Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#11508225 - 10/16/16 NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT"  
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 9,801
RickBin Offline
RickBin  Offline

Campfire Outfitter

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 9,801
Los Angeles, California
Hi Guys:

I want to thank John Barsness (Mule Deer) for his latest exclusive Campfire article.

Please use this space to ask John questions about THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT

Enjoy, folks!


Rick Bin
24hourcampfire.com
CMG 300 BP

#11550247 - 11/02/16 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: RickBin]  
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,855
IndyCA35 Offline
Campfire Guide
IndyCA35  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,855
John, did I miss something? What wind velocity were you assuming?


Conservatives are defined by whom they like and what they like to do. Progressives are defined by what they hate. The divide will not disappear unless Liberals start loving their country more than they now hate their countrymen.
#11550325 - 11/02/16 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: RickBin]  
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,132
beretzs Offline
Campfire Guide
beretzs  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,132
Northern Va
Great write up.


Semper Fi
#11551035 - 11/02/16 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: IndyCA35]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,679
Mule Deer Offline
Campfire Oracle
Mule Deer  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,679
Banana Belt, Montana
10 mph full value.


John

"Gunwriters, as you know, aren't as informed as their readers are and if it wasn't for the readers, there would be no need for writers..."--Shrapnel, May 2015
#11587812 - 11/15/16 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: RickBin]  
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,598
bobnob17 Offline
Campfire Ranger
bobnob17  Offline
Campfire Ranger

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,598
NSW Australia
Shooting 243 and with all the BC that the 105g Amax brings, with a launch speed around 3000fps, I've often wondered if one wasn't better shooting a good plastic tipped boat tail bullet like the 87g Vmax at 3250fps for foxes, dogs, goats and similar.

Running the numbers and making some realistic decisions about how far away you can actually hit something the size of a fox, it's certainly possible to make a case for the lighter, faster projectile.

We're sure spoiled for choice these days, which is good news for retailers I suppose!

Alpha

#11592504 - 11/17/16 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: RickBin]  
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 533
CAPITALIST Offline
Campfire Regular
CAPITALIST  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 533
MONROE, MI
Thanks for illuminating the path, John! I was looking for reasonably priced 168 gr FMJ's for my AR-10 when I found obscenely priced 150's at evergladesammo.com (now even cheaper at $199/1000 with free shipping!). I've believed all of the hype of bc for quite some time, but I ran the numbers in a ballistics software program and the difference was nil except for about 100 ft/lbs of energy out to 800 yards; and up to that point, the 150's actually perform better in many aspects. Your article confirmed my hypothesis! Thanks again.


�Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.� - Thomas Jefferson

For this President we prayed... now we pray that the Lord wasn't saying, "Be careful whatcha wish for..."
#11592662 - 11/17/16 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: CAPITALIST]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,679
Mule Deer Offline
Campfire Oracle
Mule Deer  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,679
Banana Belt, Montana
Cool! Glad you liked it. Great deal on the bullets.... :-)


John

"Gunwriters, as you know, aren't as informed as their readers are and if it wasn't for the readers, there would be no need for writers..."--Shrapnel, May 2015
#11633948 - 12/05/16 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: RickBin]  
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 9,637
16bore Offline
Campfire Outfitter
16bore  Offline
Campfire Outfitter

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 9,637
I messed with some numbers awhile back and it seems to me that the "gains" (essentially meaning lest drift) of increased BC tend to level off.

Not sure if my method was scientific or even appropriate for the idea, but I used a 150gr bullet at 3,000 FPS and ran drift at 1000 yards.

.1=542"
.2=264"
.3=168"
.4=144"
.5=83"
.6=64"
.7=53"
.8=45"
.9=39"
1.0=34"


Anyway, I'm no Brian Litz....but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express once.


The perfect is the enemy of the good
#11634964 - 12/05/16 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: 16bore]  
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
BobinNH Offline
Campfire Oracle
BobinNH  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Good article!

My favorite high BC 7mm bullet is the 162 Amax. At 3200 fps the trajectory matches the dots in a 6x36 LR about exactly at 400, 500, and 600 yards.




The 280 Remington is overbore.

The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
#11742331 - 01/16/17 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: RickBin]  
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 11
rblum100 Offline
Member
rblum100  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 11
John, thanks for the great article on BC. I use that as a bullet selection factor in long range shooting. However, BC relies on the accuracy of the information put out by the bullet manufacturers. I ran across a study published in 2012 by four cadets at the US Air Force Academy. That study concluded that most bullet manufactures do not accurately set out the ballistic coefficients of their bullets. I read the article with interest. My conclusion is that it is not an accident, believing that if it were accidental, the results would be scattershot around true bc.
My reading the article, including an analysis of standard deviations, in an attempt to measure intentional missreporting vs measurement error, it appears that at least one manufacturer was significantly overstating BC intentionally.
My conclusion is that BC may be a starting point, but beware of manufacturers claims of BC. The proof is tight consistent groups rather than BC Claims.
The article is available at: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a554683.pdf

Bravo

#11744366 - 01/16/17 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: rblum100]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,679
Mule Deer Offline
Campfire Oracle
Mule Deer  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,679
Banana Belt, Montana
rblum100,

Yeah, I've seen that report, which is why I advise buying Bryan Litz's book BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE OF RIFLE BULLETS, based on his range-testing and calculations. Have used Bryan's results a lot, which has saved me lots of ammo!

Sometimes manufacturers make the mistake of testing bullets only at 100 yards for BC, which naturally results in higher BC's than over longer distances. But I have definitely seen some "competition" in listed BC's over the decades. It reminds me of what an outfitter buddy once noted about getting a booth at a sports show, in the middle of a bunch of other elk outfitters. Somebody will ask one outfitter what his "success rate" is, and if the answer is 60%, the outfitter next to him will claim 65%!



John

"Gunwriters, as you know, aren't as informed as their readers are and if it wasn't for the readers, there would be no need for writers..."--Shrapnel, May 2015
#11806929 - 02/07/17 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: Mule Deer]  
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,443
MacLorry Offline
Campfire Guide
MacLorry  Offline
Campfire Guide

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,443
polar orbit
Thanks for another interesting article John. One caution in doing such experiments in software is that the flight characteristics of a given style of bullet can change as weight changes. Here's a link to a YouTube video that analyzes the Laupa 7mm 180 and 150 grain Scenar-L bullets using Laupa's custom drag functions. The 180 grain matches up well with G7 while the 150 grain matches up better with G1. Not something I expected and without knowing that a comparison using either G7 or G1 for both bullets may not be accurate.

I see Hornady is using Doppler radar to produce custom drag functions for their 4DOF calculator, but I didn't see anything for the .204 Ruger at this point, so it would be hard to say if the 45 and .223 75 grain V-Max bullets both match up well with either G7 or G1.

#11806938 - 02/07/17 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: MacLorry]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,679
Mule Deer Offline
Campfire Oracle
Mule Deer  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,679
Banana Belt, Montana
Very interesting!

The interest in longer-range shooting has sure spurred some innovation in calculating/measuring BC's.


John

"Gunwriters, as you know, aren't as informed as their readers are and if it wasn't for the readers, there would be no need for writers..."--Shrapnel, May 2015
#11915492 - 03/21/17 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: RickBin]  
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 3
adirondacktrapper Offline
New Member
adirondacktrapper  Offline
New Member

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 3
My Remington 280 in 139GRN on a T/C ProHunter platform and a 100yrd zero with a BDC Reticle at 3 power 1st hash mark is 404yrds second 654yrds third 849yrds and thats with accutually a 7mm Bullet

#11922479 - 03/24/17 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: adirondacktrapper]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,679
Mule Deer Offline
Campfire Oracle
Mule Deer  Offline
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 42,679
Banana Belt, Montana
I dunno what your point is, but turning the magnification of any second-focal plane variable down increases the distance between the hashmarks. It has nothing to do with ballistic coefficient.


John

"Gunwriters, as you know, aren't as informed as their readers are and if it wasn't for the readers, there would be no need for writers..."--Shrapnel, May 2015
#11986713 - 04/20/17 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: RickBin]  
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 372
Etoh Offline
Campfire Regular
Etoh  Offline
Campfire Regular

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 372
Extremes in spread and sd of long range loads, 800+ yds are more trouble some than worries about BC


If you have an opinion, it's on a bell curve--somewhere
#12202987 - 08/12/17 Re: NOVEMBER - Ask John Barsness Questions About "THE REALITIES OF BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT" [Re: Mule Deer]  
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 184
Mac284338 Offline
Member
Mac284338  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 184
northIdaho
Great article MD. Just read so late to party. Would like your thoughts on following. If shooting 6.5CM w/142ABLR at 2700 using a ballistic program do I really want to plug-in the Nosler published BC of .719 or some lesser value (down to the G1 of .320) and then start shooting to verify? Thoughts/suggestions? If it helps, 4-16 Viper HS-T w/VMR-1 using Strelok+ program. Mike, NRA life member.

Last edited by Mac284338; 08/12/17.

Moderated by  RickBin, SYSOP 

AIH 160 1
Who's Online Now
559 registered members (10ring1, 17Hunter, 10gaugemag, 02bfishn, 79 invisible), 1,597 guests, and 471 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod









Copyright © 2000-2018 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.071s Queries: 15 (0.005s) Memory: 1.0003 MB (Peak: 1.2612 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-19 23:53:36 UTC