I use 208gr Hornady ELDM bullets for my 308 winchester. the box for one says the BC for the bullet is .69 (nice) the other box reads .67 is this enough of a BC difference to seriously change my POI at 800 yards?
BC Inconsistency change POI?
- Thread starter Awag1000
- Start date
Hornandy adjusted th BC on a few bullets.
Question is did they change the bullet or Just adjust the BC to be closer to reality?
I’m guessing the latter.
2” different drop at 800 yds (can I say that without retribution?...or is converting mrads to inches anathema?...)
Coverting drops to linear measurements is a useless endeavor. When I change lots of bullets, I confirm my load is still good for the new lot, before I load a bunch of them.
Why? I'm all for avoiding useless endeavors - just trying to understand why this is one.
Because your scope doesn't adjust based on a linear measurement, it adjusts based on an angular measurement, same with using your reticle. 34 MOA is 34 MOA, 10 MILS is 10 MILS. If you need 3 MILS to hit 600, you don't need to know the linear measurement for the drop to hit you target, or to adjust for wind. It will be X number of MILS or MOA. Figuring the linear measurement for the amount of drop is an extra step that doesn't give you any useful information.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
People around here recite that mantra with no consideration for context.
If you need to know whether something will cause a miss, you only have two options. You can either figure BOTH the target size and the variance in the angular (MRADS or MOA), or do the math to figure the miss in a linear measurement. Since most of us refer to our target size in the linear measurement (inches usually), most choose the latter.
It is the same math either way. You will either be converting inches to MRADS or MRADS to inches. I have examined a lot of targets in my shooting career and I have never been able to find a ruler graduated in MRADS.
The whole thing about not using linear measurements only applies to dope and wind when figuring a shooting solution. There is absoutely no reason why it HAS to apply to analysis.
For target analysis and visualization purposes, nothing wrong with converting.
If I take an experienced shooter and tell them wind will move them .5 mil, they understand this.
New/casual/hunters will respond better to telling them the linear movement. That doesn’t mean they use linear measurements while shooting or finding a shooting solution. And eventually if they shoot enough, they will likely start thinking in moa or mils rather than linear terms.
When you take a foreign language course the first phase is typically mixed with your native language. It then progresses into only speaking the language you intend to learn.
And as stated above, if you’re already talking about say an 18” wide target, you‘ll either have to convert the target to mils or the potential error to inches. For explanation/example purposes (not shooting), there is nothing wrong with this.
If I take an experienced shooter and tell them wind will move them .5 mil, they understand this.
New/casual/hunters will respond better to telling them the linear movement. That doesn’t mean they use linear measurements while shooting or finding a shooting solution. And eventually if they shoot enough, they will likely start thinking in moa or mils rather than linear terms.
When you take a foreign language course the first phase is typically mixed with your native language. It then progresses into only speaking the language you intend to learn.
And as stated above, if you’re already talking about say an 18” wide target, you‘ll either have to convert the target to mils or the potential error to inches. For explanation/example purposes (not shooting), there is nothing wrong with this.
Similar threads
