But hay, don�t worry about your reputation, change your Huggies and put your ass out there again and again, it�s good entertainment seeing you get it handed back to you
And this is why I enjoy listening to fingernails on a chalkboard more than having a technical disagreement with a non-technical person. When one lacks fundamental understanding of the subject material, he will also fail to recognize the errors in his own argument and truly have no clue whose �ass got handed� to whom.
So if you weren�t confusing BC with form factor, what was this statement all about?
It�s �about� the fact I understand how ballistics programs work you you clearly do not. A typical program does its calculations based upon a particular drag curve. If a bullet�s form factor for that drag curve changes with velocity the program will not give accurate predictions for that bullet. If a bullet�s form factor remains constant over the velocity range in question, whether it is 0.5, 1.5 or 1.0 matters not�the program will give accurate predictions for that bullet.
The fact a single BC number is entered in lieu of a separate SD and form factor is immaterial. The SD will remain constant throughout the flight and does not affect the drag curve of the bullet. If it matches or not is dependent upon the bullet�s form factor remaining constant throughout the flight. Not
near 1.0.
Constant. At whatever value.
Scaling of BC is done by sectional density not by form factor.
Wrong. You can scale BC by sectional density but that has nothing to do with this discussion. This discussion is about fitting a drag curve. I�ve explained this to you several times now. Bryan�s book has hundreds of those charts in it to graphically represent my explanation�in those charts to determine which curve a bullet follows best, they are
scaled to the form factor such that all data points for each bullet fall on/around each curve instead of all above or all below the curve for a bullet with a form factor different than 1. How they match the shape of the curve is what is important, not how far above or below they would be without scaling.
If you can�t understand that, I can be of no further help to you. You have been led to water. Drink.
Ever hear of insufficient data?
First, no amount of data or lack thereof changes the fundamental concept outlined above. Second, you are not remotely qualified to determine the sufficiency of Bryan�s data.
As I�ve said before, I�ve used the Oehler Model 43 on several occasions going back 15 some years. There�s your instant ballistic coefficient machine; one for every shot and in real time.
If that is true, then you know it
does not give you an instantaneous BC at a particular velocity and location. It needs to measure the bullet over a distance and give you an average for that distance. If you had actually ever set one up I think you�d remember that.
You obviously think you know more than MacLorry, but do you really think you know more about measuring BC than Ken Oehler?
Ken has made no statement here for me to disagree with. MacLorry�s application of whatever the article actually said was full of errors and misunderstandings. That�s why I asked for a link to the article in the first place�the errors are likely entirely MacLorry�s doing through misapplication and/or reading things into it that weren�t specifically said by Ken.
It was MacLorry who concluded Bryan�s .545 BC for that bullet was �inaccurate.� Not Ken. In fact, I�m reasonably confident Ken would acknowledge that
if that method is used at two radically different velocities for a bullet which is a poor fit to the G1 curve, two significantly different answers will result. It�s really quite simple.
Hopefully Bryan will respond to my post to him and we'll see if we can get agreement on some key points. Until such time as Bryan responds, or it becomes clear he's not going to, there seems to be little point in continuing to argue with you about the same things.
Agreed. You made several mistakes but won�t admit it. Relentless pounding from me isn�t going to change that. I have more important things to do with my valuable time.
Hopefully when Bryan has more time he will read the entire thread and respond in detail.
Maybe he�ll even agree with you on the �key point� that he doesn�t know what the word
accuracy means.
Or he�ll agree with you on
the �key point� which caused you to start this entire thread in the first place�that the reason he came up with �wrong� BC for that bullet was that his methodology was flawed. Not that
you looked at it over a different velocity range which will naturally give a different average G1 BC for such a bullet.Maybe, but I doubt it.
