DAMN!!!!!!

[bamorin]

Jun 23, 2017 13:02:22 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jun 23, 2017 12:53:49 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Ummmm, the ballistic coefficient of the 50BMG round is 1.01. It's the only round (from anything) that exceeds the magic BC of 1.0

Which means absolutely nothing, according to bulletmaker Hornady.


The Ballistic Coefficient

Before discussing this topic in more detail, let's dispel some myths surrounding it. Whatever you may have heard before, these are the facts:



There is no such thing as an absolute and invariable ballistic coefficient (B. C.)

Ballistic coefficients are only one factor in bullet selection for different kinds of shooting.

A ballistic coefficient can change with reference to (1) altitude, (2) temperature, (3) atmospheric pressure, and (4) relative humidity.

Ballistic coefficients are measures of a bullet's relative efficiency.

Ballistic coefficients are not measures of a bullet's "goodness."

Higher B.C.s do not necessarily make a bullet "better."

Lower B.C.s do not necessarily make a bullet "worse."

www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/external

Ummmm which means you don't understand the science, so it means nothing to you.

so let's look at this one you glossed over as having no meaning

Ballistic coefficients are measures of a bullet's relative efficiency.

so, we have two bullets of the same caliber, same weight, but one has a BC of 1.00, and one has a BC of .33. Both exit the barrel at the same velocity. what will the velocity of both bullets be at 100 yds, 200 yards, 300 yards? You can put this in an algebraic equation by giving X vs Z
what is the relative efficiency of X (bc of 1.0) to Z (bc of.33)?

[bamorin]

Jun 23, 2017 13:11:46 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jun 23, 2017 12:53:49 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Ummmm, the ballistic coefficient of the 50BMG round is 1.01. It's the only round (from anything) that exceeds the magic BC of 1.0

.416 Barrett MSG? 1.103? In theory, anyway.

.416 Barrett MSG (G1 BC ≈ 1.103 – this ballistic coefficient (BC) is calculated by its designer, Mr. Lutz Möller, and not proven by Doppler radar measurements).

the 50BMG has been proven to be above the magical 1.0 Hornady has pushed it up to 1.05. however, the bullet tip makes it illegal for the military
to explode heads with, so they're stuck with the "crappy ol 1.01BC"

[daleko]

Jun 23, 2017 16:49:03 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Jun 23, 2017 13:11:46 GMT -5 daleko said:

.416 Barrett MSG? 1.103? In theory, anyway.

.416 Barrett MSG (G1 BC ≈ 1.103 – this ballistic coefficient (BC) is calculated by its designer, Mr. Lutz Möller, and not proven by Doppler radar measurements).

the 50BMG has been proven to be above the magical 1.0 Hornady has pushed it up to 1.05. however, the bullet tip makes it illegal for the military
to explode heads with, so they're stuck with the "crappy ol 1.01BC"

I did say in theory. My guess is, at the very least it's above 1.

[bamorin]

Jun 23, 2017 16:54:40 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jun 23, 2017 16:49:03 GMT -5 bamorin said:

.416 Barrett MSG (G1 BC ≈ 1.103 – this ballistic coefficient (BC) is calculated by its designer, Mr. Lutz Möller, and not proven by Doppler radar measurements).

the 50BMG has been proven to be above the magical 1.0 Hornady has pushed it up to 1.05. however, the bullet tip makes it illegal for the military
to explode heads with, so they're stuck with the "crappy ol 1.01BC"

I did say in theory. My guess is, at the very least it's above 1.

has to be some very unique frontal area to the bullet to move it up from its parent BC of approx .750 - .760 of the .416cal

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2017 16:17:48 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Jun 23, 2017 13:02:22 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Which means absolutely nothing, according to bulletmaker Hornady.


The Ballistic Coefficient

Before discussing this topic in more detail, let's dispel some myths surrounding it. Whatever you may have heard before, these are the facts:



There is no such thing as an absolute and invariable ballistic coefficient (B. C.)

Ballistic coefficients are only one factor in bullet selection for different kinds of shooting.

A ballistic coefficient can change with reference to (1) altitude, (2) temperature, (3) atmospheric pressure, and (4) relative humidity.

Ballistic coefficients are measures of a bullet's relative efficiency.

Ballistic coefficients are not measures of a bullet's "goodness."

Higher B.C.s do not necessarily make a bullet "better."

Lower B.C.s do not necessarily make a bullet "worse."

www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/external

Ummmm which means you don't understand the science, so it means nothing to you.

so let's look at this one you glossed over as having no meaning

Ballistic coefficients are measures of a bullet's relative efficiency.

so, we have two bullets of the same caliber, same weight, but one has a BC of 1.00, and one has a BC of .33. Both exit the barrel at the same velocity. what will the velocity of both bullets be at 100 yds, 200 yards, 300 yards? You can put this in an algebraic equation by giving X vs Z
what is the relative efficiency of X (bc of 1.0) to Z (bc of.33)?

Well I guess Hornady, who is in the business of making and testing bullets, don't know what THEY are talking about either.  I think you need to go take over their business, since you know more than they do.

Wow.
JUST WOW.

[bamorin]

Jun 23, 2017 17:26:03 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jun 23, 2017 16:17:48 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Ummmm which means you don't understand the science, so it means nothing to you.

so let's look at this one you glossed over as having no meaning

Ballistic coefficients are measures of a bullet's relative efficiency.

so, we have two bullets of the same caliber, same weight, but one has a BC of 1.00, and one has a BC of .33. Both exit the barrel at the same velocity. what will the velocity of both bullets be at 100 yds, 200 yards, 300 yards? You can put this in an algebraic equation by giving X vs Z
what is the relative efficiency of X (bc of 1.0) to Z (bc of.33)?

Well I guess Hornady, who is in the business of making and testing bullets, don't know what THEY are talking about either.  I think you need to go take over their business, since you know more than they do.

Wow.
JUST WOW.

did you read the article that you posted the link to asshole?


30 CAL. (.308" DIA.) 180 GRAIN SPIRE POINT
SECTIONAL DENSITY: 0.271 BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT: 0.425
RANGE (YARDS) MUZZLE 50 100 200 300 400 500
VELOCITY (FPS) 3000 2887 2777 2565 2362 2169 1985
ENERGY (FT.-LB.) 3597 3331 3082 2629 2230 1880 1574
100 YD. ZERO -1.5" -0.2" 0.0" -3.0" -11.3" -25.9" -47.8"


30 CAL. (.308" DIA.) 180 GRAIN ROUND NOSE
SECTIONAL DENSITY: 0.271 BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT: 0.241
RANGE (YARDS) MUZZLE 50 100 200 300 400 500
VELOCITY (FPS) 3000 2803 2614 2259 1933 1639 1385
ENERGY (FT.-LB.) 3597 3139 2731 2040 1493 1073 767
100 YD. ZERO -1.5" -0.2" 0.0" -3.6" -14.1" -34.0" -67.0"


the only difference between these two bullets is their ballistic coeffient
the higher the coefficient, the better the downfield performance in velocity and energy

you need to read books that you don't have to color first.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2017 20:02:50 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Jun 23, 2017 17:26:03 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Well I guess Hornady, who is in the business of making and testing bullets, don't know what THEY are talking about either.  I think you need to go take over their business, since you know more than they do.

Wow.
JUST WOW.

did you read the article that you posted the link to asshole?


30 CAL. (.308" DIA.) 180 GRAIN SPIRE POINT
SECTIONAL DENSITY: 0.271 BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT: 0.425
RANGE (YARDS) MUZZLE 50 100 200 300 400 500
VELOCITY (FPS) 3000 2887 2777 2565 2362 2169 1985
ENERGY (FT.-LB.) 3597 3331 3082 2629 2230 1880 1574
100 YD. ZERO -1.5" -0.2" 0.0" -3.0" -11.3" -25.9" -47.8"


30 CAL. (.308" DIA.) 180 GRAIN ROUND NOSE
SECTIONAL DENSITY: 0.271 BALLISTIC COEFFICIENT: 0.241
RANGE (YARDS) MUZZLE 50 100 200 300 400 500
VELOCITY (FPS) 3000 2803 2614 2259 1933 1639 1385
ENERGY (FT.-LB.) 3597 3139 2731 2040 1493 1073 767
100 YD. ZERO -1.5" -0.2" 0.0" -3.6" -14.1" -34.0" -67.0"


the only difference between these two bullets is their ballistic coeffient
the higher the coefficient, the better the downfield performance in velocity and energy

you need to read books that you don't have to color first.

That's not nice.
Apparently you didn't read what HORNADY THE BULLET MAKERS said.

There is no such thing as an absolute and invariable ballistic coefficient (B. C.)



Ballistic coefficients are only one factor in bullet selection for different kinds of shooting.
A ballistic coefficient can change with reference to (1) altitude, (2) temperature, (3) atmospheric pressure, and (4) relative humidity.
Ballistic coefficients are measures of a bullet's relative efficiency.

Ballistic coefficients are not measures of a bullet's "goodness."

Higher B.C.s do not necessarily make a bullet "better."

Lower B.C.s do not necessarily make a bullet "worse."

[daleko]

Jun 23, 2017 17:09:03 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Jun 23, 2017 16:54:40 GMT -5 daleko said:

I did say in theory. My guess is, at the very least it's above 1.

has to be some very unique frontal area to the bullet to move it up from its parent BC of approx .750 - .760 of the .416cal

And it has that. You read the same site I did.

[daleko]

Jun 23, 2017 20:14:59 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Higher B.C.s do not necessarily make a bullet "better."

Lower B.C.s do not necessarily make a bullet "worse."

Words of wisdom. What are you gonna do w it? Sometimes it matters, many times it doesn't. Having a firearm/round package that can hit at a half a minute V a minute, hard, doesn't mean shit at 100 yds but at 2,000 that's an extra 10" of accuracy. Who doesn't want an extra 10" of hard hitting steel?

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2017 22:56:59 GMT -5 daleko said:

Jun 23, 2017 20:14:59 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Higher B.C.s do not necessarily make a bullet "better."

Lower B.C.s do not necessarily make a bullet "worse."

Words of wisdom. What are you gonna do w it? Sometimes it matters, many times it doesn't. Having a firearm/round package that can hit at a half a minute V a minute, hard, doesn't mean shit at 100 yds but at 2,000 that's an extra 10" of accuracy.

Who doesn't want an extra 10" of hard hitting steel?

Last time I asked a girl that, she ran.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2017 23:07:28 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jun 23, 2017 22:56:59 GMT -5 daleko said:

Words of wisdom. What are you gonna do w it? Sometimes it matters, many times it doesn't. Having a firearm/round package that can hit at a half a minute V a minute, hard, doesn't mean shit at 100 yds but at 2,000 that's an extra 10" of accuracy.

Who doesn't want an extra 10" of hard hitting steel?

Last time I asked a girl that, she ran.

Steely Dan?? Surely not Rubbery Bryan.

[Deleted]

Is thiss the magical Hornady you're talking about, Bam?
I've heard good things about this bullet but haven't tried them so far.
www.hornady.com/store/ELD-X-New

[Deleted]

Jun 24, 2017 10:55:25 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Is thiss the magical Hornady you're talking about, Bam?
I've heard good things about this bullet but haven't tried them so far.
www.hornady.com/store/ELD-X-New

What they DON'T tell you is that bullet expansion and terminal integrity depends on the density of the material it strikes, all other factors being equal.

[bamorin]

Jun 24, 2017 10:55:25 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Is thiss the magical Hornady you're talking about, Bam?
I've heard good things about this bullet but haven't tried them so far.
www.hornady.com/store/ELD-X-New

I wasn't commenting on a hornady bullet outside of the A-Max 50 cal bullet in which they state a BC of 1.05. which is above the 1.01 of John Brownings original design. I commented on your question about about the ability of the 50BMG to get that far down range to explode a head.
The 416 round that Daleko mentioned that achieved a BC above what the A-Max 50 does I called into question. Until there is verifiable doppler measurements from a standardized environment, I'll remain a bit skeptical.

[Deleted]

Jun 25, 2017 6:44:40 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Jun 24, 2017 10:55:25 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

Is thiss the magical Hornady you're talking about, Bam?
I've heard good things about this bullet but haven't tried them so far.
www.hornady.com/store/ELD-X-New

I wasn't commenting on a hornady bullet outside of the A-Max 50 cal bullet in which they state a BC of 1.05. which is above the 1.01 of John Brownings original design. I commented on your question about about the ability of the 50BMG to get that far down range to explode a head.
The 416 round that Daleko mentioned that achieved a BC above what the A-Max 50 does I called into question. Until there is verifiable doppler measurements from a standardized environment, I'll remain a bit skeptical.

How many battles are fought at 59^oF with a barometric pressure of 29.92 mbs at sea level?   [And there is no standard established for relative humidity.]
Just curious.