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
Let's argue about BC's
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="MontanaRifleman" data-source="post: 479869" data-attributes="member: 11717"><p>Ya know, I'm not sure how many times I've used the word "sigificant" but it's been a bunch. I'll freely admit that there will be be some minor variation in bullets and that one bore might be .001 tighter than another bore but that these things will not make a signifacant difference in BC anywhere near what Paul originally came up with (.9 vs .74) and some others seemed to have confirmed in their own experiences. I would subjectively consider 5% deviation to be fairly significant, 10% very signicifant, and 15% HUGE.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MontanaRifleman, post: 479869, member: 11717"] Ya know, I'm not sure how many times I've used the word "sigificant" but it's been a bunch. I'll freely admit that there will be be some minor variation in bullets and that one bore might be .001 tighter than another bore but that these things will not make a signifacant difference in BC anywhere near what Paul originally came up with (.9 vs .74) and some others seemed to have confirmed in their own experiences. I would subjectively consider 5% deviation to be fairly significant, 10% very signicifant, and 15% HUGE. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Let's argue about BC's
Top