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
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
300 grain, .338 Matchking - True BC ??
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="Brent" data-source="post: 24641" data-attributes="member: 99"><p>Hi Len,</p><p>I can't remember where at I posted the pic S1 refers to but if you havn't seen it I can post it here in a bit. I'm uploading some pics to ImageStation of our bowlingball cannon shoot and it's taking its time doing it, I'm stuck on the 56k dialup still and this part bites. <img src="http://images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p>I think the BC is usually over .760 at the range most shoot, many times it has been right up to the high .790s. Might have been warmer then? I do know I've never tested it that it fell below .760 though, at least the average anyway. Most were quite a bit higher than that though.</p><p></p><p>I remember some time back Darryl saying he figured them to be running about .797 or therabouts, and Warren telling him they found something different at Yuma during some tests he did, but he wouldn't say what it was. <img src="http://images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> <img src="http://images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> The first batch I tested were almost exactly identical to those of Darryls findings. I never thought too much about it after that. I have never tested his rfle at 1000 yards for the moa needed so this doesn't answer the question I know your really looking for. I've wondered the same thing before starting out with my Ultra. </p><p></p><p>Len, keep one thing in mind I've often taken for granted when backing in for the BC, that is multiply the total moa needed by the actual fraction/decimal of MOA the persons scope is really calibrated at. </p><p></p><p>Did that make sense? </p><p></p><p>Some are really .95 and some are 1.12, or whatever it is, it will skew the BC bigtime either way.</p><p></p><p>Either way, I think the ones that shoot 300s at 1000 yards should be able to tell both, at least I hope. <img src="http://images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brent, post: 24641, member: 99"] Hi Len, I can't remember where at I posted the pic S1 refers to but if you havn't seen it I can post it here in a bit. I'm uploading some pics to ImageStation of our bowlingball cannon shoot and it's taking its time doing it, I'm stuck on the 56k dialup still and this part bites. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] I think the BC is usually over .760 at the range most shoot, many times it has been right up to the high .790s. Might have been warmer then? I do know I've never tested it that it fell below .760 though, at least the average anyway. Most were quite a bit higher than that though. I remember some time back Darryl saying he figured them to be running about .797 or therabouts, and Warren telling him they found something different at Yuma during some tests he did, but he wouldn't say what it was. [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img] The first batch I tested were almost exactly identical to those of Darryls findings. I never thought too much about it after that. I have never tested his rfle at 1000 yards for the moa needed so this doesn't answer the question I know your really looking for. I've wondered the same thing before starting out with my Ultra. Len, keep one thing in mind I've often taken for granted when backing in for the BC, that is multiply the total moa needed by the actual fraction/decimal of MOA the persons scope is really calibrated at. Did that make sense? Some are really .95 and some are 1.12, or whatever it is, it will skew the BC bigtime either way. Either way, I think the ones that shoot 300s at 1000 yards should be able to tell both, at least I hope. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
300 grain, .338 Matchking - True BC ??
Top