- Thread starter nikko
- Start date
Re: 50 BMG
.1076 ? WTF ? is that a round ball, or aluminum rod?
.1076 ? WTF ? is that a round ball, or aluminum rod?
Re: 50 BMG
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.1076 ? WTF ? is that a round ball, or aluminum rod? </div></div>
That's funny... someone misplace a decimal point?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.1076 ? WTF ? is that a round ball, or aluminum rod? </div></div>
That's funny... someone misplace a decimal point?
Re: 50 BMG
Hahahah ....aluminum rod...funny!
Hahahah ....aluminum rod...funny!
Re: 50 BMG
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tigerbikes</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.1076 ? WTF ? is that a round ball, or aluminum rod? </div></div>
That's funny... someone misplace a decimal point? </div></div>
You guys are great!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tigerbikes</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.1076 ? WTF ? is that a round ball, or aluminum rod? </div></div>
That's funny... someone misplace a decimal point? </div></div>
You guys are great!
Re: 50 BMG
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seadog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New bullet designs have raised the BC of the 800gr to over 1.076. </div></div>
Interesting, Care to share the following:
1. Says who?
2. details on how that BC was derived?
3. Specifications as to what testing has been done and what the specs of those test?
thanks
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seadog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New bullet designs have raised the BC of the 800gr to over 1.076. </div></div>
Interesting, Care to share the following:
1. Says who?
2. details on how that BC was derived?
3. Specifications as to what testing has been done and what the specs of those test?
thanks
Re: 50 BMG
Lapua has published some doppler radar data for some of there bullets.800gr bc 0.980. Bore tech as well, v3 match 792gr bc 1.124. Hornady 750gr A-Max bc 1.050. We all know that most manufacturers have historically advertised inconsistent and often inaccurate bc's.To question #3 since those paramiters are priporitary to the manufacturer,we may never know.I am shooting a .510 749gr multi-band hollow point bronze solid with a calculated bc of 1.037 using point mass ballistic solver by Bryan Litz. Would be nice to know the true bc,but since im not able to get my hands on doppler radar or acoustic sensing gear,i may never know.
Lapua has published some doppler radar data for some of there bullets.800gr bc 0.980. Bore tech as well, v3 match 792gr bc 1.124. Hornady 750gr A-Max bc 1.050. We all know that most manufacturers have historically advertised inconsistent and often inaccurate bc's.To question #3 since those paramiters are priporitary to the manufacturer,we may never know.I am shooting a .510 749gr multi-band hollow point bronze solid with a calculated bc of 1.037 using point mass ballistic solver by Bryan Litz. Would be nice to know the true bc,but since im not able to get my hands on doppler radar or acoustic sensing gear,i may never know.
Re: 50 BMG
Can this not be done with two chronographs at known ranges? I used to do this, but I'll be the first to admit it may not be accurate, and yes, the downrange unit can take some damage...
Of course, radar is a lot nicer, but then again, so is an Aston-Martin DB9. I have about as much chance of owning either one.
Can this not be done with two chronographs at known ranges? I used to do this, but I'll be the first to admit it may not be accurate, and yes, the downrange unit can take some damage...
Of course, radar is a lot nicer, but then again, so is an Aston-Martin DB9. I have about as much chance of owning either one.
Re: 50 BMG
Amax is NOT 1.050 it is less, Good but less. I will check my calc's and repost
Amax is NOT 1.050 it is less, Good but less. I will check my calc's and repost
Re: 50 BMG
you put that into your program and shoot the dope it says and I guarantee you to be low.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seadog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hornady lists the G1 BC 1.014 at sea level with standard pressure and temperature. The BC normally listed for the A-Max is 1.05.The sectional density is .412 </div></div>
you put that into your program and shoot the dope it says and I guarantee you to be low.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seadog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hornady lists the G1 BC 1.014 at sea level with standard pressure and temperature. The BC normally listed for the A-Max is 1.05.The sectional density is .412 </div></div>
Re: 50 BMG
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you put that into your program and shoot the dope it says and I guarantee you to be low.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seadog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hornady lists the G1 BC 1.014 at sea level with standard pressure and temperature. The BC normally listed for the A-Max is 1.05.The sectional density is .412 </div></div> </div></div>
Yep..better plug in about .972 IIRC
Proprietary BC testing specifications??
Thanks
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you put that into your program and shoot the dope it says and I guarantee you to be low.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seadog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hornady lists the G1 BC 1.014 at sea level with standard pressure and temperature. The BC normally listed for the A-Max is 1.05.The sectional density is .412 </div></div> </div></div>
Yep..better plug in about .972 IIRC
Proprietary BC testing specifications??
Thanks
Re: 50 BMG
I have been using .97 also and it seems to work out perfect for almost all programs.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Later</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you put that into your program and shoot the dope it says and I guarantee you to be low.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seadog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hornady lists the G1 BC 1.014 at sea level with standard pressure and temperature. The BC normally listed for the A-Max is 1.05.The sectional density is .412 </div></div> </div></div>
Yep..better plug in about .972 IIRC
Proprietary BC testing specifications??
Thanks</div></div>
I have been using .97 also and it seems to work out perfect for almost all programs.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Later</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you put that into your program and shoot the dope it says and I guarantee you to be low.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seadog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hornady lists the G1 BC 1.014 at sea level with standard pressure and temperature. The BC normally listed for the A-Max is 1.05.The sectional density is .412 </div></div> </div></div>
Yep..better plug in about .972 IIRC
Proprietary BC testing specifications??
Thanks</div></div>
Re: 50 BMG
One other thought: I believe <span style="font-style: italic">actual </span> B.C. is dependent on bullet stabilization and axis of yaw; theoretical B.C. is based on mathematical calculation of profile and static flow, but what is experienced in reality depends on the smoothness of the actual flight dynamics of the projectile, i.e. yaw and precession, which are determined by barrel twist, muzzle velocity, wind vectors, altitude, air density, to name but a few. This likely accounts for the different results between published (ideal/static) and actual B.C.
One other thought: I believe <span style="font-style: italic">actual </span> B.C. is dependent on bullet stabilization and axis of yaw; theoretical B.C. is based on mathematical calculation of profile and static flow, but what is experienced in reality depends on the smoothness of the actual flight dynamics of the projectile, i.e. yaw and precession, which are determined by barrel twist, muzzle velocity, wind vectors, altitude, air density, to name but a few. This likely accounts for the different results between published (ideal/static) and actual B.C.
Re: 50 BMG
In other words its theoretical, on paper maximum B.C. possible on planet earth with the bullet in ballistic "Zen" in a flight through air in a Teflon micro-dust..............
1.05 and .97 are pretty friggin' far apart. Amax just isn't "that" slippery.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One other thought: I believe <span style="font-style: italic">actual </span> B.C. is dependent on bullet stabilization and axis of yaw; theoretical B.C. is based on mathematical calculation of profile and static flow, but what is experienced in reality depends on the smoothness of the actual flight dynamics of the projectile, i.e. yaw and precession, which are determined by barrel twist, muzzle velocity, wind vectors, altitude, air density, to name but a few. This likely accounts for the different results between published (ideal/static) and actual B.C. </div></div>
In other words its theoretical, on paper maximum B.C. possible on planet earth with the bullet in ballistic "Zen" in a flight through air in a Teflon micro-dust..............
1.05 and .97 are pretty friggin' far apart. Amax just isn't "that" slippery.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One other thought: I believe <span style="font-style: italic">actual </span> B.C. is dependent on bullet stabilization and axis of yaw; theoretical B.C. is based on mathematical calculation of profile and static flow, but what is experienced in reality depends on the smoothness of the actual flight dynamics of the projectile, i.e. yaw and precession, which are determined by barrel twist, muzzle velocity, wind vectors, altitude, air density, to name but a few. This likely accounts for the different results between published (ideal/static) and actual B.C. </div></div>
Similar threads
Firearms Barrett M99 50 BMG
