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
ballistic coefficient on bullets
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="ss7mm" data-source="post: 130981" data-attributes="member: 5"><p>[ QUOTE ]</p><p> That is unfortunate. If everyone would just get it in their head that it is JUST A GUIDELINE for comparison and not scripture, then those of us who know that could run some trajectories for fun and see just what those long missiles would do. </p><p></p><p>[/ QUOTE ] </p><p></p><p>I agree completely. Normally I don't even respond to BC discussions but, I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind people's statements that they won't even try a bullet without published BC info.</p><p></p><p>If you know anything about bullets and their construction and the results of certain combinations then you can easily get started with the fun of what everybody should do, and that's test them yourself. I've never taken any published BC info as anything other than a starting point. If I don't have anything to start with I can come close enough to keep my feeble little brain happy until I do what I always do, and that is launch them down my barrel under my conditions and prove what they do, under all conditions at all ranges. </p><p></p><p>Then, and only then, I have a BC that applies to my equipment and under the conditions under which I tested them.</p><p></p><p>I would think that if you can spend thousands and thousands of dollars on guns, optics, travel for hunting and related equipment then you should be able to spend a few bucks on bullets to make sure that when you have that big buck/bull etc. in your sights in the fall that you know the bullet/cartridge/load combo you are using is the absolute best you could put together for your gun. But then I guess this logic would only apply if you aren't the type that shoots only 10-20 rounds a year and then goes "hunting". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ss7mm, post: 130981, member: 5"] [ QUOTE ] That is unfortunate. If everyone would just get it in their head that it is JUST A GUIDELINE for comparison and not scripture, then those of us who know that could run some trajectories for fun and see just what those long missiles would do. [/ QUOTE ] I agree completely. Normally I don't even respond to BC discussions but, I've never been able to understand the reasoning behind people's statements that they won't even try a bullet without published BC info. If you know anything about bullets and their construction and the results of certain combinations then you can easily get started with the fun of what everybody should do, and that's test them yourself. I've never taken any published BC info as anything other than a starting point. If I don't have anything to start with I can come close enough to keep my feeble little brain happy until I do what I always do, and that is launch them down my barrel under my conditions and prove what they do, under all conditions at all ranges. Then, and only then, I have a BC that applies to my equipment and under the conditions under which I tested them. I would think that if you can spend thousands and thousands of dollars on guns, optics, travel for hunting and related equipment then you should be able to spend a few bucks on bullets to make sure that when you have that big buck/bull etc. in your sights in the fall that you know the bullet/cartridge/load combo you are using is the absolute best you could put together for your gun. But then I guess this logic would only apply if you aren't the type that shoots only 10-20 rounds a year and then goes "hunting". [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
ballistic coefficient on bullets
Top