Which Published Berger BCs Are From Predictions Rather than Measurements?
- Thread starter Michael Courtney
- Start date
- Status
bsl135 said:
My use of the word "inflated" was a direct quote from Eric Stecker and clearly attributed to him as such. Eric Stecker wrote:
A BC is not a marketing tool and should not be inflated (intentionally or by using inaccurate means to calculate BC) for the purposes of selling more bullets. Some will say that inflating BC is smart business but frankly, we do not agree. A BC is an important number with physical meaning that’s used to calculate the trajectory of a given bullet which enables shooters to reliably engage targets at long range. The BC should allow a shooter to hit their aim point each and every time. There are many factors that influence the location of bullet impact but an accurate BC number is an essential component in achieving the most successful shooting experience no matter which brand you shoot. The bullet makers owe it to the shooters to provide them with truly accurate information about the performance of their product and that’s what we’re committed to.
We're still waiting on that truly accurate information about the performance of all of Berger's product. Eric stated a clear commitment to that in 2009 and said it owed this to the shooters. How many BCs have you added to your library since 2009? A hundred? Two hundred?
If Berger was really committed to providing shooters with accurate BCs (as Eric Stecker claimed), you would think by now you could have measured the 18 flat base bullets remaining in Berger's catalog.
I'm fairly certain that you actually measured the BC of the 87 grain .257 Berger flat base because it's BC was revised between 10/26/2008 and 2/6/09 downward 4.61% from from 0.347 to 0.292. This seems consistent with the idea of a downward revision by 5%. But by 4/14/2002, it was revised downward again a total of 15.85% to 0.292, so it looks like you probably measured that one. Not many flat base bullets were revised after that. I wonder why Berger decided to stop doing actual measurements to more accurately revise the BCs for the flat base bullets?
The Berger 62 grain flat base varmint BC was revised from 0.298 to 0.291, which is -2.35%. We measured this bullet's BC as 0.245, 18.8% lower than the revised spec. The Berger 52 grain flat base varmint BC was revised from 0.207 to 0.197, which is -4.83%. We measured this bullet's BC to be 0.179, 15.6% below the original spec and 9.1% below the revised spec.
Was Eric blowing smoke when he wrote, "The bullet makers owe it to the shooters to provide them with truly accurate information about the performance of their product and that’s what we’re committed to."
Mike I hope that doesn't deflate your BC. I don't care what the BC is as long as they keep winning me prizes and money at the shoots I attend. How much shooting do you do, I'd like to have you come to a match just to see what all that Knowledge does for you. I'm from the old school just make them shoot. I Just know they are good bullets. I know you are making bullets and trying to get your foot in the door. Tell the truth!
Joe Salt
Joe Salt
I don't care what the advertised BC is. If they don't shoot at 600 and 1000yd. BC means nothing. I never see someone shoot a 65Gr at that distance. To me BC at 1000yd is the difference in impact on paper with the same speed and gr weight different bullets. I know Bergers work. Larry
Bryan Litz Ballistics
Site $$ Sponsor
Michael,
This is a Berger Varmint Bullet:
Notice the flat base and wide open tip.
That's because varmint bullets are designed for two things: Precision and Terminal effect.
Measuring BC down to the 1% is not a high priority for varmint bullets
Everyone else seems to understand this except you; with the PHD from MIT.
For bullets which are fired at long range and designed for high external performance, that external performance is measured and represented accurately. We've even caveated our statement now acknowledging that some flat base BC's are predicted and not measured.
When you choose to attack one brand on multiple forums and say nothing about the others, that's not customer advocacy, that's called bias.
I think you have a personal problem with me and/or Berger, it's the only explanation for your continued rant about irrelevant minutia.
And frankly, I don't believe any measurements you're presenting on our bullets after you've demonstrated such a strong bias against this single brand.
This is a Berger Varmint Bullet:
Notice the flat base and wide open tip.
That's because varmint bullets are designed for two things: Precision and Terminal effect.
Measuring BC down to the 1% is not a high priority for varmint bullets
Everyone else seems to understand this except you; with the PHD from MIT.
For bullets which are fired at long range and designed for high external performance, that external performance is measured and represented accurately. We've even caveated our statement now acknowledging that some flat base BC's are predicted and not measured.
When you choose to attack one brand on multiple forums and say nothing about the others, that's not customer advocacy, that's called bias.
I think you have a personal problem with me and/or Berger, it's the only explanation for your continued rant about irrelevant minutia.
And frankly, I don't believe any measurements you're presenting on our bullets after you've demonstrated such a strong bias against this single brand.
bsl135 said:Michael,
This is a Berger Varmint Bullet:
Notice the flat base and wide open tip.
That's because varmint bullets are designed for two things: Precision and Terminal effect.
Measuring BC down to the 1% is not a high priority for varmint bullets
Everyone else seems to understand this except you; with the PHD from MIT.
For bullets which are fired at long range and designed for high external performance, that external performance is measured and represented accurately. We've even caveated our statement now acknowledging that some flat base BC's are predicted and not measured.
When you choose to attack one brand on multiple forums and say nothing about the others, that's not customer advocacy, that's called bias.
I think you have a personal problem with me and/or Berger, it's the only explanation for your continued rant about irrelevant minutia.
And frankly, I don't believe any measurements you're presenting on our bullets after you've demonstrated such a strong bias against this single brand.
I think he does as well Bryan. I have seen him post the same crap on multiple forums.
bsl135 said:
Eric Stecker wrote:
The bullet makers owe it to the shooters to provide them with truly accurate information about the performance of their product and that’s what we’re committed to.
I guess he meant Berger was only committed to providing truly accurate information about boat tail bullets for long range shooters.
bsl135 said:
Right, was this caveat added before or after a bit of customer advocacy for accuracy of product specs? Also, the caveat is buried in a faq and is not mentioned in direct association with the varmint bullet marketing materials.
The caveat reads:
*For some flat based bullets which are typically used at short range, BC’s are based on calculated rather than fired BC’s.
here: http://www.bergerbullets.com/wp_super_faq/what-is-bc/
When you click on the ? button on the varmint bullet page, you get:
"BC is more important for long range shooting than short range. The BC's of Berger bullets are based on carefully controlled test firing. The BC's established by this method are accurate to within +/- 1%, whereas BC's predicted by computer programs can have as much as +/- 10% error. All BC's reported for Berger bullets are corrected to the ICAO Atmosphere."
Wouldn't you agree that the caveat should me mentioned when one clicks on the ? button in the BC column on the varmint bullet page?
I have no bias against Berger. I have published and posted many times regarding the inaccuracy of BCs from other companies: Nosler, Barnes, Hornady, etc. Berger was explicitly claiming that all their BCs were based on fired numbers and accurate to 1%. I believe shooters deserve accurate product specifications, especially when a company claims to have provided them and also attempts to and insist that other bullet makers owe shooters accurate information also.
There would have been no problem publishing product specs only accurate to 10% if the marketing materials were clear that the accuracy was only within 10%. Explicit claims of 1% accuracy for specs that you knew were much more likely to only be within 10% was the source of the problem. If Hornady, Barnes, Nosler, Speer, or Sierra claimed 1% accuracy across all their product lines, I expect that I would probably by just as vocal on pointing out the problem.
bsl135 said:
A dozen varmint bullets had their BCs measured and were included in Litz, 2009. No Berger varmint bullets were included, but BCs of varmint bullets from other manufacturers were included.
Perhaps, the priority of measuring Berger varmint bullets was lowered after the BC of the 87 grain Berger flat base was measured and revised to a value 15.85% lower than its original value. At least up until 2009, the author recognized the importance of measuring BCs of varmint bullets for long range shooting. The priorities seemed to shift around that time.
Mr. Courtney
You have made several references to Long Range shooting with FB varmint bullets.
With that, what do you consider Long Range?
I have shot a lot of FB varmint bullets and light FB target bullets in Short Range (100-300). And have also used them often enough to Mid Range (300 - 500), but continually see how bad they give up in the Mid Range distances over the heavier higher BC boat-tail bullets. And I can't imagine why anyone would use them for Long Range (beyond 600) when they give up so much over the intended counterpart heavier, higher BC bullets at extended distances to ballistic and terminal ballistic performance.
Also, are you involved directly or indirectly to the making of bullets?
If so, elaborate please and your affiliation.
Phil
You have made several references to Long Range shooting with FB varmint bullets.
With that, what do you consider Long Range?
I have shot a lot of FB varmint bullets and light FB target bullets in Short Range (100-300). And have also used them often enough to Mid Range (300 - 500), but continually see how bad they give up in the Mid Range distances over the heavier higher BC boat-tail bullets. And I can't imagine why anyone would use them for Long Range (beyond 600) when they give up so much over the intended counterpart heavier, higher BC bullets at extended distances to ballistic and terminal ballistic performance.
Also, are you involved directly or indirectly to the making of bullets?
If so, elaborate please and your affiliation.
Phil
CJ6
Silver $$ Contributor
Phd's do not mean you're as smart as you think you are.....A very close friend (he spends the Holidays with us) has a dbl. Doctorate and doesn't know how to check his own oil (or even where the dipstick is) on his BMW and THAT'S a FACT. He's book smart and NO common scense.Lbart said:
UltraBR30 said:
The meaning of long range depends on context and cartridge. In the mid-west and south 600 yards is long range, because only on rare occasions do varmint opportunities present longer range shots. There are also very few shooting ranges and contests beyond 600 yards in states like Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. But I agree that 600 yards is about the limit for most varmint bullets.
Often, the higher BC flat base bullets are appealing due to the twist rate of an existing rifle. For example, 60-64 grain .224 varmint bullets are the heaviest that can be stabilized by 1 in 12" barrels near sea level, and these are also stable in 1 in 14" twists at 5000 ft and up in calibers like the 22-250, thus representing the best bullet option for varminting out to 600 yards in those rifles. These bullets also make a good 600 yard F class option in these rifles that won't stabilize the longer, higher BC bullets.
My family and I have shot lots of varmints and competed in lots of competitions out to 600 yards with 1 in 12" and 1 in 14" twist barrels. Of course, we try and select the higher BC bullets that stabilize in these rifles.
My rule of thumb is that the useful range of a bullet is not much more than 2000 times its G1BC. A bullet needs a BC close to 0.3 to be good to 600 yards. A bullet really needs a BC of 0.500 to be workable at 1000 yards, etc.
UltraBR30 said:
None of the colleagues or co-authors involved with BC testing or family members is involved directly or indirectly in the making of bullets. We are an independent research laboratory.
While I agree with your input that a .5-BC bullet is needed for 1000, they are also needed for 600yds for a ballistic advantage, like most all use in competition. Even a limited or novice level of ballistic study to path and performance will predominately show how inferior a bullet of only .3-BC will perform to a .4-BC bullet, let alone a .5-BC bullet at 600yds. Even at 400yds its starting to be a predominate "no brainer".
Please elaborate what all 600yd competitions and the sanction's you have competed with FB varmint bullets (.3-BC), and how you fared at these events.
A general use of them and using them successfully to compete, are two different things.
I detect exaggeration on your part, to the frequency and/or common use of low BC FB varmint bullets to Mid-Range and to 600yds.
I can't hardly remember a time of reading results of FB varmint bullets being used to win sanctioned and national competitions beyond 300yds, like your trying to inspire, and I am positive I have never read of it happening at a national level at 600yds (BR, FClass, NRA, etc).
Will end by saying: out shooting your buddies at your local club is a poor example of "competition shooting".
UltraBR30 said:
I am not trying to inspire anything, just stating the fact that a number of family members have used these bullets in competition. There's only been one first place that I can remember: I won a long range precision rifle competition (light rifle class) a few years back in Colorado. This is one of the competitions where you shoot at prairie dog and similar steel targets out to 600 or so yards. Oddly enough, it was the only time I shot that rifle and a flat base bullet in that kind of competition, and the only time I took first. I was not really buddies with anyone there, and it was not at my local club. Most competitors had custom rifles and scopes that cost $2k+. They were regulars on the LRPR circuit in Colorado, and most days shot rings around me.
Other family members shoot a couple of different slow twist rifles in various competitions. I don't have all the records of which rifle was shot every time, but some of these family members often have finished in the top 20% of competitors, including some top junior and top female awards. Other family members just are not that good and only shoot at 600 yards once or twice a year, so they are not very competitive.
All the NRA/IBS approved competitions have been F-Class and bench rest, with the accomplishments made by younger members of the family. As far as I know, the bullets used by the competitors are not recorded in the records, so the only way to know what people are shooting is to attend the match and talk to people. From talking to people at the matches, flat base bullets are more common in 200 yard bench rest than in 600 yard bench rest and 600 yard F-Class. But I've seen a surprising number of people competing with varmint and hunting rifles, and many of these competitors are using varmint bullets or flat base match bullets. Those with single purpose $4k+ custom rifles almost always shoot higher BC bullets.
Are they winning? Not usually. The only first place I'm sure of anywhere with a low end rifle was my own in the long range precision rifle with a factory Rem 700 ADL in .223 Remington shooting the 62 grain Berger flat base. That rifle cost $300 or so back in 1999 and was adopted by a family member shortly after my victory with it. Most family members are simply more comfortable shooting that rifle and a factory Savage in .222 Rem in competition, rather than rifles specialized for shooting higher BC bullets. If they are happy and growing in their skills, who am I to say, "You gotta shoot a heavier bullet."
Still having a bullet with a BC of 0.290 rather than 0.245 gives a better chance at hitting prairie dog sized steel and F-Class 10 rings out to 600 yards.
I was a member of the VHA for many years and enjoyed reading the descriptions of how members earned their way into the 500 yard club. It was not uncommon for members to make shots past 500 yards with varmint and flat base bullets. The heavier bullets were more common among members joining the 1000 yard club.
So I guess the bottom line is that the higher BC varmint/match bullets that work in slow twist barrels allow shooters entry into F-Class and 500 yard varminting for the cost of a box of bullets rather than a new rifle or rebarreling.
gstaylorg said:
My goal was improved honesty and accuracy in product specs, and progress has been made in that direction.
It seems like some posters are asking questions in good faith and seem interested in an ongoing discussion. It would seem rude for me to simply stop replying to direct questions when they are asked. Thousands of views and dozens of replies suggest interest in the discussion. Many colleagues and peers have expressed appreciation for my participation in this conversation.
6BRinNZ said:
Do you think anyone has learned that if you misrepresent your product marketing specs, someone might call you out on it?
Not a bad lesson for DoD contractors and those who aspire to multi-million dollar ammo contracts.
- Status
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.
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.