• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Hornady 162 eld-m

According to Hornadys website, the 162 eld-m in 7mm caliber is published at .670. This number certainly seems to be high. Looking at the BC earlier in the year, Hornady claimed .652 which I thought the last two numbers were reversed. The Amax version was .625 so I kinda thought they were the same at .625 but with the " heat shield tip". Can or does anyone have better more accurate data ? I will do some range work and confirm better numbers when my gun is complete. Curious until then.
 
Key to BC is velocity ranges. Some companies publish BC for velocities, some publish maximum BC, some predict common usage and publish those. If I'm recalling correct; BC is a summation of performance some of which includes environment during test. IE humidity, barometric pressure (thus altitude too), and temperature could have an effect in BC during measurement.

Also, IME hornady typically publishes nearer to max BC say in the 3000fps range; again I could be incorrect.

-Mac
 
Key to BC is velocity ranges. Some companies publish BC for velocities, some publish maximum BC, some predict common usage and publish those. If I'm recalling correct; BC is a summation of performance some of which includes environment during test. IE humidity, barometric pressure (thus altitude too), and temperature could have an effect in BC during measurement.

Also, IME hornady typically publishes nearer to max BC say in the 3000fps range; again I could be incorrect.

-Mac

You are correct, with one more addition. Some companies publish averaged BC and not velocity specific. In this case you are seeing Peak BC.
 
So is there generalized percentage out there we can apply to get a more averaged BC number to use for long range predictions, and can that number be applied to all of the new ELD line of bullets? Take for example the new 195 30 cal Sierra TMK. Sierra lists a BC of .610 at high velocity but the average BC is .588 which is roughly 4% less than max BC. So for the bullet in question using the same 4% reduction the average G1 BC is .643 with a G7 somewhere in the .330 range. I know this is a broad generalization but is this a safe assumption to make until we get some hard data from Bryan Litz?
 
Why would it matter how we get the BC, when we know our system is accurate to within 1%. I can tell you what I know is accurate and correct that is all that really matters.

Some might be skeptical that the system is as accurate as Doppler radar to 1000 yards. Here is the Hornady drag curve from Doppler radar over the whole supersonic range.162 ELDM Cd.png
 
Well no need to be skeptical, we have a system in place that provides CDMs (Mach vs CD just like you see above) to an accuracy of 1%. By the way, the distance at which you test is not important. What is important is the Mach Numbers you gather data for.
 
I run my ballistics programs to estimate a "projected path" and then shoot at different ranges to get the info I need to fire at different ranges. Even that can be "off" if the humidity rises or drops and in conjunction with altitude and air pressure. As each of those conditions change so does the effective BC of your bullet.
Regardless of the number assigned to the bullet it is for "standard" atmospheric conditions at sea level. If you have those conditions and no atmospheric or ground effect anomalies then you can predict, with some level of precision, the path of your bullet.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,847
Messages
2,204,848
Members
79,174
Latest member
kit10n
Back
Top