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
Berger Bullets Announces Launch of a New Ammo Company
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="cohunter14" data-source="post: 983552" data-attributes="member: 55580"><p>Michael, first and foremost, I appreciate you keeping this debate friendly, as I have had no intention of it being otherwise. The one thing I want to point out is that you did say this earlier in the thread: It sounds like you haven't shot the 230's yet, but that seems to be a blanket statement that would lead people to believe it was meant about every bullet.</p><p> </p><p>While I understand that certain things can affect the measurement of the BC, including the altitude, temperature, etc along with potential flaws in a scope, using your method could produce the same thing, right?</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You have measured the accuracy of the chronographs, but then again couldn't the Kestrel be off? My argument would simply be that there are always 'potential' errors out there with any sort of equipment. But, when there are a number of people who shoot Berger bullets (not just the 230 I should add) and they verify the BC's based on drops and windage out to 1,000+ yards, isn't that a better measurement than any scientific method out there? Having multiple people verify a BC by shooting a bullet at extensive distances would mean more to me than a 'scientifically correct' BC that is done by one party.</p><p> </p><p>Like I said earlier, I would rather have a BC that is accurate with drops and windage than one that is 'scientifically accurate,' but will not match up with my ballistic program, and therefore my drops and windage are off.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cohunter14, post: 983552, member: 55580"] Michael, first and foremost, I appreciate you keeping this debate friendly, as I have had no intention of it being otherwise. The one thing I want to point out is that you did say this earlier in the thread: It sounds like you haven't shot the 230's yet, but that seems to be a blanket statement that would lead people to believe it was meant about every bullet. While I understand that certain things can affect the measurement of the BC, including the altitude, temperature, etc along with potential flaws in a scope, using your method could produce the same thing, right? You have measured the accuracy of the chronographs, but then again couldn't the Kestrel be off? My argument would simply be that there are always 'potential' errors out there with any sort of equipment. But, when there are a number of people who shoot Berger bullets (not just the 230 I should add) and they verify the BC's based on drops and windage out to 1,000+ yards, isn't that a better measurement than any scientific method out there? Having multiple people verify a BC by shooting a bullet at extensive distances would mean more to me than a 'scientifically correct' BC that is done by one party. Like I said earlier, I would rather have a BC that is accurate with drops and windage than one that is 'scientifically accurate,' but will not match up with my ballistic program, and therefore my drops and windage are off. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Berger Bullets Announces Launch of a New Ammo Company
Top