Re: Sort by bearing length and by weight?
I agree that if ALL things match then so will BC.
But one parameter match, or even two(like weight and bearing), is not ALL.
Hell an opened meplat, would wreak havoc on assumptions that bullets are matching -based on bearing to base and weight.
And so would base diameter, base length, base angle, nose length, ogive radius, and bullet diameter.
It's a stretch to assume ALL these match, merely because one or two of them 'seem' to, and with the only basis being anecdotal shooting results rather than measures with any scientific method..
I suggest 'seem to', because the measurement methods here are not at all qualified measures, but abstract comparisons only. You aren't actually measuring bearing length, but comparing one unqualified measure to others.
For example, with a 6mm, 15cal secant ogive, a variance of 0.2 in ogive radius(from 15.0 to 14.8) would shift your buhay measurement datum(if .236) outward by .003" making it 'seem' as though your bearing is .003" longer.
But combined with ALL parameters mentioned, your bearing could actually be anything(longer or shorter).
Yet you would sort bullets on this alone?
To measure bearing length you would first qualify datums that are base angle, and ogive radius, so that bearing alone is isolated.
Then, MAYBE, very difficult testing might show an affect of bearing variance to MV.
Until then, it is merely mob murmuring..