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
Come on out - It's safe now
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="Mikecr" data-source="post: 78326" data-attributes="member: 1521"><p><strong>Re: Come on out - It\'s safe now</strong></p><p></p><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p>What qaulifying information are we after and what can be a consensus on how to go about getting B.C. figures that all can understand and agree upon?</p><p></p><p>Are we talking about having 2 chronographs? </p><p></p><p>Are there any programs out there that can convert to sea level from the conditions of where we(tester) are at at the time of testing? </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ]</p><p></p><p>The information needed depends on what is missing.</p><p>If the observation is drop or clicks/MOA of compensation, then example qualifiers would be scope height(exact), MV, Atmos data, Scope type("/100yds, 1/8moa, etc), base angle, zero, shot angle, wind compensation, bearing, lattitude.</p><p></p><p>Many of these are eliminated with 2 chronographs. So this would be the preferred/more accurate method provided you aren't introducing even more error. Cheap chronos, narrow screen spacing, #of shots in avg, etc, would need to be taken into account if all is based on this data alone.</p><p></p><p>Then with software, trial &amp; error to get a local match and again from hypothetical SL Std BCs. This would need to be derived and validated with more than one program because they all have strength and weakness in different areas.</p><p></p><p>This is why some of the best bullet makers don't advertise BC. They don't know, and don't have the resources or motivation to find out. Their bullets sell based on other attributes.</p><p>Some tolerances and assumptions would always have to be accepted. But there are plenty of resources here to pinpoint and convert observations into truly usable information -across the board. Just takes patience, and a culture which allows for open -polite- questions.</p><p></p><p>But why is this important to do? Like Fifty suggests, all that matters to you is what you need to enter in your software, right? If you hunt locally only, and have a particular caliber/cartridge/twist already, then it probably doesn't matter for you. Buy it, try it.</p><p>But for those who hunt abroad, or those considering a new rifle chambering and shooting system, it all starts with a bullet. And comparisons in choice can only occur within the same standards.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mikecr, post: 78326, member: 1521"] [b]Re: Come on out - It\'s safe now[/b] [ QUOTE ] What qaulifying information are we after and what can be a consensus on how to go about getting B.C. figures that all can understand and agree upon? Are we talking about having 2 chronographs? Are there any programs out there that can convert to sea level from the conditions of where we(tester) are at at the time of testing? [/ QUOTE ] The information needed depends on what is missing. If the observation is drop or clicks/MOA of compensation, then example qualifiers would be scope height(exact), MV, Atmos data, Scope type("/100yds, 1/8moa, etc), base angle, zero, shot angle, wind compensation, bearing, lattitude. Many of these are eliminated with 2 chronographs. So this would be the preferred/more accurate method provided you aren't introducing even more error. Cheap chronos, narrow screen spacing, #of shots in avg, etc, would need to be taken into account if all is based on this data alone. Then with software, trial & error to get a local match and again from hypothetical SL Std BCs. This would need to be derived and validated with more than one program because they all have strength and weakness in different areas. This is why some of the best bullet makers don't advertise BC. They don't know, and don't have the resources or motivation to find out. Their bullets sell based on other attributes. Some tolerances and assumptions would always have to be accepted. But there are plenty of resources here to pinpoint and convert observations into truly usable information -across the board. Just takes patience, and a culture which allows for open -polite- questions. But why is this important to do? Like Fifty suggests, all that matters to you is what you need to enter in your software, right? If you hunt locally only, and have a particular caliber/cartridge/twist already, then it probably doesn't matter for you. Buy it, try it. But for those who hunt abroad, or those considering a new rifle chambering and shooting system, it all starts with a bullet. And comparisons in choice can only occur within the same standards. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Come on out - It's safe now
Top