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="Michael Eichele" data-source="post: 479747" data-attributes="member: 1007"><p>You use 'observed' I use static and dynamic. I think 'observed' is a poor word you think static is a poor word. I guess that makes us even. (No dissrespect meant).</p><p></p><p>If a given bullet arrives at a target at a given TOF and velocity that is the 'observed' or 'dynamic' BC. When it is drawn out on paper and mathematically examined, that is the 'static' BC (SD/FF). I get the impression here that when Bryan does a TOF test that the BC value determined is an absolute (unobserved) value. When I test a BC and it's TOF is different, it is now an 'observed' BC which is invalid. The reality is that Bryan's or anybodies tests for that matter yeild 'observed' BC's. It is this BC that is 'observed' from my rifle that I am concerned with. I could care less about it when it is drawn out on a peice of paper or generated by a computer. </p><p></p><p>Static versus dynamic are great words. There will be a calculated BC and an observed BC, a static BC and a dynamic BC. Rarely will they ever agree down range. </p><p></p><p>Is it possible to change the sectional density of a bullet with a tight bore? Yes. Will a higher SD 'add' to a BC? Yes.</p><p></p><p>Are we splitting hairs here? Sure. The point is, to SOME extent we are both right. The truth lays somewhere in the middle.</p><p></p><p>You have to understand that for the most part, I agree with you and Bryan and Mark that BC's are typically reduced by a barrels influences. I just happen to believe that a given barrel can maximize a bullets potential as well, and in some circumstances, (for technicality sake) add a fraction. Either way, the sum of the parts working together make up the 'dynamic' (observed) BC that will cause a given bullet to arrive at a given range with a given TOF and a given velocity be it higher or lower than yours. That is the only value I care about. If you say bullet xyz should only have a .568 BC and my real TOF and end velocity show .543 or heaven forbid, .585, guess which one I am going to use?</p><p></p><p>I think maybe you guys are under the impression that I believe that if a bullet has a potential of .6 (in general) that I believe that a barrel's influence and other potions can make it have a .8 BC and that is not the case. So far, I have only seen one example where the 'observed' BC was about .060 higher than it should have been which should be verified or debunked next week. I dont feel however that the difference between .500 +/- .025 should raise any eyebrows or hackles.</p><p></p><p>What I am refering to here and have been refering to is the fact that anybody can come up with a value that is lower or higher when compared to a BC that has been tested by another indavidual. I dont meen come up with a BC that is physically impossible, I meen a BC that is higher than the bullet it was compared against (ie your bullet from your rifle versus my bullet in my rifle versus Bryan's bullet in his rifle.) Many here would all like to accept one or two people here as the final authority on ballistics. The final authority here really is the ballistics in and of themselves. </p><p>M</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Eichele, post: 479747, member: 1007"] You use 'observed' I use static and dynamic. I think 'observed' is a poor word you think static is a poor word. I guess that makes us even. (No dissrespect meant). If a given bullet arrives at a target at a given TOF and velocity that is the 'observed' or 'dynamic' BC. When it is drawn out on paper and mathematically examined, that is the 'static' BC (SD/FF). I get the impression here that when Bryan does a TOF test that the BC value determined is an absolute (unobserved) value. When I test a BC and it's TOF is different, it is now an 'observed' BC which is invalid. The reality is that Bryan's or anybodies tests for that matter yeild 'observed' BC's. It is this BC that is 'observed' from my rifle that I am concerned with. I could care less about it when it is drawn out on a peice of paper or generated by a computer. Static versus dynamic are great words. There will be a calculated BC and an observed BC, a static BC and a dynamic BC. Rarely will they ever agree down range. Is it possible to change the sectional density of a bullet with a tight bore? Yes. Will a higher SD 'add' to a BC? Yes. Are we splitting hairs here? Sure. The point is, to SOME extent we are both right. The truth lays somewhere in the middle. You have to understand that for the most part, I agree with you and Bryan and Mark that BC's are typically reduced by a barrels influences. I just happen to believe that a given barrel can maximize a bullets potential as well, and in some circumstances, (for technicality sake) add a fraction. Either way, the sum of the parts working together make up the 'dynamic' (observed) BC that will cause a given bullet to arrive at a given range with a given TOF and a given velocity be it higher or lower than yours. That is the only value I care about. If you say bullet xyz should only have a .568 BC and my real TOF and end velocity show .543 or heaven forbid, .585, guess which one I am going to use? I think maybe you guys are under the impression that I believe that if a bullet has a potential of .6 (in general) that I believe that a barrel's influence and other potions can make it have a .8 BC and that is not the case. So far, I have only seen one example where the 'observed' BC was about .060 higher than it should have been which should be verified or debunked next week. I dont feel however that the difference between .500 +/- .025 should raise any eyebrows or hackles. What I am refering to here and have been refering to is the fact that anybody can come up with a value that is lower or higher when compared to a BC that has been tested by another indavidual. I dont meen come up with a BC that is physically impossible, I meen a BC that is higher than the bullet it was compared against (ie your bullet from your rifle versus my bullet in my rifle versus Bryan's bullet in his rifle.) Many here would all like to accept one or two people here as the final authority on ballistics. The final authority here really is the ballistics in and of themselves. M [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Let's argue about BC's
Top