Nosler gets a black eye from Varmimt Hunter...

[ScreaminEagle]

I don't want to highjack this thread but how do you calculate your BC?

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't want to highjack this thread but how do you calculate your BC?

The simplest way is to tweak factory published BC of a particular bullet to match the actual drop observed in the field. Another methods that I use occasionally is the use of two chronograph placed 100 yards apart to record velocity drop. I then feed it into my ballistic program to give me the actual BC. This is much more accurate methods of finding actual BC.

 

[Coyote Hunter]

RR nailed it. There are too many variables to draw conclusions.
Nosler list their BC as an average so actual testing may produce different results.

JD338

Yup on all counts.

Same load, same time, same place, different rifles = different BCs.

Vary temps, pressure, humidity, barrel, all will change the BC.

 

[SJB358]

To be straight... I love Nosler bullets... they've never let me down when it counted, in either the accuracy or performance. I was simply stating what the article was stating... and adding some personal inferences...

I then found it very interesting how quickly this very well written, and scientificly accurate article was dismissed by a number of folks (several of whom I respect highly and appreciate their experience) ... who never even bothered to read the article. So... I played a little devils advocate on the whole thing.

BC is very important to me... to be sure. I'll take all I can get though given the bullet is applicable for the application. , and I felt a little let down lately when shooting a drop chart with two Nosler bullets, and noticed they weren't shooting as flat as the velocity should indicate. Then this article more than less confirmed my suspicions. I'll still shoot 70 NBTs out of the .243... because I know the clobber the snot out of coyotes... and make acrobats out of prairie poodles. But, when this box runs dry, you can bet I'll look at the 75 Vmax... because the BC appears to be about 40 points higher... and that means more of the good stuff (velocity, energy) and less of the bad stuff (drift)... without giving up much at the spout (50fps or so). Also, I've thrown enough rounds waaay down range to accept a certain published BC as gospel... shooting your own drop data is vital of one expects to make hits (especially on fur) with any level of consistency.

Seriously though... you should at least read the article... especially if you're going to so much effort to discredit it.

SD, I get what your saying buddy. It was a good article.

 

[bullet]

Scotty, what did you think was best part of the article? I would like to know your take on the article, because I am paying for a subscription today to the magazine in question so I can read the article digitally myself and I would like to compare what you liked against what I thought was good about the article. I found it interesting what he said on page 103 about Sierra BC and then on page 104 on Nosler BT BC. Once again, what did you find the most striking about the article.

For anyone who is looking for the article it is entitled "Comparing Advertised Ballistic Coefficients With Independent Measurements." I might do a review of it but want to think about it a while. If you are looking for the copy of the Varmint Hunter Magazine on a shelf in the store it is the one with the bob cat on front.

 

[SJB358]

Mike, I see everyone's point in BC and needing to be verified before depending on it for long range shooting BUT the tested the bullets were given a fair shake. Noslers were the furthest off their advertised BC. Doesn't hurt my feelings. They went head to head and were a few percentage points worse than Hornady. I think all of the BC stuff is kinda overrated. Not saying I don't use it, but it seems like 100's of hunters now need a .500 to kill stuff when they still aren't shooting over 300 and maybe 500 at most. The folks that need BC know what they are looking for and verify the products in their rifles. I don't think giving a BC is the end all of a good bullet. I thought the writer did a decent job comparing to what is advertised. We all wanna get what we pay for, I do. It is hard enough to come up with a good topic. Much better than the 30-06 vs 270 articles or what caliber is best for deer! Maybe if I shot long all the time, I would care more but I don't. I know alot of you do, so I look forward to you all keeping us rookies informed!

 

[bullet]

Mike, I see everyone's point in BC and needing to be verified before depending on it for long range shooting BUT the tested the bullets were given a fair shake. Noslers were the furthest off their advertised BC. Doesn't hurt my feelings. They went head to head and were a few percentage points worse than Hornady. I think all of the BC stuff is kinda overrated. Not saying I don't use it, but it seems like 100's of hunters now need a .500 to kill stuff when they still aren't shooting over 300 and maybe 500 at most. The folks that need BC know what they are looking for and verify the products in their rifles. I don't think giving a BC is the end all of a good bullet. I thought the writer did a decent job comparing to what is advertised. We all wanna get what we pay for, I do. It is hard enough to come up with a good topic. Much better than the 30-06 vs 270 articles or what caliber is best for deer! Maybe if I shot long all the time, I would care more but I don't. I know alot of you do, so I look forward to you all keeping us rookies informed!

I will have to agree with your assessment. I thought he did a decent job also. I really don't take game at distances over 400yds most of the time and only on a few occasion taken shots past 500yds. I found the article interesting, but even though Nosler was the furthest of avertised, I agree with you that it does not hurt my feelings either. Thanks for your response, it was a good one.

 

[SJB358]

Thank you Mike. I'm a short ranger compared to alot of you guys. BC really doesn't play to much into my though process for bullets. I like the ABs and PTs and they happen to have decent numbers.

 

[bullet]

Thank you Mike. I'm a short ranger compared to alot of you guys. BC really doesn't play to much into my though process for bullets. I like the ABs and PTs and they happen to have decent numbers.

Yes, Accubonds and Partitions are at the top of my favorite hunting bullets through the years and I find they are very accurate at the ranges I use them and they are excellent when it comes to terminal results.

 

[nvbroncrider]

Mike, I see everyone's point in BC and needing to be verified before depending on it for long range shooting BUT the tested the bullets were given a fair shake. Noslers were the furthest off their advertised BC. Doesn't hurt my feelings. They went head to head and were a few percentage points worse than Hornady. I think all of the BC stuff is kinda overrated. Not saying I don't use it, but it seems like 100's of hunters now need a .500 to kill stuff when they still aren't shooting over 300 and maybe 500 at most. The folks that need BC know what they are looking for and verify the products in their rifles. I don't think giving a BC is the end all of a good bullet. I thought the writer did a decent job comparing to what is advertised. We all wanna get what we pay for, I do. It is hard enough to come up with a good topic. Much better than the 30-06 vs 270 articles or what caliber is best for deer! Maybe if I shot long all the time, I would care more but I don't. I know alot of you do, so I look forward to you all keeping us rookies informed!

I agree with both of you gentleman on this. These long range shooters and snipers do hour upon hours of testing with their equipment so they know exactly what they have. Then they are trained to do all the math on the fly in their head. You look at the U.S. snipers in Afghanistan and the conditions they face altitude humidity temperature and they better have shot thousands of rounds before they get their so they know what they have and can adapt to those conditions approprietly. Those men are amazing at what they do.

 

[usmc 89]

i use brian litz info on g7 ballistic values and the jbm ballistics calculator all the time. as far as his bc assessment goes when the accurate info has been put into the ballistic calculator correctly his bc values have been spot on in relation to drop applied to drop needed.

 

[remingtonman_25_06]

I thought there was a similar article few years back in shooting times or something that had pretty much done the same thing, by the sounds of it anyway. Havent read the article.

I"ll agree with whats already been said by most that there is to many variables.

Anyone that knows anything about LR shooting in the first place knows there going to have to make there own drop chart by actual shooting.

I've ran into this numerous times over years with all kinds of bullets, trying to tweak the BC or velocity to get the chart to come out right. Best thing is to shoot every 50 yards out to however far you intend to be shooting/hunting, then you'll know for certain what the correction should be.

I ran into this problem just few weeks ago while developing a mid range load out to 500 yards for my 243 and 55g NBTs at a cronoed 3900fps. Plugging numbers into ballistics program gave me a projection of 1.25 MOA elevation correction for 300, 3.25 MOA for 400, and 5.25 MOA for 500.

I shot at 300, 400, and 500 yards.

At 300 I was spot on. At 400 I was about 2 clicks or 1/2 MOA low of center. At 500 I was a very surprising full 2 MOA or 8 clicks low of center.

Working it backwards on the program, I could either trust the cronographs reading of 3900fps and use a .190 BC and it would match up at 500, or I could somehow be getting only 3400fps with a stiff load of 4895 and a 55g bullet (which I doubt) with the advertised .276 BC and it would match up to 500.

Who knows for sure why, I dont really know, other then you just need to get out and shoot and make your own findings and come up with your own conlusions!

 

[bullet]

Who knows for sure why, I dont really know, other then you just need to get out and shoot and make your own findings and come up with your own conlusions!

AMEN!!!

 

[Songdog]

Who knows for sure why, I dont really know, other then you just need to get out and shoot and make your own findings and come up with your own conlusions!

AMEN!!!

You still make purchases and bullet oriented choices based partially on BC... or at least I do. So, when the numbers are off by as much as Nosler'w were... it is a bit concerning.

Now, I ask you this Jorry... What's the difference not on drop... but in drift between a bullet doing 3900 with a .276 (advertised Nosler BC)... and a .190 (your measured BC) at 500 yards? It's a big deal, right? And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my point. With Noslers, it appears, you get a fluffed BC with which to make comparisons with other manufacturers... and that is due to laziness, poor/faulty testing, or flat out dishonesty (which includes manipulation of "variables" to get desired results)... paint it with whatever brush you want.

I looked at my current 70 grain NBT load for the .243... and my drop chart shows a very similar phenomenon to Jorry's. I shoot a lot of mid to long range (500-900 yards) too... and I know BCs vary from rifle to rifle... but again, this test put them all in the same light... they removed many (most) of the variables you all keep referencing... and Nosler came out sucking hind tit.

 

[bullet]

Why don't you give it a rest. I have hit with the 165gr AccuBond a coues deer at 618yds one shot across a canyon with up draft and and slight left to right wind and put the bullet in the heart lung area and the coues died right there. Talk all you want, make all the comments you want, but you will not convince me that I need to change bullets because of your opinions on BC. I can't at the moment count the animals I have taken with Nosler bullets without going over 30 years of records, but I assure you from my experience I will continue to use and make very short or very long shots knowing I can hit the game and they will die quickly when I use a Nosler.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Anything that we say in response swings you right back to the opening statements of this discussion. No quarter apparently is asked or given on this topic, either Nosler has to Mea Culpa on their knees, pouring salt in their mouth or you will just keep saying the same thing! If it helps, we heard you!

Nosler bullets are primarily designed for hunting and I as well as most people on this forum, use them within 400 yards exclusively. Many of us have even stated that we do not shoot much outside of 400 yards and speaking for myself, I would not pay extra for something that I do not much need. There has to be a practical discussion here somewhere?

 

[remingtonman_25_06]

For the record songdog never said it was .190.

I was basically giving an example of how u can manipulate the programs to get what ur actually coming up with.

I don't know what the BC is, honestly don't really care. They kill dogs out to 600 yards reliably and I have no issues with it. I know what my corrections are whether its a .190 BC or a .276 BC, whether its going 3400fps or 3900fps. Who really knows, all I know is what imy rifle/load did under my shooting conditions that day, which is helluva lot better then any ballistic program can and will do for you.

And yes, wind deflection was horrible songdog. Wind was maybe 3mph not even full value, more like a quarter and it drifted those 55s about 18" at 500, and at 400 it was about 6-8".

 

[Songdog]

You don't need to get so butt hurt there bullet... the numbers don't lie... neither does the article. I'm glad you killed a couse at 600+... I'll do a frickin' cartwheel for you... but that's not the point. For the record... I killed a coyote at 947 yards with a single cold bore shot, on a sub-freezing day, out of the .220 Swift shooting 50 NBTs... big fricking deal. How? I shot the drop data all the way to 1200 with that rifle... and there was no wind that day... woo hoo. I can shoot a long way too... and I appreciate every point I can get in BC (given bullet performance is appropriate)... because I know that every point is a small increase in margin of error... I can't understand why you feel your the need to get so defensive?

I'm not trying to get you to switch bullets... or anything else... I'm just saying that I read an article that states a big difference between what Nosler is saying you get... and what you're actually getting... that's all. Then, I added that recently I've recognized the same thing with two different Nosler bullets... and Jorry noticed it on the 55 grainer. On the same day... the Sierra 80 Blitz was dead nutz all the way to 700 yards using the advertised BC of .319. Velocities were verified with a chronograph, and all environmental data was inputed correctly... the Noslers failed to live up to their BC numbers... the Sierra was right on... just what the article reflected.

If your numbers differ... then why don't you write it up and send it to Varmint Hunter Magazine... until then... or even until you've actually read the article... try not to get your panties all in a wad. I'll keep using their numbers... not Nosler's... you're free to use whatever numbers you want. I'll keep shooting my drop charts... I'm sure you will too... you'll keep shooting the 165 AccuBond... I'll change to the 75 Vmax or the 80 Blitz to get what I'm supposed to be getting in BC... it is still a moderately free socialist republic at this point.

 

[bullet]

OK :wink:

 

[Songdog]

OK :wink:

So you're saying you are wearing panties? :lol: