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="Buffalobob" data-source="post: 479488" data-attributes="member: 8"><p>In the world of hunting at long range one can consider the antelope I shot last year and explore the limits of the term "significant".</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f85/7-allem-mag-smokes-some-fur-62836/index3.html" target="_blank">http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f85/7-allem-mag-smokes-some-fur-62836/index3.html</a></p><p></p><p>The antelope is hit at the bottom of the spine severing the thoracic aorta at 1080 yards -/+; however, I can increase the G7 BC used in the calculations by 13% and not significantly affect the outcome. I will still hit the bottom of the heart and get a one shot bang flop kill. So one could if one wished to use the word significant say that a 13% change in BC is not significant. However, if we move back about another thousand yards and shoot at the same antelope now at 2K yards we will find that we can not even tolerate a 1% change in BC before it becomes significant and we do not kill the animal. Interestingly enough this is inside the margin of error of measuring BCs. And that less than one percent error has to include other errors such as human, mirage, wind and ranging.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Buffalobob, post: 479488, member: 8"] In the world of hunting at long range one can consider the antelope I shot last year and explore the limits of the term "significant". [URL="http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f85/7-allem-mag-smokes-some-fur-62836/index3.html"]http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f85/7-allem-mag-smokes-some-fur-62836/index3.html[/URL] The antelope is hit at the bottom of the spine severing the thoracic aorta at 1080 yards -/+; however, I can increase the G7 BC used in the calculations by 13% and not significantly affect the outcome. I will still hit the bottom of the heart and get a one shot bang flop kill. So one could if one wished to use the word significant say that a 13% change in BC is not significant. However, if we move back about another thousand yards and shoot at the same antelope now at 2K yards we will find that we can not even tolerate a 1% change in BC before it becomes significant and we do not kill the animal. Interestingly enough this is inside the margin of error of measuring BCs. And that less than one percent error has to include other errors such as human, mirage, wind and ranging. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Let's argue about BC's
Top