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
Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?
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="Michael Eichele" data-source="post: 138604" data-attributes="member: 1007"><p>The point is catshooter, that in order for my tests to match yours, all things must be equal. That is all the point I am trying to make. Nothing more nothing less.</p><p></p><p>Differant powders and differant primers WILL yield differant velocities at differant twists. That is alot of variables. So if I test bullet "A" with all of my equipment, and you test that same bullet with yours, yes the results of BC and drag model WILL be differant.</p><p></p><p>Granted, most of the ballistic testing done on record has been done by the military, using VERY similar weapons and load components, so yeah, when using 168's and 175's and othe military match bullets from a 308 with similar twists and similar velocities, things are a little more predictable. Answer me this, when did the military use 178 AMAX's or bergers?? Or when did they use these bullets in a 300 RUM? You simply cannot say that all this ballistic research has been done over the last 100 years and that it is all predictable.</p><p></p><p>You say that makes ballistic software usless. If you are trying to hot a target at 1K with out first doing firing tests, youre right. They are useless.</p><p></p><p>You have to remember that the point of ballistic software is to accurately predict bullet flight in a new enviornment with real world BC's and drag models. Without those 2 key components, software generates a good guess. YOU CAN ONLY GET ACCURATE BC's AND DRAG MODELS FROM REAL WORLD FIRING TESTS.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Eichele, post: 138604, member: 1007"] The point is catshooter, that in order for my tests to match yours, all things must be equal. That is all the point I am trying to make. Nothing more nothing less. Differant powders and differant primers WILL yield differant velocities at differant twists. That is alot of variables. So if I test bullet "A" with all of my equipment, and you test that same bullet with yours, yes the results of BC and drag model WILL be differant. Granted, most of the ballistic testing done on record has been done by the military, using VERY similar weapons and load components, so yeah, when using 168's and 175's and othe military match bullets from a 308 with similar twists and similar velocities, things are a little more predictable. Answer me this, when did the military use 178 AMAX's or bergers?? Or when did they use these bullets in a 300 RUM? You simply cannot say that all this ballistic research has been done over the last 100 years and that it is all predictable. You say that makes ballistic software usless. If you are trying to hot a target at 1K with out first doing firing tests, youre right. They are useless. You have to remember that the point of ballistic software is to accurately predict bullet flight in a new enviornment with real world BC's and drag models. Without those 2 key components, software generates a good guess. YOU CAN ONLY GET ACCURATE BC's AND DRAG MODELS FROM REAL WORLD FIRING TESTS. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Ballistics beyond 2000 yds : do we need/trust them?
Top