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="Michael Eichele" data-source="post: 480922" data-attributes="member: 1007"><p>Here we go again. It's just another 'oversight' on our part. Since they were so low, maybe you could call it an undersight.</p><p></p><p>Groper, Instead of saying it is an oversight, GET OUT THERE AND TRY IT!!!! Then and only then can you rightfully say that. Untill then it is mere speculation on your part. You say it is an overisight on our part. The thought that it is nothing more than an oversight is an assumption on YOUR part and not a fact.</p><p></p><p>I really dont care why they dropped low. BC reduction, more yaw yada yad yada. The fact remains, they did drop well below normal and side by side with untouched bullets from the same lot. That is a fact. I suggest you get out there and find some facts of your own. Then come back and say it was nothing more than an oversight. I dont think you can do any better. If you think you can, prove it to us. In other words, put up or shut up.</p><p></p><p>Quoted by Bryan:</p><p></p><p><strong>I'm not saying the observations of increased drop are not accurate, but I would be very interested in learning more about what's going on there.</strong></p><p></p><p>We appreciate your interest in the desire to learn about this.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>M</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Eichele, post: 480922, member: 1007"] Here we go again. It's just another 'oversight' on our part. Since they were so low, maybe you could call it an undersight. Groper, Instead of saying it is an oversight, GET OUT THERE AND TRY IT!!!! Then and only then can you rightfully say that. Untill then it is mere speculation on your part. You say it is an overisight on our part. The thought that it is nothing more than an oversight is an assumption on YOUR part and not a fact. I really dont care why they dropped low. BC reduction, more yaw yada yad yada. The fact remains, they did drop well below normal and side by side with untouched bullets from the same lot. That is a fact. I suggest you get out there and find some facts of your own. Then come back and say it was nothing more than an oversight. I dont think you can do any better. If you think you can, prove it to us. In other words, put up or shut up. Quoted by Bryan: [B]I'm not saying the observations of increased drop are not accurate, but I would be very interested in learning more about what's going on there.[/B] We appreciate your interest in the desire to learn about this. M [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Let's argue about BC's
Top