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
Help Needed with LB3.0 and .338 Bergers
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="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 397306" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>The current evolving value of the BC for the .338 Berger Hybrid is a real life example of the flaw associated with identifying MVs based on measured drops. The presumption was that the Berger .338 published BC was correct. Now the presumption is that the original Berger BC is incorrect. Taking a flawed BC value and tweaking the MV in a ballistics program until it matches your drops produces a drop chart that will only be valid at the range and environmental conditions under which the bullet drop data was collected. Because now the input values for BC and MV will both be flawed. Take that drop chart, or the ballistics program with the faulty BC and MV to another set of environmental conditions, and there can be no expectation of correctly predicted dope.</p><p></p><p>So as inconvenient as this exercise is proving for Broz, it clearly demonstrates my preference to tie down the MV with chronographs during load development right from the get-go. Then when the field drops versus predicted dope inconsistency rears its ugly head, less guessing and speculation is required because the MV is more or less a known value.</p><p></p><p>I tend to believe if LB predicted dope isn't matching the carefully collected and documented field measured drops, then there's a problem with the quality of the input values entered into the program. And an accurate MV is vital to the whole process. Rant off! gun) gun)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 397306, member: 4191"] The current evolving value of the BC for the .338 Berger Hybrid is a real life example of the flaw associated with identifying MVs based on measured drops. The presumption was that the Berger .338 published BC was correct. Now the presumption is that the original Berger BC is incorrect. Taking a flawed BC value and tweaking the MV in a ballistics program until it matches your drops produces a drop chart that will only be valid at the range and environmental conditions under which the bullet drop data was collected. Because now the input values for BC and MV will both be flawed. Take that drop chart, or the ballistics program with the faulty BC and MV to another set of environmental conditions, and there can be no expectation of correctly predicted dope. So as inconvenient as this exercise is proving for Broz, it clearly demonstrates my preference to tie down the MV with chronographs during load development right from the get-go. Then when the field drops versus predicted dope inconsistency rears its ugly head, less guessing and speculation is required because the MV is more or less a known value. I tend to believe if LB predicted dope isn't matching the carefully collected and documented field measured drops, then there's a problem with the quality of the input values entered into the program. And an accurate MV is vital to the whole process. Rant off! gun) gun) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Help Needed with LB3.0 and .338 Bergers
Top