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
Marketing Hype in Ballistics - Hornady 4DOF Solver
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="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 1241220" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>I recall a PhD member of this forum that once expressed truth regarding misleading claims Berger had made about how some of their bullet BC values were determined. Berger reps blew a gasket on this Forum, even after I attempted to caution them from going down that path. Now Bryan Litz does the same thing to Hornady that he so forcefully opposed when on the receiving end?</p><p></p><p>I've read both articles, and I'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to misunderstand the motivation in Bryan's article. If I misinterpret that the motive is strongly based in business and financial competitiveness, then Bryan should have slept on his article a few nights, read it again, and then removed the criticism that wasn't based on purely technical and scientific merit - BEFORE pulling the trigger. You want to establish yourself as a technical expert, then keep your critique within the realm of the technical science. Your article expressed so much negative opinion of Hornady, that your effort to critique based on the technical and scientific merits was lost in the trade winds. </p><p></p><p>Our PhD member was indeed correct in his primary allegation against Berger. Eric (on behalf of Berger) eventually acknowledged that their advertised claims of the source of quite some number of bullet BC values were indeed misleading. By the strict reading, the claims were false. Eric apologized and then took corrective measures. For Bryan to have complained and whined over the PhD's exposure of Berger's mis-representation of the basis for their BC values, act as if their critic committed an unforgivable sin, and then now... turn the Applied Ballistics' muzzles toward Hornady? Very hypocritical business decision and behavior, from my perspective. Leaves me wondering if Bryan harbors jealousy over Hornady's Doppler radar equipment. Attacking others with the justification that we're the only experts in this field of science, everyone else is sucking hind t_t, and God's called us to provide the sole and unquestioned truth to the masses doesn't impress. Guilty of the same offenses he claimed the PhD member was committing when he simply exposed the truth about Berger's false claim that all their bullet BC values were measured values.</p><p></p><p>And then this Applied Ballistics' motto:</p><p>"<em>This is the start of the Truth In Performance campaign. Applied Ballistics' mission is to be <strong>the</strong> complete and unbiased source of external ballistics information for long range shooters. Gaining the knowledge required to master long range shooting is very difficult, even when you have good information. <strong>Unfortunately the hyper-marketing/advertising culture we live in is constantly pushing out misleading or outright false information to promote products.</strong></em>"</p><p></p><p>Yeah, I remember a company that did <strong><em>that very thing</em></strong>. That company was Berger. </p><p></p><p>Is it a <u>Truth in Performance</u> campaign, or an <u>Attack the Competition</u> campaign? Or both under the guise of Truth?</p><p></p><p>My recommendation for the mission statement involves substituting the word "<strong>a</strong>" for the word "<strong>the</strong>". "<em>Applied Ballistics' mission is to be <strong>a</strong> complete and unbiased source of external ballistic information for long range shooters.</em>" Perhaps then Applied Ballistics will feel less compelled to attack the competition, for sharing the very same mission. It's hard walking on water all the time. And failures are so costly.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 1241220, member: 4191"] I recall a PhD member of this forum that once expressed truth regarding misleading claims Berger had made about how some of their bullet BC values were determined. Berger reps blew a gasket on this Forum, even after I attempted to caution them from going down that path. Now Bryan Litz does the same thing to Hornady that he so forcefully opposed when on the receiving end? I've read both articles, and I'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to misunderstand the motivation in Bryan's article. If I misinterpret that the motive is strongly based in business and financial competitiveness, then Bryan should have slept on his article a few nights, read it again, and then removed the criticism that wasn't based on purely technical and scientific merit - BEFORE pulling the trigger. You want to establish yourself as a technical expert, then keep your critique within the realm of the technical science. Your article expressed so much negative opinion of Hornady, that your effort to critique based on the technical and scientific merits was lost in the trade winds. Our PhD member was indeed correct in his primary allegation against Berger. Eric (on behalf of Berger) eventually acknowledged that their advertised claims of the source of quite some number of bullet BC values were indeed misleading. By the strict reading, the claims were false. Eric apologized and then took corrective measures. For Bryan to have complained and whined over the PhD's exposure of Berger's mis-representation of the basis for their BC values, act as if their critic committed an unforgivable sin, and then now... turn the Applied Ballistics' muzzles toward Hornady? Very hypocritical business decision and behavior, from my perspective. Leaves me wondering if Bryan harbors jealousy over Hornady's Doppler radar equipment. Attacking others with the justification that we're the only experts in this field of science, everyone else is sucking hind t_t, and God's called us to provide the sole and unquestioned truth to the masses doesn't impress. Guilty of the same offenses he claimed the PhD member was committing when he simply exposed the truth about Berger's false claim that all their bullet BC values were measured values. And then this Applied Ballistics' motto: "[I]This is the start of the Truth In Performance campaign. Applied Ballistics’ mission is to be [B]the[/B] complete and unbiased source of external ballistics information for long range shooters. Gaining the knowledge required to master long range shooting is very difficult, even when you have good information. [B]Unfortunately the hyper-marketing/advertising culture we live in is constantly pushing out misleading or outright false information to promote products.[/B][/I]" Yeah, I remember a company that did [B][I]that very thing[/I][/B]. That company was Berger. Is it a [U]Truth in Performance[/U] campaign, or an [U]Attack the Competition[/U] campaign? Or both under the guise of Truth? My recommendation for the mission statement involves substituting the word "[B]a[/B]" for the word "[B]the[/B]". "[I]Applied Ballistics' mission is to be [B]a[/B] complete and unbiased source of external ballistic information for long range shooters.[/I]" Perhaps then Applied Ballistics will feel less compelled to attack the competition, for sharing the very same mission. It's hard walking on water all the time. And failures are so costly. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Marketing Hype in Ballistics - Hornady 4DOF Solver
Top