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 coefficients?
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="Brent" data-source="post: 27964" data-attributes="member: 99"><p>Max,</p><p></p><p>Hope I wasn't confusing anyone, or possibly misleading them, sorry to simplify so much, so to clarify some...</p><p></p><p><strong>For a reality check on my part, would not BC comparisons based on different G functions be an apple/orange thing?</strong></p><p></p><p>Absolutely. </p><p><em>the number is a referance only relative to use with that drag model and is meaningless to compare to the others</em></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>The G1 form is...crude, from an aerodynamic perspective. BC calculation is part weight, part form, so if you're on the wrong "scale" does the data have any particular validity?</strong></p><p></p><p>I think it comes close enough for most SR hunters, that's why they keep passing the G1 off as reality with all bullets, or ignoring it's shortcomings to sell bullets. Until people start exposing their error in using the G1 drag table for a specific bullet and correcting it with a more correct one to use, regaurdless of the lower number it produces, it will be the standard they all keep us fixed to. </p><p></p><p>The G1 works to a point, just have to decide at what point it isn't working well enough and another is I guess.</p><p></p><p><strong>The mention above regarding changing BC's(Seen in the Sierra Manual also), and some other comments I see from time to time are making me appreciate the Coeficient of Drag approach used by the 'Aeroballisticians', as McCoy called himself and his peers.</strong></p><p></p><p>Can you explain on that a little more Max?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Brent, post: 27964, member: 99"] Max, Hope I wasn't confusing anyone, or possibly misleading them, sorry to simplify so much, so to clarify some... [B]For a reality check on my part, would not BC comparisons based on different G functions be an apple/orange thing?[/B] Absolutely. [I]the number is a referance only relative to use with that drag model and is meaningless to compare to the others[/I] [B]The G1 form is...crude, from an aerodynamic perspective. BC calculation is part weight, part form, so if you're on the wrong "scale" does the data have any particular validity?[/B] I think it comes close enough for most SR hunters, that's why they keep passing the G1 off as reality with all bullets, or ignoring it's shortcomings to sell bullets. Until people start exposing their error in using the G1 drag table for a specific bullet and correcting it with a more correct one to use, regaurdless of the lower number it produces, it will be the standard they all keep us fixed to. The G1 works to a point, just have to decide at what point it isn't working well enough and another is I guess. [B]The mention above regarding changing BC's(Seen in the Sierra Manual also), and some other comments I see from time to time are making me appreciate the Coeficient of Drag approach used by the 'Aeroballisticians', as McCoy called himself and his peers.[/B] Can you explain on that a little more Max? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
ballistic coefficients?
Top