If I was a .30 cal guy that chart would be a bummer. Those #'s are disturbingly lower than advertised. I like that the .284 168-gn came out where it did; .649 is just peachy.
My chrono is FUBAR (no, I didn't shoot it.... yet <g>...) so I'll be deriving my drops for it through shooting and tweaking software parameters to match observed reality, but it seems like that's what I always end up doing anyway, and it's "best-practices", so whatever. Who needs a stinkin' chrono anyway, right?
The 168 LRAB hits the same POI as the162 Amax at 100 yards from my rifle, so that's a bit of good luck. My software says they should be ballistic twins to way out there. That would rock.
Jordan, have you played with the LRAB at all? And hello, by the way!
Hey, Jeff!
I haven't played with the LRAB, because anything I might want to do with it, I'm completely happy with how the 162AM does the same job, and it's less than half the cost around here
What you're seeing as a 0.649 G1 BC on that 168 LRAB is only when a 7" twist barrel was used, which almost nobody else uses in practice. With a 9" twist barrel, which is way more commonly used, the BC was 0.624. As you say, this should track very close to the 162AM.
Establishing your DOPE via actually shooting is, as you say, essential to actually making hits. But there is a difference between establishing drop data, and establishing a bullet's actual BC value. In order to solve for a given variable, using a basic scientific method, one must know the value of all other variables, and solve for the unknown. What I'm getting at, is you can't accurately solve for BC if your velocity data is questionable, or if your atmospheric data is unknown. And I would venture to say that if you're using a Shooting Chrony to measure velocity, or the nearest weather station to gather your atmospherics, those data are questionable, and whatever BC you come up with may not be the bullet's true BC value.
