Last comment I will make on this subject, but the matter at hand were claims made that weren't necessarily true.
The overall goal was not to "belittle" anyone, but to speak to the realities on hand. No one questioned or said that Radar was not good at measuring velocity decay, that is true and has always been true. We aren't using it to do things that we said it couldn't do. We are using it to do the things it has always been able to do.
Again, I'm not going to say everything was handled properly, or that in hind sight it was the right decision to bring these concerns to the public light. At the end of the day, our goal is hitting targets and teaching others about the realities at hand when it comes to external ballistics, that is why you will see us on the range at matches.
The true mistake was engaging these discussions on Forums with many individuals who didn't understand exactly what we were trying to convey, and this is where things seemed to get out of hand, I'm not interested in doing that again.
I said it then and I'll say it again, I have no quarrel with Dave Emery or anyone on the Hornady ballistics team, and if they bring their solver out and use it effectively at an ELR match (beyond a systems transonic range to truly test the solver), I'd be the first one there to shake their hand and congratulate them. That hasn't changed. And I'm sure if we had sat down and had a ballistics conversation with Dave and their team, we would probably have been on the same page with most things.
And at the end of the day, if mistakes are made, you learn from them and move on. I have no interest in arguing these topics anymore, and I wish them the best of luck. My outlook on this is to move on and do what we think is best to improve our solver and our system. It is possible for people to grow and improve their outlook on things, and I understand and agree with the value in true competition and how it drives innovation in the market.