Do you stand by your original statement? Would you expect a ballistics calculator using the G7 curve to give more accurate predictions with this bullet or a bullet with an i7 of exactly 1.30 over its entire velocity range? Is the lightbulb on yet? Did you happen to notice in Bryan�s plots that compare the data to the curves they are �scaled by the bullet�s form factor?� What do you think that means?
You�re busting a gut trying so hard to ignore the obvious and now you�re confusing BC with form factor. Back to basics for someone who thinks they�re teaching on this topic. Form factor is an indicator of how well a bullet�s shape matches the standard bullet�s shape; form as in shape. Take the time and look at the drawings in Bryan�s book and you�ll see that every one with a form factor close to 1 looks a lot like the G7 standard on the cover. Bryan makes the point about the G1 standard not being as close in SHAPE to modern VLD bullets as the G7 and that�s why the G7 is a better standard; are you saying he's wrong?
My goal is to teach correct information. What�s obvious is you have picked a side with your emotions. That�s unfortunate. Hopefully you�ll be able to see the data above through the red mist well enough to realize I gave correct information the first time and your emotional tirade was unwarranted.
Wow, such an ego for a guy who has had his ass handed to him in nearly every post. You picked a Sierra bullet and listed out it�s BC/Vel values and then when MacLorry uses it with real numbers to prove you wrong you crap your pants and retreat back the original bullet. The only thing you�re teaching is how to dodge a lost point.
His contention was the method outlined in his first post (not Sierra�s method to which he has now switched) gave a single G1 BC that was more accurate that what Berger gave for a bullet following the G7 curve. If you have really run all his numbers, as well as running them again at a different velocity as I suggested, you know that to be a false assertion.
I read his original post again and it�s not his contention at all. His contention is that his method produced more accurate results for the
G1 BC using the G7 as the reference. He infers from that
FACT that his method (actually Ken Oehler�s method) would produce an even better G7 BC if applied when that bullet was tested. Nothing you�ve posted counters that argument because you were too engrossed on arguing that 5.8 inches is a big deal. With your head in the sand you didn�t realize you were not even arguing about the right thing � now that�s funny
