Correction on B.C. in earlier post...

[Derek M.]

"I have shot the 160 Accu bond and it has a lower BC than the 150 Scirroco." (from John Burns on 7-01-04 in thread regarding 7mm 140 Barnes Triple Shock vs. 150 Scirocco.

I just wanted to correct that statement. The 150 Scirocco BC is .515

The Nosler 160 Accubond is .531

 

[John Burns]

Derek,

I consider it very bold that you are correcting my post. I could not care less if you want to disagree with what I wrote but you will find most people will take offense when you take it upon yourself to correct what they have written.

I stand by my statement that the Swift Scirocco 150gr bullet has a higher BC than the Nosler 160 gr Accubond bullet. I have shot them side by side at 1100 yds. The BCs published by the bullet makers may or may not be correct. Swift originally published a .58 for the Scirocco. Just because you can read the propaganda written by the manufacturer does not give you the knowledge to correct someone else's post.

If you feel I am in error please let me know how you came to that conclusion and be prepared to provide some kind of real world evidence more convincing than Nosler's Ad copy.

Also this post belongs in the Bullets, Ballistics, and Barrels section not the Long Range Hunting section. I know Len (the owner of this great site) has provided the different sections to help organize the site.

To reiterate, feel free to disagree but be prepared to back it up with real world experience.

 

[Jon A]

Welcome to the board, Derek. Advertised BC's of bullets are just that--advertisements. Some are more accurate than others.

Swift's advertised BC's seem to be on the conservative side relative to the Noslers. The Scirocco will have a higher actual BC weight for weight than the Nosler AB/BT because it has a more efficient shape. In this case, John's testing seems to have shown the better form factor of the Swift more than makes up for the small weight difference with the Nosler.

 

[Derek M.]

Hello Mr. Burns. Deeply sorry to have offended you. The post on BC was indeed derived from 3 sources. I did post the exact published BC from Nosler and Swift, however, I have an orthopedic surgeon and long range shooter friend in Wiesbaden, Germany.

He uses a ballistics software program and has tested hundreds if not thousands of bullets. His calculations were extremely close to those published and indeed the Swift was a bit higher than their website lists, however, it was not higher than the Accubond.

I also have a gunsmith that has built 2 rifles for me that agreed with Dr. Zuric. Nevertheless, I certainly owe you an apology for offending you. You are not the first to refer to me as bold.

DM