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="gregsjt" data-source="post: 1541303" data-attributes="member: 88091"><p>I think the bottom line is that sectional density is irrelevant if you're already using BC to compare bullets. The formula for BC is Mass/(Cross Sectional Diameter * Coefficient of Form). The formula for sectional density is mass/cross sectional area. So you already have a close component of sectional density built into the formula for BC. </p><p></p><p>Let's look at two bullets from Hornady as an example: <a href="https://www.hornady.com/bullets/rifle/#!/" target="_blank">https://www.hornady.com/bullets/rifle/#!/</a></p><p></p><p>Both are 220 grain, both have the exact same sectional density, .331. Both have proven to be effective on game, yet one has a BC of .65 and the .3. Unless you are using a lever action or need a round nose for some other non-ballistic related reason, why would you ever choose the round nose? [USER=105322]@Dog Rocket[/USER] already showed us the difference in exterior ballistics at 500 yards and [USER=26535]@rfurman24[/USER] pointed out the difference in wind drift. I do not understand why you would purposely handicap yourself when shooting at a living animal, makes no sense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gregsjt, post: 1541303, member: 88091"] I think the bottom line is that sectional density is irrelevant if you're already using BC to compare bullets. The formula for BC is Mass/(Cross Sectional Diameter * Coefficient of Form). The formula for sectional density is mass/cross sectional area. So you already have a close component of sectional density built into the formula for BC. Let's look at two bullets from Hornady as an example: [URL]https://www.hornady.com/bullets/rifle/#!/[/URL] Both are 220 grain, both have the exact same sectional density, .331. Both have proven to be effective on game, yet one has a BC of .65 and the .3. Unless you are using a lever action or need a round nose for some other non-ballistic related reason, why would you ever choose the round nose? [USER=105322]@Dog Rocket[/USER] already showed us the difference in exterior ballistics at 500 yards and [USER=26535]@rfurman24[/USER] pointed out the difference in wind drift. I do not understand why you would purposely handicap yourself when shooting at a living animal, makes no sense. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Does "anyone" ever take Sectional Density into consideration!!
Top