Anybody calculated AccuBond B.C?

Somebody asked how you would determine the bullet B.C. Here's what I'd do:

1. Fire your pet load on a certain day, note muzzle velocity, air temp, barometric pressure.
2. Determine your 'come ups' for different ranges.
3. Plug the velocity and weather and altitude into your software along with bullet B.C. Compare the drop data calculations to your actual field results.
4. If they dont exactly match at the all ranges then change your bullet B.C. value up or down until the software calculations match field data.
5. Write down the numbers you used.

You should now be able to pull up drop data for any hunting condition you need anywhere in the world.


You hit the nail dead on the head. Except you DO NOT want to enter the wheather AND your altitude into the computer together. If you are reading raw pressure at your shooting location the altidute should ALWAYS be entered as 0 feet. If you cannot measure the pressure, then you enter the default pressure and then altitude. Bear in mind if there is higher than normal system or lower than normal pressure system in your area, it can throw off your tests quite a bit. It is always best to measure the temp, local barometric pressure and if possible humidity (if not possible it isnt a big deals as humidity has very little effect on the bullet's flight) and ignore the altitude altogether.

Any .30 Accubond 180 gr bullet should have the same ballistic coeficient (B.C.) regardless of what .30 caliber gun (i.e 300 RUM, .300 WM, or .30-06) since the B.C is a measure of the bullet's efficiency in flight - compared to the model's 'standard' projectile. Same theory applies to another caliber bullet as well. Right?

Wouldn't the same bullet in a certain caliber have the same B.C since ballistic coefficient is a measure of it's efficiency in flight (drag through the air)?



Not exactly.

Bullet's BC's change with a number of factors. The 2 biggest factors that have the most influence on BC would be velocity and stability factor. The 2 biggest factors for stability factor is made up of velocity and twist and bullet demensions. For example, a bullet that is spun much faster than it needs to be will point it's tip more to the right (for a right hand twist) than normal. This will cause more drag on the bullet. Also an overspun bullet will tend to keep it's nose pointed towards the angle in which it was fired (up) even during the length of it's flight. This too causes excessive drag. Overspinning a bullet causes a decrease in BC potential due to these factors. This is a high stability factor. A bullet that is stable yet is riding the edge of under stable will exibit yaw during the first several hundred plus yards before it stabilizes. Because the bullet isn't flying smooth it also restricts BC potential. This is a low stability factor. The better you match your bullets to your twist and velocity, the better your BC will be regardless of bullet type. Now if you use bullets that tend to deliver high BC's due to form and match the twist to it, you will have at least an an advertised BC and in most cases a much higher BC than advertised. Velocity will also have a huge effect on the BC. A quick look at the Sierra loading manual and you will find that they give you different BC's for a given bullet between certain velocities.

So in answer to your question. No. The ACCUBOND 180 will not have the exact same BC from rifle to rifle let alone cartridge to cartridge. Different twists, different velocities, different quaility of land impressions will all come into play. You may find that in most circumstances that the published .507 will be very close from gun to gun and cartridge to cartridge (+/- a small percentage) but there will always be an odd duck that where the stars align just right and it may yield an unussually high BC or the opposite can occur and you will be very dissapointed in the BC you are getting.

I hope that helps.

PS yes most manufacturers use the G1 model. The G models are just different models for different amounts of BC decay. The BC will change during flight. How much it changes depends on a great number of things. If you can not seem to make your ballistic software match your real world tests by manipulating the BC alone, it is time to change the drag model (G model) In alot of cases changing the drag model can help you more closley match your computer to your real world tests.
 
Last edited:
Meichele,

Thanks for that info. I never realized how complicated that is. I've always thought that B.C. data was strictly the measure of 'efficiency in flight'. I truly appreciate the insight.

I've always just picked my round, shot the drop data, plugged it in to the software and tweaked my B.C to match.

Thanks for clarifying the pressure/altitude application for the software, too.

Jace
 
Thanks for asking the question Thor, and thanks for the answer Michael!
I have copied that entire post above to a Word document for future use.

Now I have a question. :)
Michael, you say that the BC changes in flight due to velocity changes. This makes perfect sense to me, because if I remember my high school physics, drag is a function of the velocity squared, along with other factors.

Does ExBal or any other software take that fact into account when figuring drops?
I'm inclined to think that they probably do not since it would be very complicated to do.
It would probably require the user to input known velocities at predetermined ranges to figure it, correct?

Matt
 
Last edited:
Michael, you say that the BC changes in flight due to velocity changes. This makes perfect sense to me, because if I remember my high school physics, drag is a function of the velocity squared, along with other factors.

Does ExBal or any other software take that fact into account when figuring drops?

Yes. That is what the G1, G5, G7 ect.... option is for. The program just sees youre asking it to use a specific drag model and the software does the rest. It calculates the BC decay over the life of the bullet's flight. Most ballistic software is very very accurate so long as you feed it good parameters. Once you settle on a BC for your load/rifle combo, that number stays the same for that load as a constant (even though the air density changes it, the computer corrects that automatically.) Then all you need to do is adjust the enviornmental factors and the software will correct your drops. Usually (this goes for all software) there will be some minor flaws in the trajectory tables from your real world experiances. You may find your drops are 6.5 MOA at 600 yards, 12.75 at 800 and 20.75 at 1000 yards. The software chart might calculate 6.25, 12.5, 20.75. Just remember any quarks and adjust for them when the moment of truth arrives.
 
Published ballistic coefecient

My experience with the 160 Accubond in the 7mm rem mag. I am shooting at about 5600' elevation, 65 degrees 30% humidity. i have to adjust published #'s on all bullets up by 80 to100 points. When I plug in published #'s for bullets with my chrono velocity's and all other factors they shoot high. The .338 225 Acubnd will shoot 2 high @ 1000 yards. When I plug in .612 for BC instead of Noslers published .550 then the calculations are correct for it at any range from 100 to 1000. I see the same thing with the .300 sierra HPBTMK out of the .338 Edge. I use .871 for it in the Edge Load. Sierra says it is .750.
The higher the altitude the less dense the air. Cold air is less dense than hot air. that's a big reason most flatlanders are shooting over everything at high altitude.
I WAS TOLD BY A KNOWING GENTLEMAN AT BARNES BULLETS THAT AT THIS ALTITUDE TO ADJUST ALL CALCULATIONS WITH .080/.120 UP OVER PUBLISHED BC'S AND IT WOULD GET ME CLOSER TO CENTER ON LONGER RANGE SHOOTING. I HAVE FOUND IT TO BE A VERY TRUE STATEMENT. WHAT IS PUBLISHED IS BASICILY FOR SEA LEVEL WITH HIGH HUMIDY AND DIFFERENT BAROMETRIC PRESSURE THAN YOU WILL SEE AS YOU GO UPHILL.
Build your LOAD, set some Targets and SHOOT. WRITE DOWN EVERYTHING.

HOPE THIS HELPS
 
Yes, You Are Correct, I Missed That Correction On My Edit Before Posting, Its Another Reason Bullets Shoot Flatter In Hot Weather
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 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