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 numbers for 142 long range accubond
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="BallisticsGuy" data-source="post: 1309539" data-attributes="member: 96226"><p>Greatly? That's simply wrong. Did you even read the stuff Bryan wrote? I'm really doubting that. If you did you'd have seen that the advertised BC's were stupid close to actual IF and only IF the bullet was aggressively stabilized. If Sg was on the low side then you get bad results, like 10% out. Well, that should tell you right away that the problem is precession of yaw at moderate gyroscopic rotational speeds. Beyond that, the velocities used by Litz were not disclosed meaning that the data presented cannot be analyzed for error. This is because velocity and BC are related. Further, you might understand what BC is derived from and how it's presented. Since the advertised number is an average, it's averaged by the manufacturers normally for the velocity band that the bullet is meant to operate in. Target bullets get used commonly all the way out to the transonic velocity regime. Game bullets simply do not as a generalized rule. They're generally meant to hit at fairly high velocities in order to initiate expansion.</p><p></p><p>The article you linked doesn't debunk Nosler's BC numbers very well. It describes clearly the effect on BC of insufficient twist rates and how the LRAB seems to respond.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BallisticsGuy, post: 1309539, member: 96226"] Greatly? That's simply wrong. Did you even read the stuff Bryan wrote? I'm really doubting that. If you did you'd have seen that the advertised BC's were stupid close to actual IF and only IF the bullet was aggressively stabilized. If Sg was on the low side then you get bad results, like 10% out. Well, that should tell you right away that the problem is precession of yaw at moderate gyroscopic rotational speeds. Beyond that, the velocities used by Litz were not disclosed meaning that the data presented cannot be analyzed for error. This is because velocity and BC are related. Further, you might understand what BC is derived from and how it's presented. Since the advertised number is an average, it's averaged by the manufacturers normally for the velocity band that the bullet is meant to operate in. Target bullets get used commonly all the way out to the transonic velocity regime. Game bullets simply do not as a generalized rule. They're generally meant to hit at fairly high velocities in order to initiate expansion. The article you linked doesn't debunk Nosler's BC numbers very well. It describes clearly the effect on BC of insufficient twist rates and how the LRAB seems to respond. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
BC numbers for 142 long range accubond
Top