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="Jon A" data-source="post: 478292" data-attributes="member: 319"><p>It's called peer review. Please understand, this is what we do. It's in our nature. There's no reason to be personally offended by it. It's how we separate repeatable science from unsubstantiated claims, wild guesses and plain ol' ********. Somebody's got to do it or nothing new ever gets learned.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course. I don't think I've seen anybody in this or any thread here advocating shooting animals at long range without first actually shooting those distances. What I've been advocating is that when somebody finds, through actual shooting, that their actual drop doesn't match the predicted drop, they put forth some effort to find out what the real cause was. </p><p></p><p>If they find that and fix it such that the predictions match reality using as many real and accurate numbers as possible they'll be way better off in the end than if their first reaction to missing a target is to immediately assume it is due to the BC.</p><p></p><p>Keep things in perspective as well. It's one thing to tweak a BC a bit to make things match up at 1500 yds after double and triple checking everything else meticulously. </p><p></p><p>It is quite another for somebody who hasn't done all that but misses a target at ½ that distance to immediately assume it's because the BC of that bullet is 20% or more different "from his rifle." That guy (nobody in particular here but pretty widespread throughout the hunting/shooting world) is almost always wrong and it will catch up with him when he tries to use that new BC at longer ranges and/or different conditions or velocities. </p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, I feel the attitude of "BC's are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get….Just pick a number, any number, just keep sticking numbers in there until you hit the target—then you're done and you know for sure that's the correct BC 'for your rifle'" displayed by so many is not only incorrect, but it encourages people to be like the second guy which in the end does him more harm than good.</p><p></p><p>As for cheer-leading G7's, you're reading things into it that aren't there. For most of the bullets we use, yes, they are much better. But nobody said they are perfect or that they are for all bullets. For example, with the 240 SMK I used stepped G1's because that bullet just doesn't fit the G7 curve well at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jon A, post: 478292, member: 319"] It’s called peer review. Please understand, this is what we do. It’s in our nature. There’s no reason to be personally offended by it. It’s how we separate repeatable science from unsubstantiated claims, wild guesses and plain ol’ ********. Somebody’s got to do it or nothing new ever gets learned. Of course. I don’t think I’ve seen anybody in this or any thread here advocating shooting animals at long range without first actually shooting those distances. What I’ve been advocating is that when somebody finds, through actual shooting, that their actual drop doesn’t match the predicted drop, they put forth some effort to find out what the real cause was. If they find that and fix it such that the predictions match reality using as many real and accurate numbers as possible they’ll be way better off in the end than if their first reaction to missing a target is to immediately assume it is due to the BC. Keep things in perspective as well. It’s one thing to tweak a BC a bit to make things match up at 1500 yds after double and triple checking everything else meticulously. It is quite another for somebody who hasn’t done all that but misses a target at ½ that distance to immediately assume it’s because the BC of that bullet is 20% or more different “from his rifle.” That guy (nobody in particular here but pretty widespread throughout the hunting/shooting world) is almost always wrong and it will catch up with him when he tries to use that new BC at longer ranges and/or different conditions or velocities. Unfortunately, I feel the attitude of “BC’s are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get….Just pick a number, any number, just keep sticking numbers in there until you hit the target—then you’re done and you know for sure that’s the correct BC ‘for your rifle’” displayed by so many is not only incorrect, but it encourages people to be like the second guy which in the end does him more harm than good. As for cheer-leading G7's, you're reading things into it that aren't there. For most of the bullets we use, yes, they are much better. But nobody said they are perfect or that they are for all bullets. For example, with the 240 SMK I used stepped G1's because that bullet just doesn't fit the G7 curve well at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Let's argue about BC's
Top