I know it does not matter all that much in the field. When I run my ballistics progrmas though those numbers of the high BC slugs are beautiful compared to the lower BC slugs. I really wish I did not feel this way. This is why I never tried Swift A-frames or Northforks and others.... Just thinking out loud.
Posts: 3865 | Location: Cheyenne, WYOMING, USA | Registered: 13 June 2000
Steve! Have you tried a corresponding bullet without boat tail? Benchrest shooters generally prefer FB bullets since they are found to be more accurate than boat tailed bullets.
I can't say that I generally do better scores on the range with FB than with BT. But I use BT bullets to make up for poor wind reading and ranging skills.
I use boat-tailed bullets because they are easier to load...not because someone, or someone's computer, decided they have a "higher" BC than flat-based bullets.
Posts: 3282 | Location: Saint Marie, Montana | Registered: 22 May 2002
Quote: I know it does not matter all that much in the field. When I run my ballistics progrmas though those numbers of the high BC slugs are beautiful compared to the lower BC slugs. I really wish I did not feel this way. This is why I never tried Swift A-frames or Northforks and others.... Just thinking out loud.
I'm like you! I get hung up on a high BC and long, streamlined beautiful bullets. And it's even worse, because I have only shot one head of game at over 300 yards, most at a lot less, and I do know that a high BC is not needed for my purposes!
Quote: I wonder. Has anyone actually done any actual world BC test? ...Some writer (impartial...if there is such a thing)should shoot them all at the same velocities under controlled conditions and measure actual drop. But who?
Anyone lucky enough to own two chronographs or have friends who are happy to share.
I wonder. Has anyone actually done any actual world BC test? Waht I mean is this. Let's take the 375 270 Barnes XLC bullet. I like it but I really do not believe the claimed .503 Bc. Now do not get me wrong. My eyes are not calibrated for this sorta thing but she just don't look it. The 375 260 Nosler accubond claims a .473 or so and it looks more "fly" that the Barnes. Additionally for as long as I could rember the 270 gr Hornady was rated at .485 by both Hornady and Weatherby in their ballistic tables. Now all of a sudden it is listed as .380. Another classic example was the A-Square ammo with the 300 gr Sierra loading. They claimed bc was .620 for the 375 A square! at 2925 fps but Sierra lists it at .485 or so~ What is going on? Some writer (impartial...if there is such a thing)should shoot them all at the same velocities under controlled conditions and measure actual drop. But who?
Posts: 3865 | Location: Cheyenne, WYOMING, USA | Registered: 13 June 2000
Actual real world BC testing is performed often by many folks. Long range shooters run the numbers and develop trajectory tables based on computer projections based on manufacturers stated/published BCs and then test these projections real world by shooting at measured distance(s). We're as sceptical as others in the base BC predictions of some companies, the only way to know is to shoot and measure. Personally I find most of the numbers are quite accurate in my testing at distances to 800 yards or so.
It can be tested via drop predictions and also shooting a "standard load set" across a chronograph to establish near muzzle speed and then shooting the remaing "standard load set" across the chronograph once it's placed at a measured distance downrange (200 yards or better).
BC is a considered item for me and I like a higher BC. I load for my rifles to duplicate trajectories or to be a know portion of anothers trajectory, a lot less guessing at the correct come-ups at shooting time.
Posts: 226 | Location: Dorchester County, South Carolina U.S.A. | Registered: 15 December 2003
POP ----- I once shot for accuracy for kicks using Berger and Matchkings, then discovered that all I was getting out of the practice was repeated procedure of shot after shot that helps all shooters become instinctive in their shooting. I now shoot for accuracy with hunting bullets most of the year because I am always getting ready for that next hunt. I paid a lot of attention to BC in the old days, now I pay much more attention to SD because I am hunting larger animals and sometimes dangerous larger animals. ----- I discovered North Fork, Swift A-Frame, Barnes X and XLC bullets and some do not have the BC that is ideal, but can be extremely accurate at the ranges with which I can hunt with comfort. I have taken ELK with North Forks and Barnes XLC's at 300 - 350 yards. A buddy I loaded North Forks for took a bull Elk at 420 yards with North Forks I loaded for him. Another buddy took a Bull at a lazared 615 yards with a Nosler Partition, connecting on two of three shots. I would never have attempted that distance but my point is these bullets are not necessarily the best BC in the world but in the hunting environment did a very good job. As long as I can get accuracy that suits me out to 350 yards the BC of the bullet is of little concern, however the SD is very important to me, since that penetration factor my save my life. I still note BC's but no longer dwell on them, while dwelling on SD. Good shooting.
Posts: 221 | Location: Kentucky | Registered: 19 December 2003
Good shooting.
