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
Does "anyone" ever take Sectional Density into consideration!!
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="Alibiiv" data-source="post: 1539238" data-attributes="member: 69192"><p>I've been reading LRH forum for a number of years now. I read the various forums/postings and it seems like the <em>"only comparable variables"</em> are <u><em>muzzle velocity</em></u> and the only other, holy grail measure of performance, <u><em>"ballistic coefficient"</em></u>; BC of a particular bullet are being interjected when making caliber performance comparisons. While reading the various postings, sometimes I will interject, "How about sectional?" when one makes a comparison when arguing/discussing particular calibers. It's almost like the post never hit the posting or it was deleted before it hit the post! Is the sectional density of a particular bullet something that is not worth putting into the equation when discussing and comparing ballistics and whether the 6.5 Creedmore is better than the 50BMG when shooting an elk and 800 yards!!???? Am I missing something here? Could I get some help in understanding why sectional density is not being put into the equation as much as ballistic coefficient and muzzle velocity; or, do I need to buy new glasses????</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alibiiv, post: 1539238, member: 69192"] I've been reading LRH forum for a number of years now. I read the various forums/postings and it seems like the [I]"only comparable variables"[/I] are [U][I]muzzle velocity[/I][/U] and the only other, holy grail measure of performance, [U][I]"ballistic coefficient"[/I][/U]; BC of a particular bullet are being interjected when making caliber performance comparisons. While reading the various postings, sometimes I will interject, "How about sectional?" when one makes a comparison when arguing/discussing particular calibers. It's almost like the post never hit the posting or it was deleted before it hit the post! Is the sectional density of a particular bullet something that is not worth putting into the equation when discussing and comparing ballistics and whether the 6.5 Creedmore is better than the 50BMG when shooting an elk and 800 yards!!???? Am I missing something here? Could I get some help in understanding why sectional density is not being put into the equation as much as ballistic coefficient and muzzle velocity; or, do I need to buy new glasses???? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Does "anyone" ever take Sectional Density into consideration!!
Top