Which Berger 215 for AP App?!

6point5x284

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
423
Location
USA
Help! My phone died and I got a new one, however all my loads and gun information was lost in my Applied Ballistics app. It's really frustrating as I had everything confirmed out to 1100 yards, but have no backup information regarding my confirmed velocities, etc...

Starting over, I need to first decide which Berger 215 to use. It has a "215 Hybrid" or a "215 Match Hybrid Target" I have no idea which one I have. I only saw one on Bergers site. It looks like the length is the biggest difference. And I noticed both have the outdated inflated BC still vs. what Berger shows on their website. Does anyone know which one is the correct to use? Is there a lot number that designates one vs. the other?! Thanks for any help. I have plenty of time to re-validate everything before my matches start, but not much time for my 300 Win Mag and hunting season.
 
"215 Hybrid"
Length: 1.564
BC: G7 .356 (old BC data)

"215 Match Hybrid Target"
Length: 1.586
BC: G7 .356 (old BC data)

I guess I'll have to borrow a micrometer and measure, but they already have a lot of length variation. Any other suggestions?
 
I tried both the 215 bullet profiles in the app and the trajectory is the exact same. Im not sure how that is but according to the app it is. Then again the app is way off from where my actual shooting is.
 
Thanks for the reply. There is a definite bug with either bullet selection. Sometimes it gives me an incorrect G1 reading, and sometimes an incorrect G7 reading. When I switch from whatever one I know is incorrect, the one I switch to is correct. The problem is knowing when it's a wrong reading or not. The easiest way to tell is the ft/lb reading in the chart. The ft/lb at 1,000 yards is still listed as over 2,600. When I see that, I switch to the opposite BC reading and it's accurate again. It's giant pain in the ***. I would try the opposite of what you currently have it on, and see if you get accurate drop data.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top