• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

Are you thinking of BC the wrong way?

DocUSMCRetired

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2014
Messages
819
Location
Texas
Are you programmed to incorrectly picture what a BC should look like?

BCPred.jpg


What do you think of when you think of a BC? Does a simple one number solution come to mind? Or do you picture a velocity band? When you talk about the BC of a bullet, it is important to make sure that you don't forget the other half of that number. A BC should always be followed by an indicator. It is not just enough to call upon a single number. By using a single number you don't see the entire performance of the bullet. You also don't get a fair comparison of one product to another. Making it easy to push a little marketing hype in to what the consumer thinks. This can also hide a bullets true performance, and some bullets have a wide variation in BC from Mach 2.5+ to Mach 0.9-(Subsonic), while others are more consistent. Anytime you see a BC you should be asking yourself "at what velocity". All BCs published by Applied Ballistics are averaged from 3000 fps to 1500 fps. Averaged is the key word here. It is important that the consumer understands comparing apples to apples. You cannot take a Mach 2.5 or high BC and compare it an averaged BC or a Mach 2.0 or Mach 0.9 BC etc.

A BC is only true at 1 specific velocity, which is why you can find velocity bands published in the Ballistic Performance Book, but also why you can twist a little marketing hype in to them by using the highest performing velocity band as the published BC on the box. (You can hide a bullets flaws this way) As Bryan put it "The BC changes a lot over the flight of the bullet."

As a shooter anytime you see a BC you should be seeing 2 indicators. Think of it like when you look at a cars mpg. The cars list "## highway, ## city". Well a BC should say "## G7 Averaged" or "## @ Mach 2.5 & ## @ Mach 1.0 & etc. ". You could use ## G7 @ 2800 fps, and it would be just fine. As long as you know where in the velocity band that BC was calculated at, it allows for a more honest comparison against other bullets. So the next time you see a BC the first question that pops in to your head should be "where is the rest of the story" followed by asking the question "at what velocity".

Of course, if you use Applied Ballistics CDMs you don't have to worry about velocity effects of BC as your bullets drag is being modeled all together. Giving you not only a more accurate prediction, but also removing any marketing bias. However we know it can be hard to compare bullets on the shelf this way. So it is still important every time you see "BC G# 0.###" that you ask yourself "At what velocity".
 
We get it, you don't like Hornady. This is like the 2nd time you have made a post attacking them. Just let it go.
 
We get it, you don't like Hornady. This is like the 2nd time you have made a post attacking them. Just let it go.

There is no discussion of Hornady in this post. This post is about guiding shooters to an understanding of how to think about a BC, which when used correctly will provide more accurate shooting solutions and comparisons. It applied to no bullet company specifically, only bullets and how shooters share BC data in general.
 
I use applied ballistics for my Ballistic solutions, and I also use it when choosing bullet selection. Prior to purchasing the 147 eldm's for my .260 ai, A.B. didn't have that bullet in their list yet, so I went to hornady's site and found the stepped b.c. that hornady lists, the link to it is on the bullets page, and used the ability of A.B. to enter in the b.c.'s that are stepped by velocity bands (like 2100 fps to 1700 fps average, for instance) and had 3 or 4 different velocity bands, and estimated a velocity I could get and compared it to my current load, and that's why I switched to the 147's.

Now I use the actual mapped out trajectory that applied ballistics tested, and it is spot on, I also compared it to my stepped velocity from hornady and the two were within .25 MOA all the way out go a mile.

But in my mind, using applied ballistics or an app that has similar abilities is the best way to choose a bullet, just like Doc said, make sure you enter the proper b.c. and it gives you a good fair comparison of ballistics when looking at bullets, and a.b. even gives you graphs so you can visually compare. Just my thoughts
 
Hello,

Correct, but we also have to realize that "most" modern projectiles..especially the ELR projectiles do not fit into ANY "G" series formulas..G1, G7, yada yada. The newer projectiles step out of the rationale of what either of those "G" formulas we built to rationalize...so essentially BC numbers are almost to the point of BS numbers :D

THEIS
 
Good point on BC's not fitting some bullets; Even G7 isn't always a good enough drag model for some bullets especially at ELR.

This is where Custom Drag Models (CDM's) come in. CDM's model the actual drag of a specific bullet, with no regard to a 'standard'. The bullet is it's own standard. This is the most accurate way of modeling drag.

For 'normal' long range, BC's even with their errors are still good enough for nearly anything in the supersonic range of flight. It's only when you get to transonic and ELR distances that the fidelity of the CDM makes the difference between a hit and a miss.

Another benefit of BC's is that they provide a means for comparison. It's one quick number that indicates a bullets performance, which you can compare to another bullet. CDM's don't use comparisons, and it takes an entire table to characterize a CDM so it's not easy to compare bullets.

So despite their shortcomings for ELR application, I don't expect BC's to ever go away completely.

-Bryan
 
I usually go with a average BC when it's listed in several Mach ranges. I also pay more attention to the form factor when I choose a bullet.

I also pay attention to consistency, I don't necessarily need the highest BC, just a accurate one. Bullet weight and bearing surface consistency makes more of a difference to me than a couple of BC points.
A bullet with a super high BC doesn't mean squat to me if I can't get it fast enough to out run a lighter bullet with a lower BC. The 130 match hybrid comes to mind when I compared it to the averaged BC of the 147 ELD and the intended ranges I was shooting. The 130 had a flatter trajectory with my particular rifle all the way out to 1000 yards.
So once my rifles became more precise, I started seeing the flaws in bullet manufacturing and how much velocity plays a role in my bullet selection.
 
I usually go with a average BC when it's listed in several Mach ranges. I also pay more attention to the form factor when I choose a bullet.

I also pay attention to consistency, I don't necessarily need the highest BC, just a accurate one. Bullet weight and bearing surface consistency makes more of a difference to me than a couple of BC points.
A bullet with a super high BC doesn't mean squat to me if I can't get it fast enough to out run a lighter bullet with a lower BC. The 130 match hybrid comes to mind when I compared it to the averaged BC of the 147 ELD and the intended ranges I was shooting. The 130 had a flatter trajectory with my particular rifle all the way out to 1000 yards.
So once my rifles became more precise, I started seeing the flaws in bullet manufacturing and how much velocity plays a role in my bullet selection.

What speeds were you shooting the two bullets? And did the 147's not shoot well for you? I almost gave up on the 147's but I finally found a load that shot sub MOA, but they were super picky about how much jump.

The main things I look at when comparing two bullets trajectory is, in this order, wind drift, retained bullet energy/speed, and the final consideration, and doesn't even really matter to me unless all other factors are the same, is drop. Bullet drop is a known factor, you use a rangefinder so you know exactly how far your target is, so that is accounted for 100%, and if you take your range properly there is little to no error in it. Energy and velocity of course is important for terminal performance, but the most important factor is being able to hit your target, and you are essentially guessing with wind, and if you are wrong, a bullet that drifts less gives you more room for error, and hitting your target comes above all else.

Now, these are what I consider when choosing a bullet to do load development with, but what makes or breaks it of course is if it shoots accurate in my gun. If the 147's weren't half MOA or less like they are, I would of course go back to my 140 VLD's that shoot wonderful.

For reference, my 140 VLD'S were going 2930fps with H4831sc, and I'm using rl26 with the 147's, and they are going 3090fps, so the 147's are far superior to the 140's in bc and speed, I would have to shoot the 140's over 3200 to make up for the extremely high bc of the 147's. I haven't tried rl26 with the 140's yet, but I might do that to see just how fast I can get them scooting, but with my specific rifle, I just don't think the speed would make up for it. In smaller chambering though like a creedmoore or 6.5x47, you might not get the extra performance with the 147's.
 
What speeds were you shooting the two bullets? And did the 147's not shoot well for you? I almost gave up on the 147's but I finally found a load that shot sub MOA, but they were super picky about how much jump.

The main things I look at when comparing two bullets trajectory is, in this order, wind drift, retained bullet energy/speed, and the final consideration, and doesn't even really matter to me unless all other factors are the same, is drop. Bullet drop is a known factor, you use a rangefinder so you know exactly how far your target is, so that is accounted for 100%, and if you take your range properly there is little to no error in it. Energy and velocity of course is important for terminal performance, but the most important factor is being able to hit your target, and you are essentially guessing with wind, and if you are wrong, a bullet that drifts less gives you more room for error, and hitting your target comes above all else.

Now, these are what I consider when choosing a bullet to do load development with, but what makes or breaks it of course is if it shoots accurate in my gun. If the 147's weren't half MOA or less like they are, I would of course go back to my 140 VLD's that shoot wonderful.

For reference, my 140 VLD'S were going 2930fps with H4831sc, and I'm using rl26 with the 147's, and they are going 3090fps, so the 147's are far superior to the 140's in bc and speed, I would have to shoot the 140's over 3200 to make up for the extremely high bc of the 147's. I haven't tried rl26 with the 140's yet, but I might do that to see just how fast I can get them scooting, but with my specific rifle, I just don't think the speed would make up for it. In smaller chambering though like a creedmoore or 6.5x47, you might not get the extra performance with the 147's.
147s 2589fps about 1/2 Moa Es about 10 averaged BC .665 up 9.5 mils drift 1.9 to 1000 yards


130 AR match 2900fps about 1/4 Moa ES of 5 BC of .569 up 7.9 mil drift 2.0 to 1000 yards
Both supersonic to 1500 yards
 
Good point on BC's not fitting some bullets; Even G7 isn't always a good enough drag model for some bullets especially at ELR.

This is where Custom Drag Models (CDM's) come in. CDM's model the actual drag of a specific bullet, with no regard to a 'standard'. The bullet is it's own standard. This is the most accurate way of modeling drag.

For 'normal' long range, BC's even with their errors are still good enough for nearly anything in the supersonic range of flight. It's only when you get to transonic and ELR distances that the fidelity of the CDM makes the difference between a hit and a miss.

Another benefit of BC's is that they provide a means for comparison. It's one quick number that indicates a bullets performance, which you can compare to another bullet. CDM's don't use comparisons, and it takes an entire table to characterize a CDM so it's not easy to compare bullets.

So despite their shortcomings for ELR application, I don't expect BC's to ever go away completely.

-Bryan

Thank you for all your time an effort into getting the real BCs with relationship to velocity...

I just "found" your ballistic calculator on the Berger website. Does your Calculator take in the varying BCs with the decreasing velocity or does it just use the G7 average across the board?

I am shooting the 270 170gr and according to the tables, I am still supersonic at 2k yards, (5k altitude) which I really do not plan to shoot that far...I have only confirmed the drops out to 930 yards...

Thanks in advance...
 
Thank you for all your time an effort into getting the real BCs with relationship to velocity...

I just "found" your ballistic calculator on the Berger website. Does your Calculator take in the varying BCs with the decreasing velocity or does it just use the G7 average across the board?

I am shooting the 270 170gr and according to the tables, I am still supersonic at 2k yards, (5k altitude) which I really do not plan to shoot that far...I have only confirmed the drops out to 930 yards...

Thanks in advance...

Our AB Android version is the last remaining hold out that allows for this. We are getting away from Segmented BCs and going to straight CDMs in all our programs/apps/devices. Segmented BCs in apps are essentially a Band-Aid fix. But why have 5 zones for a bullet when you can have 30 or more using a CDM.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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