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
BC Article- Link
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="Jon A" data-source="post: 359561" data-attributes="member: 319"><p>No, it's not a fact. It's wrong. He is wrong. You believe him, so you are <strong>wrong.</strong> That's the point. The damage being done of which I spoke has been done on <em>you.</em> Because you don't understand. Now, let's remedy that:</p><p></p><p>The standard conditions corrected BC (which is all you should care about) will not change. If you change the conditions, yes, the actual trajectory, etc, will change. This is because the aerodynamic drag on the bullet will change with the conditions. But it will also change on the G1 or G7 "standard projectile," so the relative rate of velocity decay between the two bullets (which is what BC is) will remain constant. <em>The BC did not change. Your conditions did, <strong>the BC did not.</strong> </em></p><p></p><p>You will not be able to find a single ballistics program that will give you accurate results by entering .300 at high altitude for a bullet that has a correct and accurate sea level BC of .250 if you enter the rest of the information in the program correctly. This was the example he gave. He was <strong>wrong.</strong> If you believe him, you will be <strong>wrong.</strong></p><p></p><p>You're sounding like a broken record here. Pretending he did not say something that he did is no credible defense of what he said. Specifics:</p><p></p><p>Did he or did he not say:</p><p></p><p>I copied that word for word from the article. Please do not respond with "thank goodness he did not say that" because he did. Word for Word. He said it would change. It won't.</p><p></p><p>Did he or did he not say:</p><p></p><p>and</p><p></p><p>Again, if you respond with "thank goodness he did not say that" I'm going to scream. It's copied word for word so he most certainly did. </p><p></p><p>Does it or does it not say that the <em>computer models will be wrong?</em> If something is consistently wrong, "it cannot be relied upon to accurately predict trajectory," can it?</p><p></p><p>This of course leads to the conclusion:</p><p></p><p>and</p><p></p><p>Again, if we were talking about 2000 yds or even much more than 1000, one can make a case for that because there truly are so many variables it can be quite difficult to predict the drop correctly on the first round. But he is talking about <strong><span style="font-size: 15px">400 YDS!</span></strong></p><p></p><p>Keep in mind, 400 yds is kindergarten stuff to most here. If you have accurate sea level BC information on your bullet, you don't shoot at 400 yds "to find out" where they will hit. If you know what you are doing you <strong>know</strong> where they will hit. You shoot them to confirm you know what you are doing and aren't <em>screwing something up somewhere.</em> </p><p></p><p>There are lots of occasions people have problems predicting bullet drop at 400 yds. Inexperienced people can get these results by making any one of a multitude of mistakes. From using bad BC or velocity information to simply using ballistics programs incorrectly, to ranging errors, to having scopes that don't track or track incorrectly to using the wrong scope height, to using different shooting form for different targets affecting POI, to using a very large (imprecise) group to form some sort of conclusion, etc. The possibilities are nearly infinite.</p><p></p><p>So when an inexperienced person doesn't get the expected results at only 400 yds, there can be many reasons for it. Any time this happens, jumping to the conclusion that there is some sort of magic happening between his particular bullet and barrel that allows it to fly flatter than a computer model can predict, is guaranteed to be the wrong conclusion. It's always the inexperienced that jump to such incorrect conclusions so quickly. </p><p></p><p>Most of us here have experienced situations like this--especially when we were first starting out and lacked experience in LR shooting--where the bullets just aren't flying like they are supposed to. Often, we jumped to conclusions like the above because we didn't know any better. Eventually, we usually figured out what it was we were doing wrong and when the mistake is corrected the actual trajectory mates up with what the computer says very well.</p><p></p><p>So that's why articles like this one do more harm that good. Telling people that even with accurate BC information such as Berger's, one cannot predict trajectory even at only <strong>400 yds</strong> is simply wrong. Instead of educating, it is reducing the readers' understanding by giving them false information. This will only make it more difficult for readers to become proficient at long range because their first inclination will be to blame any unpredicted results on some sort of ballistic magic, instead of looking for mistakes in their own technique.</p><p></p><p>There are a large number of hunters out there who really believe BC's are pretty much made up numbers that don't mean much. And they believe that computer models will only give one a "rough idea" little better than a wild guess at 400 yds. If one never hunts beyond 400 yds, they can get by believing this stuff forever. But this is detrimental to long range shooting and specifically hunting.</p><p></p><p>When hunting LR, there are so many possible combinations of range, angle, altitude, temperature, etc, it is simply impossible to gather enough data by "shooting and see how far they drop" to cover all possibilities. You would burn out a barrel before filling a data book with enough information to cover every possible combination of conditions you may run into in the field with an identical situation where you actually measured the drop.</p><p></p><p>This is why <em>knowledge and <strong>trust</strong></em> in exterior ballistics is a must for success. You need to be able to compensate for conditions you probably haven't run into on your home range whether that's with a PDA, pre-printed drop charts or even a BDC you will diverge from when corrections are required.</p><p></p><p>Of course actual shooting is required. But contrary to popular belief, it is not to "find out" what the bullet will do downrange as if that is some sort of mystery (a belief commonly held by "normal" hunters). It's to confirm your information, methods, techniques and equipment are correct and performing properly. When you have some experience under your belt, have accurate BC and velocity information and meticulously pay attention to all the possible little sources of error (measuring scope clicks, etc), you'll find you are rarely surprised by where the bullets land. </p><p></p><p>When this isn't happening for you at only <strong>400 yds</strong>, you need to stop right now! And figure out what it is you're doing wrong because you have no chance of being consistently successful in varying conditions in the field at much longer ranges.</p><p></p><p>When your information, methods, techniques, and equipment are confirmed as being accurate and reliable by a more modest amount of shooting so you don't ruin your barrel before hunting season even starts (out to ranges as far--or better yet farther--as you would possible try on an animal in the field) under different conditions you can feel confident your corrections for whatever you see in the field will be true--even if you don't have "actual drop data" for those specific conditions. </p><p></p><p>Without the understanding that BC's really don't change significantly (unless your twist is way wrong or something) and that computer models really can be accurate if you are doing everything right, your success at extended ranges will always be limited.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jon A, post: 359561, member: 319"] No, it's not a fact. It's wrong. He is wrong. You believe him, so you are [B]wrong.[/B] That's the point. The damage being done of which I spoke has been done on [I]you.[/I] Because you don't understand. Now, let's remedy that: The standard conditions corrected BC (which is all you should care about) will not change. If you change the conditions, yes, the actual trajectory, etc, will change. This is because the aerodynamic drag on the bullet will change with the conditions. But it will also change on the G1 or G7 "standard projectile," so the relative rate of velocity decay between the two bullets (which is what BC is) will remain constant. [I]The BC did not change. Your conditions did, [B]the BC did not.[/B] [/I] You will not be able to find a single ballistics program that will give you accurate results by entering .300 at high altitude for a bullet that has a correct and accurate sea level BC of .250 if you enter the rest of the information in the program correctly. This was the example he gave. He was [B]wrong.[/B] If you believe him, you will be [B]wrong.[/B] You're sounding like a broken record here. Pretending he did not say something that he did is no credible defense of what he said. Specifics: Did he or did he not say: I copied that word for word from the article. Please do not respond with "thank goodness he did not say that" because he did. Word for Word. He said it would change. It won't. Did he or did he not say: and Again, if you respond with "thank goodness he did not say that" I'm going to scream. It's copied word for word so he most certainly did. Does it or does it not say that the [I]computer models will be wrong?[/I] If something is consistently wrong, "it cannot be relied upon to accurately predict trajectory," can it? This of course leads to the conclusion: and Again, if we were talking about 2000 yds or even much more than 1000, one can make a case for that because there truly are so many variables it can be quite difficult to predict the drop correctly on the first round. But he is talking about [B][SIZE="4"]400 YDS![/SIZE][/B] Keep in mind, 400 yds is kindergarten stuff to most here. If you have accurate sea level BC information on your bullet, you don't shoot at 400 yds "to find out" where they will hit. If you know what you are doing you [B]know[/B] where they will hit. You shoot them to confirm you know what you are doing and aren't [I]screwing something up somewhere.[/I] There are lots of occasions people have problems predicting bullet drop at 400 yds. Inexperienced people can get these results by making any one of a multitude of mistakes. From using bad BC or velocity information to simply using ballistics programs incorrectly, to ranging errors, to having scopes that don't track or track incorrectly to using the wrong scope height, to using different shooting form for different targets affecting POI, to using a very large (imprecise) group to form some sort of conclusion, etc. The possibilities are nearly infinite. So when an inexperienced person doesn't get the expected results at only 400 yds, there can be many reasons for it. Any time this happens, jumping to the conclusion that there is some sort of magic happening between his particular bullet and barrel that allows it to fly flatter than a computer model can predict, is guaranteed to be the wrong conclusion. It's always the inexperienced that jump to such incorrect conclusions so quickly. Most of us here have experienced situations like this--especially when we were first starting out and lacked experience in LR shooting--where the bullets just aren't flying like they are supposed to. Often, we jumped to conclusions like the above because we didn't know any better. Eventually, we usually figured out what it was we were doing wrong and when the mistake is corrected the actual trajectory mates up with what the computer says very well. So that's why articles like this one do more harm that good. Telling people that even with accurate BC information such as Berger's, one cannot predict trajectory even at only [B]400 yds[/B] is simply wrong. Instead of educating, it is reducing the readers' understanding by giving them false information. This will only make it more difficult for readers to become proficient at long range because their first inclination will be to blame any unpredicted results on some sort of ballistic magic, instead of looking for mistakes in their own technique. There are a large number of hunters out there who really believe BC's are pretty much made up numbers that don't mean much. And they believe that computer models will only give one a "rough idea" little better than a wild guess at 400 yds. If one never hunts beyond 400 yds, they can get by believing this stuff forever. But this is detrimental to long range shooting and specifically hunting. When hunting LR, there are so many possible combinations of range, angle, altitude, temperature, etc, it is simply impossible to gather enough data by "shooting and see how far they drop" to cover all possibilities. You would burn out a barrel before filling a data book with enough information to cover every possible combination of conditions you may run into in the field with an identical situation where you actually measured the drop. This is why [I]knowledge and [B]trust[/B][/I] in exterior ballistics is a must for success. You need to be able to compensate for conditions you probably haven't run into on your home range whether that's with a PDA, pre-printed drop charts or even a BDC you will diverge from when corrections are required. Of course actual shooting is required. But contrary to popular belief, it is not to "find out" what the bullet will do downrange as if that is some sort of mystery (a belief commonly held by "normal" hunters). It's to confirm your information, methods, techniques and equipment are correct and performing properly. When you have some experience under your belt, have accurate BC and velocity information and meticulously pay attention to all the possible little sources of error (measuring scope clicks, etc), you'll find you are rarely surprised by where the bullets land. When this isn't happening for you at only [B]400 yds[/B], you need to stop right now! And figure out what it is you're doing wrong because you have no chance of being consistently successful in varying conditions in the field at much longer ranges. When your information, methods, techniques, and equipment are confirmed as being accurate and reliable by a more modest amount of shooting so you don't ruin your barrel before hunting season even starts (out to ranges as far--or better yet farther--as you would possible try on an animal in the field) under different conditions you can feel confident your corrections for whatever you see in the field will be true--even if you don't have "actual drop data" for those specific conditions. Without the understanding that BC's really don't change significantly (unless your twist is way wrong or something) and that computer models really can be accurate if you are doing everything right, your success at extended ranges will always be limited. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
BC Article- Link
Top