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
Let's argue about BC's
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="Long Time Long Ranger" data-source="post: 474521" data-attributes="member: 505"><p>Paul, thanks for advising us. Your bullets are still top notch and a true .74 bc is awesome for a 7mm bullet.</p><p> </p><p>Groper, I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. That makes sense, I just wonder if any of the bullets resistance to side forces such as wind is in the equation.</p><p> </p><p>Montanarifleman, That is my point that if you take the same bc and velocity, etc it will spit out the same results. However I have found discrepancies in that. </p><p> </p><p> Thanks Zeke, I will look at the formulas and see how the wind variable is calculated. My guess is it is straight from the bc because like stated above any bullet with the same bc gets the same results. I know that wind affects different mass and shape objects in different ways. So I will look for the variable for this. In areospace work both the frontal and side signatures are critical in high performance aircraft. With high speed bullets and short time of flight it wouldn't make a lot of difference since all decent bc bullets are aerodynamic. But it could make a few inches when your shooting over 1000 yards. And I bet it is not in the formula. Magnum bullets average +- around 2000 miles per hour and around a second to 1000 yards. So it would not make a lot of difference but it could make some difference. It could be that it is so minimal that it is just not included. Like groper said, I may be just talking out the wrong end but interesting to check anyway.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Long Time Long Ranger, post: 474521, member: 505"] Paul, thanks for advising us. Your bullets are still top notch and a true .74 bc is awesome for a 7mm bullet. Groper, I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. That makes sense, I just wonder if any of the bullets resistance to side forces such as wind is in the equation. Montanarifleman, That is my point that if you take the same bc and velocity, etc it will spit out the same results. However I have found discrepancies in that. Thanks Zeke, I will look at the formulas and see how the wind variable is calculated. My guess is it is straight from the bc because like stated above any bullet with the same bc gets the same results. I know that wind affects different mass and shape objects in different ways. So I will look for the variable for this. In areospace work both the frontal and side signatures are critical in high performance aircraft. With high speed bullets and short time of flight it wouldn't make a lot of difference since all decent bc bullets are aerodynamic. But it could make a few inches when your shooting over 1000 yards. And I bet it is not in the formula. Magnum bullets average +- around 2000 miles per hour and around a second to 1000 yards. So it would not make a lot of difference but it could make some difference. It could be that it is so minimal that it is just not included. Like groper said, I may be just talking out the wrong end but interesting to check anyway. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Let's argue about BC's
Top