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="WiscGunner" data-source="post: 2615402" data-attributes="member: 97288"><p>Obviously the BC affects the entire flight of the bullet and I didn't say it didn't. "all other things being equal" higher velocity is affected by wind less due to tine of flight. </p><p></p><p>To quote myself again: "High BC retains more velocity down range". I fear you have misread my lost or intent. Velocity does mask as additional BC due to time of flight, how much BC depends upon how much velocity. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Again I am well aware of BC's importance throughout the flight time. Higher BC can get away with lower velocity, lower BC needs higher velocity to perform the same…"until that lower BC deteriorates the velocity below the point of gains."</p><p></p><p></p><p>I am well aware both numbers are inaccurate, just stating they are announcing 2 different metbods of creating their BC numbers which may contribute to why some people have more extreme number issues than others. Nowhere did I vouch for the accuracy of those numbers but if I came off as doing so, thank you for additional clarification.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Comparing BC …all other things the equal</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]393053[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]393054[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]393055[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Assuming the BC for the 124HH is correct at .245G7, it requires 50ish% more wind hold compared to a 140ELDM at 600yrds and more for the 153. All going 2700fps in a 15mph wind. Again no claim to the accuracy of the sample BC's used.</p><p></p><p>Bump the velocity and it maskes as high BC due to shorter time if flight….until that lower BC deteriorates the velocity below the point of gains.</p><p></p><p>124 @ 3300 as previous posted 6.5prc PRC makes it roughly the same as the 140 Eld-M</p><p>[ATTACH=full]393056[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Now for the 153 vs the 124…using AB's BC for the 153, additional velocity again makes up for BC. Just need to push the .245 G7 3650fps to match the G7 .359 153gr A-Tip at 600yards. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]393057[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>In conclusion, pushing these lower BC solids to higher speeds does in fact make up for less BC inside medium ranges used in hunting and even makes for a flatter trajectory to help with range estimation errors. (No claim to actual bC value is made here). </p><p></p><p>Yes everyone should true their own system, yes manufactures should provide resinanly accurate BC information for these sort of projects PRIOR to purchasing expensive components to test.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WiscGunner, post: 2615402, member: 97288"] Obviously the BC affects the entire flight of the bullet and I didn’t say it didn’t. “all other things being equal” higher velocity is affected by wind less due to tine of flight. To quote myself again: “High BC retains more velocity down range”. I fear you have misread my lost or intent. Velocity does mask as additional BC due to time of flight, how much BC depends upon how much velocity. Again I am well aware of BC’s importance throughout the flight time. Higher BC can get away with lower velocity, lower BC needs higher velocity to perform the same…”until that lower BC deteriorates the velocity below the point of gains.” I am well aware both numbers are inaccurate, just stating they are announcing 2 different metbods of creating their BC numbers which may contribute to why some people have more extreme number issues than others. Nowhere did I vouch for the accuracy of those numbers but if I came off as doing so, thank you for additional clarification. Comparing BC …all other things the equal [ATTACH type="full"]393053[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full"]393054[/ATTACH] [ATTACH type="full"]393055[/ATTACH] Assuming the BC for the 124HH is correct at .245G7, it requires 50ish% more wind hold compared to a 140ELDM at 600yrds and more for the 153. All going 2700fps in a 15mph wind. Again no claim to the accuracy of the sample BC’s used. Bump the velocity and it maskes as high BC due to shorter time if flight….until that lower BC deteriorates the velocity below the point of gains. 124 @ 3300 as previous posted 6.5prc PRC makes it roughly the same as the 140 Eld-M [ATTACH type="full"]393056[/ATTACH] Now for the 153 vs the 124…using AB’s BC for the 153, additional velocity again makes up for BC. Just need to push the .245 G7 3650fps to match the G7 .359 153gr A-Tip at 600yards. [ATTACH type="full"]393057[/ATTACH] In conclusion, pushing these lower BC solids to higher speeds does in fact make up for less BC inside medium ranges used in hunting and even makes for a flatter trajectory to help with range estimation errors. (No claim to actual bC value is made here). Yes everyone should true their own system, yes manufactures should provide resinanly accurate BC information for these sort of projects PRIOR to purchasing expensive components to test. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hammer ballistic coefficient tests...
Top