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
Experiment for quantifying lot to lot variations of powders
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="Michael Courtney" data-source="post: 684521" data-attributes="member: 28191"><p>This could be the case. But it may also be that then independent parties begin carefully measuring things, the manufacturer's and distributors become more careful about their measurements and the claims they make.</p><p></p><p>Consider ballistic coefficient, for example. Between 2000 and 2010, several independent parties, including us, began earnestly reporting the results of careful BC measurements. About the same time, several companies (including Barnes and Berger) began careful measuring and revising the published BCs of almost all of their bullets. I also think Berger has improved considerably on their lot to lot consistency. They also hired Bryan Litz to help measure BCs and assist in the design of new bullets with higher BCs.</p><p></p><p>Other companies such as Hornady seemed to become more careful in measuring and reporting accurate BC numbers for their new lines of bullets, without revising their published BCs for older lines of bullets. Some other companies (such as Nosler) seemed to continue to publish more "theoretical" numbers which tend to find larger disagreement with BCs determined by independent parties. Still other companies (Sierra) were found to be publishing BC numbers in pretty good agreement with those determined by independent parties.</p><p></p><p>So my bottom line is that many suppliers have a positive history of improving their products and specifications as a result of independent product testing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Courtney, post: 684521, member: 28191"] This could be the case. But it may also be that then independent parties begin carefully measuring things, the manufacturer's and distributors become more careful about their measurements and the claims they make. Consider ballistic coefficient, for example. Between 2000 and 2010, several independent parties, including us, began earnestly reporting the results of careful BC measurements. About the same time, several companies (including Barnes and Berger) began careful measuring and revising the published BCs of almost all of their bullets. I also think Berger has improved considerably on their lot to lot consistency. They also hired Bryan Litz to help measure BCs and assist in the design of new bullets with higher BCs. Other companies such as Hornady seemed to become more careful in measuring and reporting accurate BC numbers for their new lines of bullets, without revising their published BCs for older lines of bullets. Some other companies (such as Nosler) seemed to continue to publish more "theoretical" numbers which tend to find larger disagreement with BCs determined by independent parties. Still other companies (Sierra) were found to be publishing BC numbers in pretty good agreement with those determined by independent parties. So my bottom line is that many suppliers have a positive history of improving their products and specifications as a result of independent product testing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Experiment for quantifying lot to lot variations of powders
Top