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
Hornady 4DOF Ballistic Program
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="BryanLitz" data-source="post: 1226856" data-attributes="member: 7848"><p>That's a good observation, I'm glad you brought that up because it gives me the opportunity to explain something important.</p><p></p><p>All bullet manufacturers have lot-to-lot variations in bullet dimensions and BC's. Berger is no exception.</p><p></p><p>The big question is: how much lot variation exists? </p><p></p><p>We test fire every lot of Berger Bullets for BC so I have a very thorough knowledge of our lot variation. On occasion I've also tested multiple lots of the same bullet from other brands but not as extensively. My observation is that most companies have far greater lot variation than Berger.</p><p></p><p>The answer to your question is that this is an unfortunate case of extreme lot variation for this particular bullet (extreme for Berger). When lot testing bullets for BC, and updating the published value, the question arises; do you publish the running average, or the latest BC tested? The original number for this bullet (.380) was based on the first test. The lower number (.364) is 4.2% lower and represents (at the time the BC was revised), the lowest number ever tested. At this time, many lots have been tested and the average BC is hovering around .375.</p><p></p><p>.375 is 3% higher than .364, and 1.3% lower than .380. So the .380 that's used in that WEZ analysis from 4 years ago is actually very close to the running average today. It was very unfortunate that when we did the last BC update, the most recent test was .364, and at that time we were pushing the 'latest' tested number. Based on further consideration and especially because of this 230 Hybrid example, we'll be publishing the running average from now on. </p><p></p><p>Bear in mind that our resolution in measuring BC is +/- 1%, which is pretty good. Most lots test within +/-2%. The higher BC bullets are harder to nail down, and the 230 Hybrid is a pretty high BC bullet. </p><p></p><p>So to address your question, it's not the WEZ analysis from 4 years ago based on .380 that needs corrected, it's the currently advertised BC of .364 that will be corrected. I suppose you could argue that the entire WEZ analysis should be re-done to reflect a BC of .375 vs. .380. In fact the BC's of every bullet that was ever considered in any ballistic analysis might have a more accurately measured or actually different BC today than when the article was written. Every article can't be re-written every time a BC changes by 1% or 2%. We simply make the correction and base all future work on the more accurate data.</p><p></p><p>Sometimes, being committed to the facts requires us to lift up our skirt a little more than is comfortable. Those who would spin bad things up for us could read this post and grab on to the statement that 'Berger has lot variation', and call us girls for wearing skirts.</p><p></p><p>But we're not here for those people. We're here for guys like you who are trying to learn, improve and are asking good questions. You deserve straight and complete answers.</p><p></p><p>-Bryan</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BryanLitz, post: 1226856, member: 7848"] That's a good observation, I'm glad you brought that up because it gives me the opportunity to explain something important. All bullet manufacturers have lot-to-lot variations in bullet dimensions and BC's. Berger is no exception. The big question is: how much lot variation exists? We test fire every lot of Berger Bullets for BC so I have a very thorough knowledge of our lot variation. On occasion I've also tested multiple lots of the same bullet from other brands but not as extensively. My observation is that most companies have far greater lot variation than Berger. The answer to your question is that this is an unfortunate case of extreme lot variation for this particular bullet (extreme for Berger). When lot testing bullets for BC, and updating the published value, the question arises; do you publish the running average, or the latest BC tested? The original number for this bullet (.380) was based on the first test. The lower number (.364) is 4.2% lower and represents (at the time the BC was revised), the lowest number ever tested. At this time, many lots have been tested and the average BC is hovering around .375. .375 is 3% higher than .364, and 1.3% lower than .380. So the .380 that's used in that WEZ analysis from 4 years ago is actually very close to the running average today. It was very unfortunate that when we did the last BC update, the most recent test was .364, and at that time we were pushing the 'latest' tested number. Based on further consideration and especially because of this 230 Hybrid example, we'll be publishing the running average from now on. Bear in mind that our resolution in measuring BC is +/- 1%, which is pretty good. Most lots test within +/-2%. The higher BC bullets are harder to nail down, and the 230 Hybrid is a pretty high BC bullet. So to address your question, it's not the WEZ analysis from 4 years ago based on .380 that needs corrected, it's the currently advertised BC of .364 that will be corrected. I suppose you could argue that the entire WEZ analysis should be re-done to reflect a BC of .375 vs. .380. In fact the BC's of every bullet that was ever considered in any ballistic analysis might have a more accurately measured or actually different BC today than when the article was written. Every article can't be re-written every time a BC changes by 1% or 2%. We simply make the correction and base all future work on the more accurate data. Sometimes, being committed to the facts requires us to lift up our skirt a little more than is comfortable. Those who would spin bad things up for us could read this post and grab on to the statement that 'Berger has lot variation', and call us girls for wearing skirts. But we're not here for those people. We're here for guys like you who are trying to learn, improve and are asking good questions. You deserve straight and complete answers. -Bryan [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Hornady 4DOF Ballistic Program
Top