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
BC Article- Link
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="Chas1" data-source="post: 359962" data-attributes="member: 15738"><p><em>vary any of those and BC changes...that's a fact</em></p><p>No, it's not a fact. It's wrong. He is wrong. You believe him, so you are <strong>wrong.</strong> That's the point. The damage being done of which I spoke has been done on <em>you.</em> Because you don't understand. Now, let's remedy that:</p><p> </p><p>The standard conditions corrected BC (which is all you should care about) will not change. If you change the conditions, yes, the actual trajectory, etc, will change. This is because the aerodynamic drag on the bullet will change with the conditions. But it will also change on the G1 or G7 "standard projectile," so the relative rate of velocity decay between the two bullets (which is what BC is) will remain constant. <em>The BC did not change. Your conditions did, <strong>the BC did not.</strong> </em></p><p> </p><p>You will not be able to find a single ballistics program that will give you accurate results by entering .300 at high altitude for a bullet that has a correct and accurate sea level BC of .250 if you enter the rest of the information in the program correctly. This was the example he gave. He was <strong>wrong.</strong> If you believe him, you will be <strong>wrong.</strong></p><p> </p><p><em><u>"vary any of those and BC changes...that's a fact. To my question did the author say "vary any of those and BC changes" Your previous post said "Yes that is what he wrote" Are we still in agreement on the fact that that's what the author wrote?</u></em> </p><p> </p><p>advertised BC's, even if accurate, won't do them any good if they don't live at sea level.</p><p>Quote:If that's what you take away from the article then I respect that. Thank goodness that's not what he said.</p><p>If that's what you take away from the article then I respect that. Thank goodness that's not what he said. </p><p>You're sounding like a broken record here. Pretending he did not say something that he did is no credible defense of what he said. Specifics:</p><p> </p><p><em><u>Not sure why you feel the need to insult me. Just for the record I haven't and am not defending anything the author wrote just merely pointing out that the author didn't say "advertised BC's, even if accurate, won't do them any good if they don't live at sea level." You did.</u></em> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Quote: The author never said "that BC's are not all that accurate</p><p> </p><p>Did he or did he not say:</p><p> </p><p>Quote: Vary any of those conditions and BC varies as well. Elevation has the biggest effect. The BC of, say, a typcial 55-grain plastic-tipped 22 caliber varmint bullet can increase from .250 at sea level to well over .300 in the rocky Mountains.</p><p>Vary any of those conditions and BC varies as well. Elevation has the biggest effect. The BC of, say, a typcial 55-grain plastic-tipped 22 caliber varmint bullet can increase from .250 at sea level to well over .300 in the rocky Mountains. </p><p>I copied that word for word from the article. Please do not respond with "thank goodness he did not say that" because he did. Word for Word. He said it would change. It won't.</p><p> </p><p><em><u>What you copied word for word from the article doesn't show the author saying "that BC's are not all that accurate." just merely pointing out that the author didn't say that. You did.</u></em></p><p> </p><p>Quote: along with ballistics software cannot be relied upon to accurately predict trajectory</p><p> </p><p>Did he or did he not say:</p><p> </p><p>Quote: the bullet will shoot a lot flatter than indicated in any computer model.</p><p> </p><p>and</p><p> </p><p>Quote: This is a lot flatter than any ballistic program suggests, even when higher elevation is plugged into the equation.</p><p> </p><p>Again, if you respond with "thank goodness he did not say that" I'm going to scream. It's copied word for word so he most certainly did. </p><p> </p><p>Does it or does it not say that the <em>computer models will be wrong?</em> If something is consistently wrong, "it cannot be relied upon to accurately predict trajectory," can it?</p><p> </p><p><u><em>Just merely pointing out that the author didn't say that. "that BC's are not all that accurate and that they, along with ballistics software cannot be relied upon to accurately predict trajectory or we should throw out all known exterior ballistic science." You did.</em></u></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Jon, I get the impression that you want to debate the validity of the article with me...not sure why as I have no dog in that fight. My only purpose here is to clear up any confusion on what the author wrote (his actual words).</p><p> </p><p>Here's an example: you wrote: He (author) has said elsewhere "no scope used to hunt big game should have any sort of exposed turrets or parallax adjustment." </p><p> </p><p>The author actually wrote: Wny anybody would complicate a serious big game scope with exposed turrets and ANOTHER turret for parallax is beyond my understanding. </p><p> </p><p>By pointing this out one might think I'm drawing some sort of a distinction between the meaning, I'm not...I'm just pointing out that what the author said isn't what you said the author said...that's a fact...while the meaning might be the same to you and I...it may not be the same for someone else.</p><p> </p><p>On a side note for anyone reading this the author on the subject of exposed turrets later went on to say: <em><u>Obviously, we all tend to state our preferences, and my personal preferences, likes and dislikes come from some experience, not total ignorance of the things you are talking about.</u></em></p><p> </p><p><em><u>I have killed a lot of varmints out to 900+ yards with a combination of turrets and various reticles, and out to 600 have found that the right reticle will do the job even on prairie dogs--which are a LOT smaller than the vital area on an elk, or even a deer. Have also seen such reticles work far too often on big game at 600 to blithely dismiss them. The "secret" to using them is to actually shoot with them at various ranges. It doesn't matter if they match up "perfectly" with a certain load at 100, 200, 300, etc. yards if the shooter knows which reticle to put where at X range.</u></em></p><p> </p><p><em><u>What I have also seen quite a bit of in hunting and guiding for big game is exposed turrets being fiddled with, or accidentally turned to the wrong setting. Ihave also seen big, long scopes being knocked out of zero or even bent after a day in saddle scabbards. Some of this was operator error (not mine, since I wasn't using the scopes to hunt big game) but some of it was mechanical. With the exception of Nightforce and maybe one or two others, using a really big scope in hard Rocky Mountain hunting risks it being knocked out of zero by normal mishaps. I have seen this too many times to count.</u></em></p><p> </p><p><em><u>Another thing I have seen too many times is somebody so obsessed with the relatively small chance of taking a very long shot that they fail to prepare properly for the much more likely shorter shots. Now, obviously some people are prepared for any likely shot--and in my experience a simpler, smaller scope like a 3-10x with the right reticle is a very good choice for that. This not just my personal preference, but an observation resulting from being around lots of hunters in the field. </u></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chas1, post: 359962, member: 15738"] [I]vary any of those and BC changes...that's a fact[/I] No, it's not a fact. It's wrong. He is wrong. You believe him, so you are [B]wrong.[/B] That's the point. The damage being done of which I spoke has been done on [I]you.[/I] Because you don't understand. Now, let's remedy that: The standard conditions corrected BC (which is all you should care about) will not change. If you change the conditions, yes, the actual trajectory, etc, will change. This is because the aerodynamic drag on the bullet will change with the conditions. But it will also change on the G1 or G7 "standard projectile," so the relative rate of velocity decay between the two bullets (which is what BC is) will remain constant. [I]The BC did not change. Your conditions did, [B]the BC did not.[/B] [/I] You will not be able to find a single ballistics program that will give you accurate results by entering .300 at high altitude for a bullet that has a correct and accurate sea level BC of .250 if you enter the rest of the information in the program correctly. This was the example he gave. He was [B]wrong.[/B] If you believe him, you will be [B]wrong.[/B] [I][U]"vary any of those and BC changes...that's a fact. To my question did the author say "vary any of those and BC changes" Your previous post said "Yes that is what he wrote" Are we still in agreement on the fact that that's what the author wrote?[/U][/I] advertised BC's, even if accurate, won't do them any good if they don't live at sea level. Quote:If that's what you take away from the article then I respect that. Thank goodness that's not what he said. If that's what you take away from the article then I respect that. Thank goodness that's not what he said. You're sounding like a broken record here. Pretending he did not say something that he did is no credible defense of what he said. Specifics: [I][U]Not sure why you feel the need to insult me. Just for the record I haven't and am not defending anything the author wrote just merely pointing out that the author didn't say "advertised BC's, even if accurate, won't do them any good if they don't live at sea level." You did.[/U][/I] Quote: The author never said "that BC's are not all that accurate Did he or did he not say: Quote: Vary any of those conditions and BC varies as well. Elevation has the biggest effect. The BC of, say, a typcial 55-grain plastic-tipped 22 caliber varmint bullet can increase from .250 at sea level to well over .300 in the rocky Mountains. Vary any of those conditions and BC varies as well. Elevation has the biggest effect. The BC of, say, a typcial 55-grain plastic-tipped 22 caliber varmint bullet can increase from .250 at sea level to well over .300 in the rocky Mountains. I copied that word for word from the article. Please do not respond with "thank goodness he did not say that" because he did. Word for Word. He said it would change. It won't. [I][U]What you copied word for word from the article doesn't show the author saying "that BC's are not all that accurate." just merely pointing out that the author didn't say that. You did.[/U][/I] Quote: along with ballistics software cannot be relied upon to accurately predict trajectory Did he or did he not say: Quote: the bullet will shoot a lot flatter than indicated in any computer model. and Quote: This is a lot flatter than any ballistic program suggests, even when higher elevation is plugged into the equation. Again, if you respond with "thank goodness he did not say that" I'm going to scream. It's copied word for word so he most certainly did. Does it or does it not say that the [I]computer models will be wrong?[/I] If something is consistently wrong, "it cannot be relied upon to accurately predict trajectory," can it? [U][I]Just merely pointing out that the author didn't say that. "that BC's are not all that accurate and that they, along with ballistics software cannot be relied upon to accurately predict trajectory or we should throw out all known exterior ballistic science." You did.[/I][/U] Jon, I get the impression that you want to debate the validity of the article with me...not sure why as I have no dog in that fight. My only purpose here is to clear up any confusion on what the author wrote (his actual words). Here's an example: you wrote: He (author) has said elsewhere "no scope used to hunt big game should have any sort of exposed turrets or parallax adjustment." The author actually wrote: Wny anybody would complicate a serious big game scope with exposed turrets and ANOTHER turret for parallax is beyond my understanding. By pointing this out one might think I'm drawing some sort of a distinction between the meaning, I'm not...I'm just pointing out that what the author said isn't what you said the author said...that's a fact...while the meaning might be the same to you and I...it may not be the same for someone else. On a side note for anyone reading this the author on the subject of exposed turrets later went on to say: [I][U]Obviously, we all tend to state our preferences, and my personal preferences, likes and dislikes come from some experience, not total ignorance of the things you are talking about.[/U][/I] [I][U]I have killed a lot of varmints out to 900+ yards with a combination of turrets and various reticles, and out to 600 have found that the right reticle will do the job even on prairie dogs--which are a LOT smaller than the vital area on an elk, or even a deer. Have also seen such reticles work far too often on big game at 600 to blithely dismiss them. The "secret" to using them is to actually shoot with them at various ranges. It doesn't matter if they match up "perfectly" with a certain load at 100, 200, 300, etc. yards if the shooter knows which reticle to put where at X range.[/U][/I] [I][U]What I have also seen quite a bit of in hunting and guiding for big game is exposed turrets being fiddled with, or accidentally turned to the wrong setting. Ihave also seen big, long scopes being knocked out of zero or even bent after a day in saddle scabbards. Some of this was operator error (not mine, since I wasn't using the scopes to hunt big game) but some of it was mechanical. With the exception of Nightforce and maybe one or two others, using a really big scope in hard Rocky Mountain hunting risks it being knocked out of zero by normal mishaps. I have seen this too many times to count.[/U][/I] [I][U]Another thing I have seen too many times is somebody so obsessed with the relatively small chance of taking a very long shot that they fail to prepare properly for the much more likely shorter shots. Now, obviously some people are prepared for any likely shot--and in my experience a simpler, smaller scope like a 3-10x with the right reticle is a very good choice for that. This not just my personal preference, but an observation resulting from being around lots of hunters in the field. [/U][/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
BC Article- Link
Top