Originally Posted by MacLorry
It's no secret that if you pick a different MV the equal TOF BC may come out different.

Apparently it was a secret to you when you started this thread. That's what lead you to proclaim your BC of .559 what �more accurate� without a specific velocity qualification or ranges (as Sierra gives). Game, set, match.
Quote
Here are the numbers.

In science, one can lose credibility very quickly when caught pushing down on the scale with a finger. Credibility is hard to earn and easy to lose.

Since your modification of �supersonic flight� to mean �above Mach 1.2 wasn�t good enough, you conveniently omitted the most important data above Mach 1.2�data that did fit your narrow definition. Why did you do this?

Of course it�s obvious. It proves you wrong. At 850 yds, where the bullets are still above Mach 1.2, the drop values are the following:

G1 .545 309.1 -1.8
G1 .548 308.3 -1
G7 .279 307.3 0.0
G1 .559 305.3 +2.0

You can see, of all three G1�s, your original claimed �more accurate� BC is the least accurate.

I do agree with you in one area though�Berger knows many users are not going to adhere to your artificial Mach 1.2 limit. You came up with that, not them. So just for fun, at 1000 yds where the bullets are still easily supersonic:

G1 .545 468.5 -1.3
G1 .548 466.9 -0.3
G7 .279 467.2 0.0
G1 .559 461.4 +5.8

Your BC has over four times the error. It also shows the bullet traveling nearly 70 fps faster than it really will be which could cause somebody to think it�ll stay supersonic farther than it really will. Things like that are important to those of us who actually do this in the real world.

So again, can you give Berger one good reason they should print .559 on the box as you said they should in the first post?

And to the much bigger point how exactly does your bogus .559 G1 call into question the accuracy of Berger�s G7? Yes, they do print a G1 on the box for the masses, but to anybody interested in the most accuracy they say to use the G7 values.

So now that you understand the ballistics, what exactly was the point of your first post? How does your method give me more accurate information than using G7 BC�s for bullets that follow the G7 curve?
Quote
For all your blustering you've only shown that my original post is correct even when extended down to a MV of 2500 fps.

Only when you delete the most important data. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Quote
I picked it because you offered the SMK as a counter example even taking the time to list out the multiple BC values.

You asked me for numbers to show one can obtain more useful information from Sierra�s data than a single number. You asked for them, I posted them. Then you proved me correct by adopting Sierra�s method over your own. I said it would be more accurate and you apparently agreed.
Quote
I'm not advocating using the equal TOF G1 BC in place of the Berger's G7 BC.

You believed you had reason to question the accuracy of their G7 BCs. Your opinion was the industry should adopt the method that produced the .559 G1. I�m glad to see you have changed your mind.
Quote
We can use Sierra's multiple BC values to see if their .243 107 grain Matchking better follows the G7 or, as you claim, the G1 curve�

Here we go again�. I�m glad you like Sierra�s method so well.
Quote
Your contention that this bullet better match G1 than G7 is wrong. If you look at Bryan's data for this bullet you'll see that he has only 6 data points.

And Sierra has how many, exactly? Do you know? So, Bryan and Sierra�s data don�t agree. You use Sierra�s data to prove Sierra�s data is correct. I hope you didn�t pull a muscle running in a circle like that.
Quote
If you have any other bullets you want to offer as counter examples

You have the book. There are a bunch of examples of bullets fitting the G1 curve better (all those where it is dark black and the G7 is grey) who have i7 form factors closer to 1 than their i1. Your original belief was this would not be possible for any bullet. That an i7 of 1 at any velocity (a single data point) was proof it would follow the G7 curve perfectly, even without knowing what its values are at other velocities. Now you�re trying to sweep it under the rug with circular arguments�one was enough before, now we don�t have enough with six.

I'll boil it all down to a very simple yes or no question:

Do you still believe Berger should print .559 on the box?