mathematical tools that yield very accurate results at extended ranges.