Amazing. So you look at a set of values put out by Nosler and Brian Litz without knowing how they arrived at those values, tolerance and error of the methods and equipment, and the uncertenty values and make an absolute comparison? How dumb.
If you go back and can comprehend what you read, which I'm beginning to doubt, you will see that I acknowledge the same bullet can exhibit different B.C. values based on the rifle they are fired from and at different velocities. Brian Litz and Nosler came to some pretty different values for B.C. but Brian's numbers seem to better reflect what most people are seeing - i.e. something less than what Nosler advertises.
No, I don't know all the details on how Nosler arrived at their numbers and really don't give a damn - the numbers they advertise for the AccuBond LR and standard AccuBond are the numbers they chose, not me. I don't have any problem using them for comparison any more than I use numbers from Barnes, Hornady and others when making calculations for bullets I have not tested myself.
The bullets I take hunting get tested over a chonograph and out to 600 yards. The observed results then get plugged into a ballistic calculator. If the manufacturer's B.C. value doesn't match my experience I modify the B.C. value until it does. Then when I go hunting I take hard copy tables as well as my cell-phone with its ballistic calculator app. But until I have such experience, yes, I use the manufacturer supplied B.C. values.
Further, you back this up by saying that it must be true because he puts his professional reputation on the line, which is just a fantastic statement devoid of objectivity.
Did I mention you might have a reading comprehension problem? It is showing again. I didn't say it "must be true", I said Brain Litz put his professional reputation on the line - in other words, HE believes his numbers to be accurate.
Congratulations. I know this concept might scare you $hittless but... It is entirely possible that both values are "correct" and that both Brian and Nosler most likely had to choose which value they wanted to report if they did enough testing. Please tell me you are not in a technical field. Ever thought that if you looked at the tolerances, error, sampling, and uncertainty calculations that the two values might be a statistical wash?
Actually I am in a technical field and have been for decades. And no, I don't believe the two values are the result of a "statistical wash". In fact, there are more than two values we are talking about - we're talking about B.C. values for eleven different bullets. If the values were a statistical wash, either Nosler or LItz could have a higher number for any given bullet. In fact, Litz's number are lower for all eleven. The chances of that happening if their values are a "statistical wash" are 1 in 2048.
You make the statement that "Everyone has their own definition of what constitutes good bullet performance" but then state that Nosler is "guilty of marketing hype" and that the hype wasn't based on "personal experances" which you attribute to testing on game. Its fascinating to me that you know that Nosler never tested the LR on game. Then go on to say John is out of line for "blaming the hunters who have been disappointed after accepting Nosler's claim". Why because Nosler didn't tell them how many inches the bullet would travel In their elk at 123 yards? Again, you are responsible regardless of the claims or how disappointed you are in them.
The bottom line is that you believe Nosler's claims are unreasonable and that any dissatisfied Hunter using the LR has been done wrong. Lmao. Good god.
Btw... What "big game" does Nosler make these claims based on? Just curious
Your reading comprehension problem is showing again. Nowhere did I say Nosler hadn't tested the AccuBond LR on game. In fact, I'd be very surprised if they didn't test at least some of the LR version on game before putting them on the market.
What I wrote was (pay attention here) "Nosler may well take the position that a bullet that holds together well enough to work on a broadside is good enough. Many people demand more of their bullets...". Is Nosler guilty of marketing hype? IMHO there is no question about it - most companies engage in hype to some degree or another. If Nosler really believes the AccuBond LR will behave in an "optimum" manner at both 3200fps and 1300fps they have a very different definition of "optimum" than I do.
Nosler states quite clearly that the AccuBond LR is in its "optimum performance window" at 3200fps and that the design eliminates the problem of being "too close", yet John takes hunters to task and suggests hunters shouldn't be disappointed "when the ABLR’s don’t hold up as well at ranges under 400 yards". The fastest 7mm/168g AccuBondLR load Nosler lists for the 7mm RM clocks in at 3011fps. According to Nosler, that load is in its "optimum performance window" from the muzzle to well beyond 1000 yards. I agree with John that hunters shouldn't expect the AccuBond LR to hold up as well at close range but where we disagree is at the 400 yard figure. Based on Nosler's claims I think hunters are right to expect good performance at much closer ranges.
And again, just to be perfectly clear, I believe Nosler's claims for the AccuBond LR are overblown marketing hype. I use a lot of standard AccuBond bullets and will stick with them.
