Re: 338 Bullet Testing / Demonstration LV Nev.
All:
I was a bit surprised at the apparent "surprise" evidenced in posts made after the results were published, about the "poor" showing of the "solids" vs the Berger and SMK. Here's why I was surprised:
1. Looking at the Berger website (
http://www.bergerbullets.com/Products/Target%20Bullets.html), there is a very definite relation between bullet weight and BC. Specifically, if you run some number, and consider the Berger "Match Target Hybrid" series in 30 cal (insufficient data points in .338), you get these results (bullet weight divided by here-published acoustically-derived G7 BC):
168 gr yields 631.6
185 gr yields 635.7
200 gr yields 625
215 gr yields 603.9
230 gr yields 605.3
To me these results suggests a very definite relation of BC to weight with some tapering off as the weight increases.
2. If you then scale up the test results by the difference in bullet weight (300 divided by the weight of bullet X) you get the following scaled up G7 values (in the order the test results were posted, that is, bullet #):
SMK 300 - no change at .380
HDY 285 - .366
Lehigh 245 - .408
GSC 232 - .385
Predator 235 - .360
Berger 300 - no change at .389
ZA 276 - .393
To me this suggests that lengthening the lower weight projectiles enough to reach 300 gr (no nose or tail changes - which is what I assume is approximately the case with the Berger 30's) would yield a rather tight G7 grouping, .360 - .408.
My conclusion, the lower BCs for lower weight bullet is to be fully expected AND rationalizing those test G7 numbers by the disparity in weight suggests that the BCs of all these projectiles is so close (again, .360 - .408) as to be relatively meaningless in the context of projectile application, that is, shooting and hitting your target. Short answer, "within the range of designs considered, the demonstrated BCs are in line with projectile weight...now lets move on."
So...on to "Phase 2: Accuracy at ELR Distances".