[ QUOTE ]
I believed if you mispook or made an error in your statement, you should welcome anyone who call you or questioned you on it. We're here to learn among our selves.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. However, this indavidual has repeatedly nit picked various things I have stated and taken them way out of context and continualy dissrespects me. I also welcome all comments or opinions, theroies also, in reply to anything I might say. My problem here is to have something taken out of context, then I explain the context in which it was meant, and somehow facts are still BS.
Quoted by CS,
[ QUOTE ]
(and need a spell checker).
[/ QUOTE ]
That very comment shows me that there is more to this than just ballistic coeffiecents, and what is reality and BS. To me, it is more about someone who wants to argue. It is more like an argument or a ****ing contest. That is what I have a problem with. I dont preach what is not fact. I have expressed theroies here and have been identified as such, and they are just that.
[ QUOTE ]
I want you to explain how the primer and powder change the BC? It is a simple question.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the context in which you and you alone are taking it, I can't explain it, because as has been beaten to death already, THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT. In the context it was intended, if all is equal and 2 scenarios are IDENTICAL the BC will be the same. If not all is equal, the BC will not be the same. The context of the statment was NOT intended to try and make anybody believe that using the same barrel using the SAME velocity with differing primers and powders that the BC would change. Obviously, if you read my statment again, the context is in referance to my equipment and someone elses equipment, which is totally different. As far as the same barrel with different powders and primers at the same velocity as to whether or not the BC changes, that is somthing that I have not experimentd with and have no first hand knowledge of. It might or it might not. But in any event, unless you have first hand knowledge yourself, even if you took it the wrong way in your interpretation, you shouldnt say it is BS untill you get out there and try it, your argument is as dead as if I said it was so and had no first hand knowledge myself. I know what sounds reasonable or seems reasonable, but bullets dont care what we think. BC's ARE NOT as clear cut as we would like them to be. That is why we have some here that shoot 600 and some that shoot 2500 yards. No offense to those that hang out at the 600 yard line, I hang out there more than 1000.
Again, we are talking about this in light of shooting 2000+ yards. Can we take a 175 SMK and shoot them at milspec velocities with a milspec rifle using the "general" BC and expect to hit where we want at 600-1000 yards provided we have a dead on zero? The answer is yes, within a few inches. Almost every time. Why? Because with all of that research the military has done with the 175 and 24" 308 barrels with 11.25 twists at 2550 FPS they have come up with a 'general BC', and the BC isnt going to change enough from 1 rifle to the next to make much of a differance out to 1K PROVIDED each rifle is 24" with 11.25x twists used with similar velocities. Now shoot that same bullet in a 10 twist at 300 RUM velocities or a 13 twist at RUM velocities and YOU WILL HAVE A VASTLY DIFFERANT BC. Not maybe, not probably, but definatly.
If some guys are stuck on the idea that a bullet's BC is simply a function of diameter, length and form and nothing more, then someday, when they are lining up their sights on that big western once in a lifetime trophy at 1K and have put explicit trust in their software without real life tests and confirmation, they're going to miss it. When they do, those words will ring in their ear. Believe what you want, you cannot out smart or out shoot the laws of physics.
