What bullet/s would you like to see tested?

HSS05.jpg


I am looking for input to see what the community would be interested in seeing tested? We are looking to expand our currently library beyond 1000 bullets. You can see our current complete library here: http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/Downloads/ABLibrary.pdf.

You can either post your requests here, or you can email them to me at [email protected].
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but why are shooters looking for data somewhere else instead of just calculating their own BCs based on what they're seeing under their real word conditions? We can all agree that a bullet's BC value is on a spectrum based on a number of variables. If I tell you that the BC of a given bullet is a G7 value of .418 then that's just staring point. If the twist, velocity, atmospherics and flap of a butterfly's wings are different under your conditions then your BC value will be subject to variation too. Either way the shooter will have to make small adjustments to get everything dialed in under a specific set of conditions.

There's a lot of very technical data that a high end lab is capable of collecting, but the only data that matters in the field is what's happening in the field.
 
I don't know if they are available as components but I would like better info on federal Fusion series -6.5, .224 and .30 cal and Speer gold dot .224. In other words the copper plated bullets. Thanks for your good work.
 
We tried this once before. When some of the results came back that we could not make work for a ballistic solution and I asked Mr Litz about what could be wrong, he refused to correspond with me and cut off all contact. Then went on to publish results that looked to be intentionally poor. Seemed like we were getting trashed by someone who's loyalty is to another bullet company.

Bc is not really a concern for us for our hunting bullets. It is much more important to us that they function properly terminally and have excellent accuracy. We will be happy to supply bullets for testing but need to know that if results come back that are questionable, there is a line of communication. You are welcome to put my mind at ease but I am skeptical.
His loyalty is probably to berger , I know you know that Steve but would not voice it , and I do not blame you under the circumstances JMHO
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but why are shooters looking for data somewhere else instead of just calculating their own BCs based on what they're seeing under their real word conditions? We can all agree that a bullet's BC value is on a spectrum based on a number of variables. If I tell you that the BC of a given bullet is a G7 value of .418 then that's just staring point. If the twist, velocity, atmospherics and flap of a butterfly's wings are different under your conditions then your BC value will be subject to variation too. Either way the shooter will have to make small adjustments to get everything dialed in under a specific set of conditions.

There's a lot of very technical data that a high end lab is capable of collecting, but the only data that matters in the field is what's happening in the field.

WHAT YORKE-1 SAID...

I didn't pay close enough attention to the original post. I thought (hoped) what was being offered was ballistic media testing...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top