CJ6 said:
IMHO by singling out a couple "specific" bullets from a single maker and not all makers REEKS of bias (include all makers or none). The BETTER thing to do is GIVE BERGER the data and let them do as they see fit with it. I'm guessing our TAX dollars are paying for these studies correct ?
If you read carefully, I have pointed out that we've tested bullets from numerous manufacturers, including ATK, Nosler, Hornady, Barnes, Federal and Speer. This post is focused on Berger, because it recently came to light that Berger made claims to have revised its BCs based on measured numbers when the revised BCs for 1/4 to 1/3 of their bullets were based on theoretical predictions and the BCs were not really measured by firing bullets.
If FORD was advertising theoretical horsepower as measured horsepower for 1/4 to 1/3 of their vehicles, would the BETTER thing for an independent or government test lab who discovered the false advertising be to give FORD the data and let FORD decide what to do with it?
While I worked for the Air Force, their main contribution to my ballistics research was paying my salary and approving a small portion or my time to be used for ballistics research. The DoD never paid a cent for bullets, firearms, chronographs, brass, powder, or transportation. All these were paid for by privately funded research partners. The Air Force did allow occasional use of a high speed video camera for ballistics projects. They also approved collaborations I had with other DoD employees.
In return, we provided DoD with a number of important research results:
We developed much more cost effective and easily applied methods to quantify the damping of pitch and yaw of bullets in flight.
We developed methods for measuring the retarding force of bullets in ballistic gelatin and evaluated the terminal ballistics of several 9mm, .357 Sig, and trans/subsonic 7.62mm bullets.
We evaluated 62 grain jacketed lead bullets that could be stabilized in the Air Force's large stock of M16A1 rifles as potential ballistic training equivalents to the M855 rounds that cannot be stabilized in these older training rifles.
We developed (with Don Miller) and experimentally validated improved stability formulas to quickly and accurately (within 5%) predict gyroscopic stability of plastic tipped bullets and open tipped match rifle bullets. Previously, assessing bullet stability required expensive computations with PRODAS or expensive testing at the ARL spark range. We also quantified the effects of stability on aerodynamic drag. The new stability formulas were made publicly available. The spreadsheet has been downloaded from this web site hundreds of times, and the formula has also been incorporated into the JBM and Patagonia Cold Bore ballistics programs.
We verified the proportionality of aerodynamic drag to atmospheric density to an accuracy of 1-2% for small arms projectiles.
We assessed a number of 7.62mm bullets for possible use as improved Air Force counter sniper loads.
We published a paper on using the sound of target impact for acoustic reconstructions of shooting events.
We published papers for use as primers for DoD personnel on the fundamentals of internal, external, and terminal ballistics.
We studied the effects of bore polishing on aerodynamic drag.
We published a paper on the history and evidence for hydrostatic shock in the journal Neurosurgery.
We quantified the relative armor penetration potential of bullets made of jacketed lead, brass, steel core, and copper.
We quantified the dependence of armor of the same cross section on the total mass of the armor sample.
We developed experimental models separating the role of the ceramic from the role of the glass/aramid backing in composite armors.
We published a paper showing that shooting a human-sized quadruped in the chest can cause damage to the blood brain barrier.
We tested a number of lead free bullets and primers for potential DoD use, demonstrating severe limitations in DDNP based primers and performance deficiencies in lead free bullets compared with jacketed lead bullets.
We studied lot to lot variations in Hodgdon Extreme powders which have been adopted or are under consideration for DoD use.
We developed new, less expensive and faster methods for quantifying rifle and pistol primer performance.
We developed new, faster, and less expensive methods to measure bullet friction in 5.56 mm NATO and used those methods to quantify friction effects of bullet coatings, bullet construction, primer type, and the presence of petroleum based water case sealants. These methods work at ballistic velocities; whereas, the older tests measured the force pushing bullets through barrels with a rod at several inches per second.
We provided valuable officer training in many areas of small arms ballistics.
Our ballistics work also led us into some valuable inventions of devices for the laboratory simulation of blast waves. We used the devices to study transmission of blast waves through candidate armor materials and to test a popular model for computing blast wave transmission through armor materials. These inventions have been adopted at several government labs, by contractors, and by medical research facilities including the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.
I personally made major contributions to all of these projects (as senior scientist/principal investigator) while performing all my other Air Force duties at a very high level. I won awards both for my research and for my teaching accomplishments. I was promoted twice in my first two years with the Air Force. The attached photo shows me receiving the research award from Lt. Gen. Mike Gould (left), superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy, and Maj. Gen. William McCasland (right), commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory. Clearly, the chain of command was more than satisfied that my salary was being put to good use.
