Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
204 Ruger
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LB" data-source="post: 12277" data-attributes="member: 2721"><p><BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>No, you're misunderstanding / taking what I said out of context / resorting to an apples to oranges comparison.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE></p><p></p><p>Unless this is an argument that only interests a ballistic junkie, I fail to see the point. Read my first post:</p><p></p><p> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>This is one of those theoretical discusions, on paper. A 220 Swift and a 204 Ruger are so different that you cannot crunch those numbers and prove your point. There is nothing new, under the sun. In this case, bigger is better, in every measurable aspect of performance. Terminally speaking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE></p><p></p><p>A comparable B.C.? Why bother? This is not going to prove anything and it enters the realm of apples and oranges.</p><p></p><p>Let's keep our feet on the ground. Breathlessly necking a 223 to twenty caliber is not going to reverse the laws of Physics.</p><p></p><p>LB <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>In this case, bigger is better, in every measurable aspect of performance. Terminally speaking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE></p><p></p><p> <img src="http://images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LB, post: 12277, member: 2721"] <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>No, you're misunderstanding / taking what I said out of context / resorting to an apples to oranges comparison.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unless this is an argument that only interests a ballistic junkie, I fail to see the point. Read my first post: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>This is one of those theoretical discusions, on paper. A 220 Swift and a 204 Ruger are so different that you cannot crunch those numbers and prove your point. There is nothing new, under the sun. In this case, bigger is better, in every measurable aspect of performance. Terminally speaking. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A comparable B.C.? Why bother? This is not going to prove anything and it enters the realm of apples and oranges. Let's keep our feet on the ground. Breathlessly necking a 223 to twenty caliber is not going to reverse the laws of Physics. LB <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>In this case, bigger is better, in every measurable aspect of performance. Terminally speaking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
204 Ruger
Top