I doubt that changing the numbers alone will give you better results by any criterion.
I'd expect the software to continue to make its calculations as it normally does but applying its G1-based calculus to your ersatz values based on a different model from the G1. I can't imagine that the result would be anything but useless gibberish.
Using unconverted English units in a metric equation � for a parallel example � gives utterly useless final figures.
Groups get bigger the farther away the target is,* so theoretically predicting a trajectory is an approximation anyway � precisely predicting a single trajectory is impossible. Only an approximation of an presumably "typical" trajectory is possible � within certain fairly loose limits.
*(Each bullet flies on a slightly different trajectory � in part because it leaves the muzzle at a velocity that may not be even close to that load's [i]average velocity � which itself may be only an imaginary, calculated figure.)[/i]
The way people calculate BC has a component part of velocity. If the velocity is changing from point blank to any distance away from the muzzle, then that has to mean a change in the BC is calculated.
Why does it take a Doctor to get you to understand that? Once again it takes Ken to come on and explain that to us?
Using a radar range to give accurate real world BC and trajectory is the only way I know to cut through the BS of BC.
