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: 1539360" data-attributes="member: 69192"><p><em>"My point was essentially people over look better bullet choices than the highest b.c. when they very likely never shoot over 500 yards, if even that far"</em> Rich my point in case. Is seems like there is a whole lot said about BC, but really nothing said or compared to SD. I suspect that as you have written in this post, because a higher BC equals a higher SD. It just seems to me that it ought to not be a complete given.Postings will have that their particular caliber and muzzle velocity did such and such carnage and tissue damage, but it seems like SD is totally left out of the equation when making comparisons. And....I believe that to make a better comparison of a particular caliber/cartidge's abilities to bring game down that comparison ought to be part of that comparison. I'd also like to state that I know this is a LRH forum, however not all of us are shooting from one mountain to or mountain range to another, some of us readers actually consider 300 yards a long poke! I hope that I am making sense here???</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alibiiv, post: 1539360, member: 69192"] [I]"My point was essentially people over look better bullet choices than the highest b.c. when they very likely never shoot over 500 yards, if even that far"[/I] Rich my point in case. Is seems like there is a whole lot said about BC, but really nothing said or compared to SD. I suspect that as you have written in this post, because a higher BC equals a higher SD. It just seems to me that it ought to not be a complete given.Postings will have that their particular caliber and muzzle velocity did such and such carnage and tissue damage, but it seems like SD is totally left out of the equation when making comparisons. And....I believe that to make a better comparison of a particular caliber/cartidge's abilities to bring game down that comparison ought to be part of that comparison. I'd also like to state that I know this is a LRH forum, however not all of us are shooting from one mountain to or mountain range to another, some of us readers actually consider 300 yards a long poke! I hope that I am making sense here??? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Does "anyone" ever take Sectional Density into consideration!!
Top