Interesting development.
Interesting – for the first time, I’ve seen someone use the BBTI data as a baseline for whether or not to trust claims by an ammo manufacturer about the performance of other ammo which we haven’t tested. Here’s the quote from a discussion on THR:
As Mayo has already said, it’s from Corbon. If you will check Corbons velocity claim for other loads with the ballistic by the inch’s real gun tests of the same loads, you will see they are very close. Therefore I’m comfortable with using the Corbon site data for this load.
Perhaps a subtle distinction, but to a certain extent it moves our data into the category of being the trusted independent research by which other things are measured. Very interesting, indeed.
Jim Downey
(Oh, something else: my latest article is up on Guns.com, and now my byline also has links to all my other articles, if you’re interested.)
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- August 2022 (1)
- July 2022 (3)
- May 2021 (1)
- March 2021 (1)
- December 2020 (1)
- September 2020 (4)
- August 2020 (10)
- July 2020 (1)
- February 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (1)
- November 2019 (4)
- August 2019 (1)
-
Categories
- .22
- .223
- .22WMR
- .25 ACP
- .30 carbine
- .32 ACP
- .32 H&R
- .327 Federal Magnum
- .357 Magnum
- .357 SIG
- .38 Special
- .380 ACP
- .40 S&W
- .41 Magnum
- .44 Magnum
- .44 Special
- .45 ACP
- .45 Colt
- .45 Super
- .450 SMC
- .460 Rowland
- 10mm
- 6.5 Swedish
- 9mm Luger (9×19)
- 9mm Mak
- 9mm Ultra
- Anecdotes
- black powder
- Boberg Arms
- Data
- Discussion.
- General Procedures
- historic rifles
- Links
- Revolver
- Shotgun ballistics
- Uncategorized
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Leave a Reply