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
Hammer ballistic coefficient tests...
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="entoptics" data-source="post: 2612628" data-attributes="member: 104268"><p>Perhaps a typo? The 177 has a estimated G7 of 0.313. That would be roughly 75% off at 0.235.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that there are other factors that are important in making a long range hunting shot.</p><p></p><p>That said, B.C. is a well established metric, and companies are <em><u>publishing</u></em> them. As straight forward as they are to measure with useful precision and accuracy, they should be relevant to reality when found next to the "BUY NOW" button. After all, you and I can ballpark measure them, using only math and simple tools.</p><p></p><p>I am unhappy with buying a bullet labeled 147 grains, that actually only weighs 132 grains. Or a bullet that claimed 1.5X expansion in ballistics gel, but in several tests only expanded 1.35X. Or a generator that claimed 1000W, which only produced 900W.</p><p></p><p>These metrics help us be informed consumers, and their veracity is important.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed, but there are those who might not be able/willing to make that effort.</p><p></p><p>Adding an easily correctable error into their system doesn't help.</p><p></p><p>Also, for those of us who do have the luxury of intense practice at range, having precise parameters to start with, means fewer wasted loads, barrel wear and tear, gasoline in range trips, etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="entoptics, post: 2612628, member: 104268"] Perhaps a typo? The 177 has a estimated G7 of 0.313. That would be roughly 75% off at 0.235. I agree that there are other factors that are important in making a long range hunting shot. That said, B.C. is a well established metric, and companies are [I][U]publishing[/U][/I] them. As straight forward as they are to measure with useful precision and accuracy, they should be relevant to reality when found next to the "BUY NOW" button. After all, you and I can ballpark measure them, using only math and simple tools. I am unhappy with buying a bullet labeled 147 grains, that actually only weighs 132 grains. Or a bullet that claimed 1.5X expansion in ballistics gel, but in several tests only expanded 1.35X. Or a generator that claimed 1000W, which only produced 900W. These metrics help us be informed consumers, and their veracity is important. Agreed, but there are those who might not be able/willing to make that effort. Adding an easily correctable error into their system doesn't help. Also, for those of us who do have the luxury of intense practice at range, having precise parameters to start with, means fewer wasted loads, barrel wear and tear, gasoline in range trips, etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hammer ballistic coefficient tests...
Top