A few weeks ago, on this and two other forums I was accused of lying to our customers as a deliberate effort to manipulate them in an attempt to gain a marketing advantage. Even though information was presented to explain our position I regard the matter as unresolved since I have not directly responded to the accusation.
My lack of response was a result of something that I will get to in a moment but I first will address the accusation and explain where my fault lies in the situation. I have spent my entire career working to produce a product that is genuine in its performance. I regard it as a disservice to the shooting community that so many marketing claims are made that are not consistent with the results a shooter can expect from a product. Our deliberate effort to avoid false marketing claims is a manifestation of our core values. As Walt puts it, “if you’re going to do it, do it right.â€
At no point have I decided to communicate a marketing message in which I deliberately intend to manipulate our customers. I can say with absolute confidence that what I have been accused of is false. However, this doesn’t mean that I am not guilty of making an error.
The error that this situation has identified is that I personally regard BCs for flat base bullet as essentially unnecessary. I have been shooting flat base bullets in short range benchrest competitions for over two decades. Over this time, the BC of a flat base bullet has never been discussed. Not once. In my career as a bullet maker, I do not recall having a conversation about BCs of flat base bullets with any shooter. However, when I talk with shooters about boat tail bullets it is common for BC to be part of the conversation.
In spite of this experience, I am not absolved of having made a mistake. I understand that even though I regard the BC of flat base bullets as essentially unnecessary in practical shooting applications this doesn’t mean that there are no shooters who regard the BC of flat base bullets as unnecessary.
My decision that estimated BCs for flat base bullets is more than adequate for successful shooting of such bullets is a result of this assumption. It is in making this assumption that I am guilty. Applying this assumption to our published data was an error. I apologize to all Berger customers for making this error. Clearly this is inconsistent with comments I’ve made about owing it to you to provide fire tested BC data.
It is important to clarify that any decisions I make regarding Berger’s efforts are based most heavily on the point of view of my experience as a shooter not as a businessman looking to make a buck. I believe strongly that if we stay true to doing the best we can for the shooter, we will be successful as a business. Making the assumption that my experience as a shooter represents the experience and desire of all shooters is where I went wrong in this particular situation. This is what led to the actions that resulted in this accusation.
Ultimately, I regard adversity as an opportunity to grow stronger. This situation is such an opportunity. We are already in the process of reviewing and updating the BCs of flat base bullets. In the coming months you will see this information adjusted. The difference will be slight but the adjustments will be based on fired data rather than estimates. You will also start seeing further expansion of the data we provide. This information is meant to give all shooters even greater clarity on the true, real world performance they can expect from Berger.
I believe it is also important to explain why I didn’t response when the accusation was made or while the thread progressed in each of the three forums. Those who are familiar with my engagement of the forums know that I am not shy about communicating my opinions and beliefs when it comes to Berger. This particular situation is unique because I regard my accuser as being the worst type of violator of what I address in the chapter on shooting forums in our reloading manual. I refer to this type of person as the Know-It-All.
The Know-It-All is characterized as a person who communicates misinformation in a way that seems genuine and correct. This information is relayed in absolutes with the poster have no decent sense of self doubt that comes from accurate observations of real world experience on the subject they are discussing. A strong academic understanding of math and related theories cannot provide one with the type of knowledge that is obtained from many years of manufacturing experience and the actual shooting of countless rounds in real world testing.
Those who have spent their career engaged in real world efforts learn that very little if anything in shooting is absolute to the extent that it is above questioning. Those who have such real world experience and understanding communicate with phrases such as, “this is what we found†or “under these conditions the results we observed were…â€. These positions leave the reader with an understanding that includes the possibility that their own results might not be consistent with what was communicated due to the numerous variables that exist in the real world application of rifle shooting.
My personal annoyance with the behavior of the Know-It-All achieves a new high when it comes to my accuser. I am so enraged by his behavior that when I was engaged on a thread announcing the launch of ABM (our ammo company) on the longrangehunting.com forum my anger level resulted in a venomous personal attack against this person. I will not retract my comments as I believe them to be true but I am ashamed of my behavior and inability to better control my anger while posting my responses.
This is the specific reason I decided not to post any response to my accuser when he decided to expand this fight to a new thread on this and two other forums. It had nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
This doesn’t mean that in the future we will shirk away from the misinformation he communicates. Bryan is far more qualified to unravel the twisted aspects of the misinformation that he communicates in a way that is helpful to shooters. To be clear, I am in no way suggesting that everything that my accuser communicates is false. Much of his information is based in some way on actual fact. However, he uses these facts to communicate opinions and make accusations that are inconsistent with real world applications and realities. When this occurs, Bryan will be there to help shooters understand the true nature of the information being discussed.
I’ll add that it is not my intension to further stir this pot (although I understand that it might not seem that way). After spending much consideration on simply letting this situation go I find that I am unable to live with the idea that there might be some doubt as to my motives and to Berger reputation as being a gold standard for providing shooters with accurate and useable information on the performance of our product. I offer this apology and explanation as much for those who use Berger as I do for my own personal desire to look Walt in the eye with full confidence and pride that I am continuing his legacy of doing it right.
Regards,
Eric
My lack of response was a result of something that I will get to in a moment but I first will address the accusation and explain where my fault lies in the situation. I have spent my entire career working to produce a product that is genuine in its performance. I regard it as a disservice to the shooting community that so many marketing claims are made that are not consistent with the results a shooter can expect from a product. Our deliberate effort to avoid false marketing claims is a manifestation of our core values. As Walt puts it, “if you’re going to do it, do it right.â€
At no point have I decided to communicate a marketing message in which I deliberately intend to manipulate our customers. I can say with absolute confidence that what I have been accused of is false. However, this doesn’t mean that I am not guilty of making an error.
The error that this situation has identified is that I personally regard BCs for flat base bullet as essentially unnecessary. I have been shooting flat base bullets in short range benchrest competitions for over two decades. Over this time, the BC of a flat base bullet has never been discussed. Not once. In my career as a bullet maker, I do not recall having a conversation about BCs of flat base bullets with any shooter. However, when I talk with shooters about boat tail bullets it is common for BC to be part of the conversation.
In spite of this experience, I am not absolved of having made a mistake. I understand that even though I regard the BC of flat base bullets as essentially unnecessary in practical shooting applications this doesn’t mean that there are no shooters who regard the BC of flat base bullets as unnecessary.
My decision that estimated BCs for flat base bullets is more than adequate for successful shooting of such bullets is a result of this assumption. It is in making this assumption that I am guilty. Applying this assumption to our published data was an error. I apologize to all Berger customers for making this error. Clearly this is inconsistent with comments I’ve made about owing it to you to provide fire tested BC data.
It is important to clarify that any decisions I make regarding Berger’s efforts are based most heavily on the point of view of my experience as a shooter not as a businessman looking to make a buck. I believe strongly that if we stay true to doing the best we can for the shooter, we will be successful as a business. Making the assumption that my experience as a shooter represents the experience and desire of all shooters is where I went wrong in this particular situation. This is what led to the actions that resulted in this accusation.
Ultimately, I regard adversity as an opportunity to grow stronger. This situation is such an opportunity. We are already in the process of reviewing and updating the BCs of flat base bullets. In the coming months you will see this information adjusted. The difference will be slight but the adjustments will be based on fired data rather than estimates. You will also start seeing further expansion of the data we provide. This information is meant to give all shooters even greater clarity on the true, real world performance they can expect from Berger.
I believe it is also important to explain why I didn’t response when the accusation was made or while the thread progressed in each of the three forums. Those who are familiar with my engagement of the forums know that I am not shy about communicating my opinions and beliefs when it comes to Berger. This particular situation is unique because I regard my accuser as being the worst type of violator of what I address in the chapter on shooting forums in our reloading manual. I refer to this type of person as the Know-It-All.
The Know-It-All is characterized as a person who communicates misinformation in a way that seems genuine and correct. This information is relayed in absolutes with the poster have no decent sense of self doubt that comes from accurate observations of real world experience on the subject they are discussing. A strong academic understanding of math and related theories cannot provide one with the type of knowledge that is obtained from many years of manufacturing experience and the actual shooting of countless rounds in real world testing.
Those who have spent their career engaged in real world efforts learn that very little if anything in shooting is absolute to the extent that it is above questioning. Those who have such real world experience and understanding communicate with phrases such as, “this is what we found†or “under these conditions the results we observed were…â€. These positions leave the reader with an understanding that includes the possibility that their own results might not be consistent with what was communicated due to the numerous variables that exist in the real world application of rifle shooting.
My personal annoyance with the behavior of the Know-It-All achieves a new high when it comes to my accuser. I am so enraged by his behavior that when I was engaged on a thread announcing the launch of ABM (our ammo company) on the longrangehunting.com forum my anger level resulted in a venomous personal attack against this person. I will not retract my comments as I believe them to be true but I am ashamed of my behavior and inability to better control my anger while posting my responses.
This is the specific reason I decided not to post any response to my accuser when he decided to expand this fight to a new thread on this and two other forums. It had nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
This doesn’t mean that in the future we will shirk away from the misinformation he communicates. Bryan is far more qualified to unravel the twisted aspects of the misinformation that he communicates in a way that is helpful to shooters. To be clear, I am in no way suggesting that everything that my accuser communicates is false. Much of his information is based in some way on actual fact. However, he uses these facts to communicate opinions and make accusations that are inconsistent with real world applications and realities. When this occurs, Bryan will be there to help shooters understand the true nature of the information being discussed.
I’ll add that it is not my intension to further stir this pot (although I understand that it might not seem that way). After spending much consideration on simply letting this situation go I find that I am unable to live with the idea that there might be some doubt as to my motives and to Berger reputation as being a gold standard for providing shooters with accurate and useable information on the performance of our product. I offer this apology and explanation as much for those who use Berger as I do for my own personal desire to look Walt in the eye with full confidence and pride that I am continuing his legacy of doing it right.
Regards,
Eric
