Does the ballistic coefficient in the specs match what the bullet’s own drag data says? Mostly. Some manufacturers more than others. And a free gift for Hornady shooters at the end.
TL;DR (for the attention-challenged)
- Hornady’s “200 yard” BC is not about 200 yards. Nobody is quite sure what it’s about.
- At 300 yards you can’t tell it from the truth. At 1500 yards it puts your bullet 5 feet away from where you think it is.
- The honest BC exists. It’s buried inside the site’s support pages.
- Two radar labs measured the same Lapua bullet and disagreed by 8%. Everyone is right; the bullets are fine.
- A free table of better BCs, for people who don’t like being a meter off.
The previous post ended with a mildly reassuring postscript: manufacturer-published G7 BCs and my own numbers agree to within 1.4–1.9% on average. Reassuring, that is, until you remember what averages are for: hiding things. So I went back and checked the published numbers one by one, each against the drag data of the very bullet it is published for.
What I checked, and against what
Four sets, 112 published BC numbers in total:
- Hornady’s own bullets (24 ELD-M, ELD-X and ELD-VT; Hornady publishes three BCs for each, at Mach 2.25, 2.0 and 1.75, so 72 numbers), against the drag curves inside Hornady’s own 4DOF calculator.
- Berger bullets (12), against Hornady’s radar data (the 4DOF calculator carries a lot of other makers’ bullets too).
- Lapua bullets (20), against Lapua’s own published radar curves. (The published list has 23 entries, but in three cases a Scenar and a Scenar-L of the same weight have identical radar curves, mass and published BC: 69 gr, 77 gr and 154/155 gr. I count each such pair as one bullet.)
- Lapua bullets again (8 bullets Hornady also measured, 7 of them among the 20), against Hornady’s radar data. Same bullets, two labs, free reality check.
Hornady doesn’t publish its drag curves; the calculator just hands you trajectories. I reverse-engineered the curves out of those trajectories. The whole exercise therefore rests on one assumption: that what Hornady’s calculator flies is Hornady’s real data on its bullet. If the calculator is lying, so is every trajectory Hornady has ever shown you, and we have bigger problems.
Muzzle velocities were sourced the same way for every bullet, whichever the manufacturer: from the manufacturer’s data if there is a factory cartridge loaded with the bullet in question, and otherwise estimated from Vihtavuori reloading tables (a reasonable velocity close to the maximum powder load).
Two questions for every number:
- Could it have come from the curve at all? A bullet’s drag curve doesn’t give you one BC. Read it at a different speed and you get a slightly different number (this was the whole point of the last post). So each bullet has an honest range: the lowest and highest BC you can read off its curve at any speed it actually flies through, from Mach 3 down to Mach 1.1. A published number inside that range is one you could have got honestly. Above it is high, below it is low. Because of possible small mismatches in the calculation method and the rounding of bullet diameters and weights, a number within 2% of the range is still counted as inside it.
- How far is it from the best single BC? The best BC is the one that makes a plain BC-based solver reproduce the bullet’s true drop most closely, from the muzzle down to the edge of transonic, at the bullet’s muzzle velocity. Found by brute force, no cleverness required. (The best BCs offered as a gift at the end are a slightly different animal: they work across a range of muzzle velocities.)
Results
| Set | Bullets | Published numbers | Outside the honest range | Which way | Average miss, either direction | Worst miss |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hornady, on Hornady’s curves | 24 | 72 | 17 | 16 too high, 1 too low | 3.0% | +10.1% |
| Berger, on Hornady’s curves | 12 | 12 | 0 | none | 2.3% | +5.3% |
| Lapua, on Lapua’s curves | 20 | 20 | 1 | 1 too low | 1.4% | −3.6% |
| Lapua, on Hornady’s curves | 8 | 8 | 3 | 2 too low, 1 too high | 2.6% | −7.0% |
Only about one in five published numbers (21 of 112) sits outside its bullet’s honest range, even with the margin, and 17 of those 21 are Hornady’s. Only 13 are 5% or more away from the best BC, and 11 of those 13 are Hornady’s.
To see what a miss means in practice, I flew each bullet twice: once on its real drag curve, once in a plain solver that only knows a G7 BC and is fed the published number. Both start at the bullet’s muzzle velocity and go to the transonic edge, where the bullet slows to Mach 1.1 (between 630 and 1420 m, depending on the bullet), and I measured how far apart the two end up. It’s a flat shot with no zeroing in a standard atmosphere, so real-world numbers will differ a little; the order of magnitude is the point. The average gap along the way is an error in mrad, the scope-click unit (a click is usually 0.1 mrad; 0.01 mrad is 1 cm at 1000 m). Misses at a given distance are in centimetres and inches, and “high” means the solver thinks the bullet lands higher than it really does.
Berger: close to Hornady’s radar data
A caveat first: for the Berger bullets we are ultimately comparing results from two different ballistic labs, Berger’s published BCs on one side and Hornady’s radar data on the other. So the comparison is not about right numbers, but about how these numbers agree with each other. Which manufacturer’s data describes the bullet’s real ballistic profile better is for the reader to decide, depending on whose data he trusts more.
Only one Berger bullet differs by 5% or more from Hornady’s data: the 180 gr Elite Hunter (.308), whose published BC is 5.3% higher than the best BC for Hornady’s curve. All 12 published numbers are inside the honest range read off Hornady’s curves, five of them only thanks to the margin (they sit 0.1–1.8% above it). Apart from the 180 gr Elite Hunter, those five are 2–3% above the best BC, which is within what two different labs would argue about. Used as a single BC for the whole flight, the published Berger numbers differ from Hornady’s curves by 0.072 mrad on average, which is 19 cm (7.6 in) at the transonic edge; the largest difference is 40 cm (16 in), for the 7 mm 195 gr Elite Hunter. The per-bullet results are in Annex A3.
Lapua: the only ones who under-promise
A note on counting: Lapua’s list has 23 entries, but in three cases (69 gr, 77 gr and 154/155 gr) a Scenar and a Scenar-L of the same weight have identical radar curves, mass and published BC, so I count each such pair as one bullet, which leaves 20. (The 90 gr pair looks the same on paper, but its curves differ by up to 2%, so it stays as two.) Lapua’s numbers are the mirror image: the only number outside the honest range (the .338 300 gr Scenar, 2.1% below it) is low, the published BC is below the best BC for 14 of the 20 bullets, none is more than 3.6% off, and the average miss is 1.4%. Used as a single BC for the whole flight, they cost 0.046 mrad on average, 12.5 cm (4.9 in) at the transonic edge; the worst is 69 cm (27 in), for the .338 300 gr Scenar. (The per-bullet results are in Annex A4.) Lapua says it calculates BC from a fit over the first 100 m of flight, so I tried exactly that. It doesn’t reproduce their numbers either: the 100 m fit comes out about 1.7% above the published BC, for 19 of 20 bullets. I also tried every muzzle velocity from 715 to 1020 m/s (2345–3350 fps) to see whether some plausible speed would close the gap, and none does; you’d need velocity errors anywhere from −190 to +210 m/s, which is not credible. This said, the trend can be explained by the specific shape of Lapua curves; some G7-ish curves are steeper than the model’s, some others – flatter. Lapua’s BCs mostly grow down the Mach, so short-range mesurements tend underestimate the value. Another explanation is that Lapua rounds down or keeps a safety margin. Someone give them a medal, and preferably a marketing department.
The same Lapua bullets, measured twice
Eight Lapua bullets have curves from both Lapua’s radar and Hornady’s. The caveat from the Berger section applies here in the same way: this is a comparison of two labs, not a search for the right numbers, and it is for the reader to decide whose data to trust. For six of them the two labs agree on the best BC to within about 1–3%. For two (the 6.5 mm 136 gr and the .308 220 gr Scenar-L) they disagree by +8.4% and +7.8%. The biggest disagreement between a published Lapua BC and Hornady’s data, the 136 gr Scenar-L at −7.0%, does not exist with Lapua’s own curve: there its published BC is inside the honest range and only +0.8% from the best (against Hornady’s curves the published Lapua numbers differ by 0.102 mrad on average, 31 cm or 12 in at the transonic edge, and by 78 cm or 31 in for that bullet). Lapua’s published number falls between the two labs’ answers for six of the eight bullets, and neither lab is consistently closer to it. The per-bullet results for Hornady’s curves are in Annex A5.
The moral: a 2–4% miss is within the disagreement between two professional radar labs measuring the same bullet. Those aren’t findings. Hornady’s 5–10% on its own numbers, measured against its own curves, is.
Hornady: where it gets interesting
What Hornady themselves say about their BCs (and what I think of it)
Hornady explain their BCs on a support page, hornady.com/bc, which is worth reading (all quotes below are from it, as of September 2026). The short history: Hornady “originally published 800 yard” average BCs for the ELD-X and ELD Match lines, “the most usable BC from a trajectory prediction standpoint”. Unfortunately, “many shooters did not understand” that other manufacturers list “200 yard” BCs, so “the increased performance of the ELD Match and ELD-X bullets wasn’t always realized in a head-to-head BC comparison”. So Hornady now publish “200 yard” Mach 2.25 (2512 fps) G1 and G7 BCs, with the Mach 2.0 and Mach 1.75 values “also available”.
The “200 yard” label is technically meaningless. A BC belongs to a speed, not to a distance: how far a bullet has flown by the time it slows to 2512 fps depends entirely on how fast it left the muzzle. Hornady’s own page admits as much, noting that industry BCs are measured over 100 to 300 yards, “which corresponds to velocities around 2500 fps depending on muzzle velocities”. Whichever bright soul in the marketing department came up with the label deserves credit for a rare feat: making an excellent bullet manufacturer look like it is massaging its numbers.
To be fair, the page says what the Mach 2.25 value is for: “velocities above 2,500 fps and distances out to 300 yards”. Quite conveniently, at those distances it is next to impossible to notice a wrong BC (the numbers are below: the drop error at 300 yards is half a centimetre / 0.2″ at most). The page also says that the Mach 2.25 BCs “should be used when comparing to other published BC values within the industry”, in other words, they are for comparison, not for shooting. But this is also the BC Hornady publish as the spec on the product page of each individual bullet, so it is the value an innocent shooter is most likely to copy into a ballistic app. And the app will happily fly it to 1000 yards and beyond, where the bullet is nowhere near Mach 2.25. The ELD Match product page, by the way, describes its BCs as “measured and verified by Doppler radar”.
As we will see below, in many cases these Mach 2.25 values are way too “optimistic” to reflect anything meaningful about the bullet’s drag profile, especially for the flagship ELD-M line.
I spent quite some effort trying to work out how a “200 yard” BC could be related to the bullet’s actual Cd–Mach curve (in Hornady’s case, the one inside their own 4DOF calculator). In short, I tried:
- every reasonable definition of “BC at Mach 2.25”: the value at that speed, averages over bands around and above it, averages from the muzzle, fits over anything from 100 to 600 yards starting at speeds up to Mach 3;
- G1 instead of G7, and the reverse (it turns out Hornady’s G1 and G7 columns are the same number in two costumes: converted with the standard tables’ ratio to within 0.03%, not measured twice);
- twist rate, mass, caliber, atmosphere conventions, constant scale factors.
It failed miserably. Every recipe leaves a bullet-to-bullet scatter of 2.5–3.4% where rounding alone would give 0.2%, and the offset depends on the bullet family, so it isn’t a convention either. The only plausible explanation left is “creative” marketing; that is my working hypothesis, not a proven fact. The page itself calls BC “becoming somewhat irrelevant” except for “those still using BC based trajectory calculators or when using BC as rating criteria for bullet performance”. Rating criteria. (In fairness, I can’t exclude a more innocent story: the published numbers could come from a different data set than the calculator curves, and the page does mention early prototype-based values that were later revised upward, “a positive gain”.)
Why is a Mach 2.0 value listed at all? Hornady say that the Mach 2.0 and Mach 1.75 values “offer comparisons to other manufacturers that publish multiple BC’s based on velocity”, and describe Mach 2.0 as “mid-range shooting where the bullet spends time in flight after slowing down”, without giving a distance or telling you when to use it. Nobody really knows what it’s for. My unkind guess is that a sequence of three numbers makes the crazy-high Mach 2.25 value look less like an outlier and more like part of a natural downward trend.
Finally, the Mach 1.75 value is the one Hornady actually recommend for trajectory calculations: it “should be used when calculating trajectories for shooting beyond 600 yds”. You get it if you go beyond the bullet’s official specs page, find the three-value list under the site’s support pages, and care to read through the text. Few do. So how do the two values that matter fare against the bullets’ real drag curves?
Testing the Mach 2.25 BC
| Mach 2.25 BC, 24 bullets | Result |
|---|---|
| Average vs. best BC (highs and lows netted) | +4.0% (average miss, ignoring direction: 4.1%) |
| Above the best BC | 20 of 24 |
| Above the honest range (with the margin) | 11 of 24 (none below) |
| 5% or more too high | 8 of 24 |
| By line, average vs. best BC | ELD-M +5.3% (11 bullets), ELD-X +2.8% (11), ELD-VT +2.4% (2) |
| Worst | 7 mm 180gr ELD-M +10.1%, 6.5 mm 147gr ELD-M +9.6% |
| Average error over the whole flight, typical / worst bullet | 0.138 mrad on average, 0.122 median (1.4 / 1.2 scope clicks); worst 0.394 mrad (3.9 clicks), the 7 mm 180gr ELD-M |
| Drop error at 300 yd | 0.2 cm / 0.08 in on average, 0.5 cm / 0.2 in worst |
| Drop error at 600 yd | 2.4 cm / 1.0 in on average, 6.2 cm / 2.4 in worst |
| Drop error at the transonic edge | 44 cm / 17 in on average (too high for 22 of 24), 153 cm / 60 in worst |
A few examples at the transonic edge (best BCs are for each bullet’s muzzle velocity):
- 7 mm 180gr ELD-M, 2975 fps: specs BC 0.391 against a best BC of 0.355; at 1548 yd (1416 m) the solver puts the bullet 153 cm (60 in) high.
- .338 285gr ELD-M, 2745 fps: 0.417 against 0.387; 116 cm (46 in) high at 1522 yd (1392 m).
- 6.5 mm 147gr ELD-M, 2910 fps: 0.351 against 0.320; 110 cm (43 in) high at 1345 yd (1230 m). That 0.351 is higher than any BC you can read off that bullet’s curve at any speed, so no way of averaging the curve will ever produce it.
- .308 225gr ELD-M, 2810 fps: 0.391 against 0.369; 91 cm (36 in) high at 1512 yd (1383 m).
- The counter-example: for the .277 145gr ELD-X the specs BC is 0.270, spot on, and the error at the transonic edge is 2.3 cm (0.9 in).
Conclusions:
- For what Hornady say it’s for, it’s fine. Out to 300 yards nobody could tell: the error is a fifth of a centimetre on average.
- It is not a description of the bullet’s drag. It sits above the best BC for 20 of 24 bullets, above the honest range for 11, and it is worst for the ELD-M line, the flagship, at +5.3% on average and up to +10.1%.
- Used as the BC for a long shot, which is what an app will do with it, it gets expensive. The error grows with distance: 0.2 cm at 300 yd, 2.4 cm at 600 yd, 44 cm on average at the transonic edge, and around a metre or more for four of the 24 bullets (all ELD-M).
The complete per-bullet results are in Annex A1 at the end of this post.
Testing the Mach 1.75 BC
| Mach 1.75 BC, 24 bullets | Result |
|---|---|
| Average vs. best BC (highs and lows netted) | −0.4% (average miss, ignoring direction: 2.2%) |
| Above / below the best BC | 10 / 14 of 24 |
| Outside the honest range (with the margin) | 1 of 24 (too low) |
| 5% or more off | none (largest: +3.6% and −4.9%) |
| Average error over the whole flight, typical / worst bullet | 0.081 mrad on average, 0.078 median (0.8 / 0.8 scope clicks); worst 0.182 mrad (1.8 clicks), the .277 145gr ELD-X |
| Drop error at 600 yd | 1.8 cm / 0.7 in on average, 4.5 cm / 1.8 in worst |
| Drop error at the transonic edge | 25 cm / 10 in on average, 64 cm / 25 in worst |
Examples at the transonic edge: for the 7 mm 180gr ELD-M the Mach 1.75 BC of 0.368 is still 3.6% above the best BC of 0.355, and puts the bullet 64 cm (25 in) high at 1548 yd. For the .277 145gr ELD-X it is 0.257 against a best BC of 0.270, nearly 5% too low, the biggest low-side miss among all 72 of Hornady’s numbers, and puts the bullet 49 cm (19 in) low at 1172 yd (1072 m). And for the 6.5 mm 147gr ELD-M, 0.321 against 0.320 is as good as it gets: 8.2 cm (3.2 in) high at 1345 yd.
Conclusions:
- This is the honest number. On average it is dead on, because its highs and lows cancel out. Individual bullets still miss by 2.2% on average, even though, with the margin, only 1 of the 24 falls outside its honest range.
- It is a big improvement over the Mach 2.25 value: about 40% less error over the flight, and 25 cm instead of 44 cm at the transonic edge. Which makes it a pity that you have to dig it out of the support pages.
- It is still not great. The error is more than five times that of a well-chosen single BC (0.015 mrad, next section), and the worst bullets are off by 64 cm (25 in) at the transonic edge.
The complete per-bullet results are in Annex A2 at the end of this post.
A bonus gift for people who shoot Hornady, but don’t use Hornady’s solver
Hornady’s own solver, and my pet project, fly Hornady bullets on their real drag curves and never need a BC. Almost everything else (phone apps, rangefinder firmware, most web calculators) wants a single G7 BC, and the choice on offer is the too-optimistic specs BC, or the Mach 1.75 one, which is better but hidden and still off by up to 5%. So here is a better number.
The idea: for each bullet, find the single G7 BC that makes a plain solver reproduce the bullet’s true trajectory as closely as possible, from the muzzle down to the transonic edge. Muzzle velocity varies with lot, barrel and weather, and a BC that is perfect for one muzzle velocity is a bit off for another, so I looked for the BC that works best across a whole range of muzzle velocities: Mach 2.2 to 2.8, i.e. 2456 to 3126 fps or 749 to 953 m/s, which covers the muzzle velocity of 21 of the 24 bullets. How it compares with the two published values, averaged over the 24 bullets:
| BC used | Average error over the flight | Drop error at 600 yd, average / worst | Drop error at the transonic edge, average / worst |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specs BC (Mach 2.25) | 0.138 mrad | 2.4 cm (1.0 in) / 6.2 cm (2.4 in) | 44 cm (17 in) / 153 cm (60 in) |
| Mach 1.75 BC | 0.081 mrad | 1.8 cm (0.7 in) / 4.5 cm (1.8 in) | 25 cm (10 in) / 64 cm (25 in) |
| The gift | 0.015 mrad | 0.7 cm (0.3 in) / 1.5 cm (0.6 in) | 2.1 cm (0.8 in) / 7.6 cm (3.0 in) |
Roughly nine and a half times less error than the specs BC, and about a seventh of a scope click. Across every muzzle velocity in the Mach 2.2–2.8 window, not just the bullet’s own, the average error of the gift is 0.022 mrad (2.2 cm at 1000 m), which is 0.013 mrad (1.3 cm at 1000 m) worse than a BC tuned for one exact muzzle velocity: that is the price of not knowing your muzzle velocity exactly. Rounding to three decimals costs next to nothing.
The fine print: these are G7 BCs for these bullets only, valid from the muzzle down to about Mach 1.1 (roughly 1230 fps, 375 m/s). Below that you are in transonic, where no single BC can save you. The worst-off at their own muzzle velocities are the 175 gr ELD-X (3000 fps), the 147 gr ELD-M (2910 fps) and the 110 gr ELD-X (3140 fps, above the window), with average errors of 0.032, 0.027 and 0.025 mrad (3.2, 2.7 and 2.5 cm at 1000 m). The two ELD-VTs loaded at 3150–3300 fps, above the window, barely notice (0.005 and 0.006 mrad).
The optimal BCs for all 24 Hornady bullets are in Annex B1, next to the specs BC for comparison. Annex B also lists the same kind of BC (the best single BC for muzzle velocities of Mach 2.2 to 2.8) for the Berger and Lapua bullets of this study (B2 to B4), with the error you can expect against each bullet’s Cd–Mach curve at the bullet’s muzzle velocity, and the error of the published BC for comparison. For the Berger bullets the average error against Hornady’s curves falls from 0.072 mrad (19 cm, or 7.6 in, at the transonic edge) with the published BC to 0.010 mrad (2.1 cm, or 0.8 in), which says how well each BC agrees with Hornady’s data, not whose data is right; for the Lapua bullets on Lapua’s own curves from 0.046 mrad (12.5 cm, or 4.9 in) to 0.019 mrad (4.0 cm, or 1.6 in), and on Hornady’s curves from 0.102 mrad (31 cm, or 12 in) to 0.010 mrad (3.2 cm, or 1.3 in). For 7 of the 64 bullets in Annex B the published BC happens to give a slightly smaller error at the bullet’s own muzzle velocity than the gift BC: the gift BC is the best compromise across the whole window, not the best for one exact muzzle velocity.
Don’t believe any of this? Check it yourself
You don’t have to take my word for it, and you don’t need my code. Any solver that takes a G7 BC will do:
- Open Hornady’s 4DOF calculator, pick a bullet from Annex B1, set standard atmosphere at sea level, no wind, a muzzle velocity between 2456 and 3126 fps, and write down the drop out to where the bullet is near Mach 1.1.
- Open any BC-based solver (Hornady’s own, for example, is sitting in the next tab to 4DOF), same conditions, and run it twice: once with the specs BC, once with the number from Annex B1.
- Compare both against the 4DOF drop, especially at the far end (the figures in this post are for a flat shot with no zeroing, so a zero set in your solver will shift them by a few centimetres). For the bullets where the specs BC sits 5–10% above the Annex B1 number, the difference will not be subtle: for the 7 mm 180gr ELD-M it should come out at around 60 in high at 1548 yd for the specs BC, and a fraction of an inch for the Annex B1 one.
Key takeaways (again, I asked AI to sort my trash)
- Only about one in five published G7 BCs (21 of 112) sits outside the range you could honestly read off the bullet’s own curve, even allowing a 2% margin for rounding and method, and 17 of those 21 are Hornady’s.
- Hornady’s “200 yard” label is technically meaningless, and the Mach 2.25 BC it is attached to is meant for comparison with other manufacturers and for shooting to 300 yards, where nobody can tell (error: 0.2 cm). But it is also the BC in the specs of each bullet, and it runs 4% above the bullets’ own drag curves on average, 5.3% for the ELD-M line and up to 10%. Fed to a BC-only solver for a long shot, it costs 44 cm (17 in) on average at the transonic edge, and up to 1.5 m (60 in) for the 7 mm 180gr ELD-M.
- Nobody, including me, can reproduce Hornady’s numbers from Hornady’s own curves by any definition of BC I could think of. My working hypothesis is “creative” marketing; a different data set can’t be excluded.
- Hornady’s Mach 1.75 BC, the one they recommend beyond 600 yards, is on average nearly dead on, though it still misses by 25 cm (10 in) on average at the transonic edge.
- Berger’s numbers agree well with Hornady’s radar data: one bullet out of 12 differs by 5%, the rest by about 3% or less (which lab is right is for the reader to judge).
- Lapua’s numbers are conservative by about 1.5% against the standard fits, and their stated 100 m method only explains the trend, not the numbers.
- Two labs measuring the same Lapua bullet disagree by up to 8% on the best BC, so don’t over-read any single 2–4% “miss”, and neither lab is necessarily the right one.
- If your solver only takes a G7 BC, use Annex B1 for Hornady bullets instead of the specs BC: the average error over the whole supersonic flight is about 1.5 cm at 1000 m (0.015 mrad) instead of 14 cm (0.138 mrad), and 2.1 cm (0.8 in) instead of 44 cm (17 in) at the transonic edge.
Annex A: Published BCs, bullet by bullet
Bullets are sorted by caliber and weight. Honest range is the lowest and highest BC that can be read off the bullet’s own curve at any speed it flies through between Mach 3 and Mach 1.1, and “in / high / low” allows a 2% margin around it, and best BC is the one that makes a plain solver reproduce the bullet’s true drop most closely at the bullet’s muzzle velocity. Average error is the RMSE of the trajectory in mrad from the muzzle to the transonic edge, and the miss at the transonic edge is in cm and inches, + meaning the solver puts the bullet higher than it really lands and − lower. All for a flat shot with no zeroing in a standard atmosphere. A1 and A2 are Hornady’s Mach 2.25 and Mach 1.75 BCs (the Mach 2.0 values are left out); A3 to A5 are the single published G7 BCs of the Berger and Lapua bullets.
Annex A1: Hornady’s published G7 BC at Mach 2.25 (the specs BC), bullet by bullet
| Bullet | Muzzle velocity, fps (m/s) | Transonic edge, m / yd | Honest range | Best BC at that muzzle velocity | Published | vs. honest range | vs. best BC | Average error, mrad | Miss at the transonic edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| .224 73gr ELD-M | 2790 (850) | 695 / 760 | 0.1745–0.1984 | 0.193 | 0.200 | in | +3.6% | 0.0769 | +15.1 cm / +5.9 in |
| 6 mm 80gr ELD-VT | 3300 (1006) | 909 / 994 | 0.1859–0.1993 | 0.1976 | 0.206 | high | +4.3% | 0.1153 | +29.0 cm / +11.4 in |
| 6 mm 103gr ELD-X | 2800 (853) | 939 / 1026 | 0.2501–0.257 | 0.2535 | 0.258 | in | +1.8% | 0.0532 | +13.7 cm / +5.4 in |
| 6 mm 108gr ELD-M | 2960 (902) | 1091 / 1193 | 0.2691–0.2758 | 0.2733 | 0.270 | in | −1.2% | 0.0444 | −11.5 cm / −4.5 in |
| .257 110gr ELD-X | 3140 (957) | 1006 / 1101 | 0.2271–0.2392 | 0.2346 | 0.234 | in | −0.3% | 0.0136 | +0.7 cm / +0.3 in |
| 6.5 mm 120gr ELD-M | 2910 (887) | 877 / 959 | 0.2193–0.2318 | 0.2273 | 0.245 | high | +7.8% | 0.1961 | +47.1 cm / +18.5 in |
| 6.5 mm 140gr ELD-M | 2710 (826) | 1059 / 1158 | 0.2959–0.3092 | 0.303 | 0.326 | high | +7.6% | 0.2310 | +66.0 cm / +26.0 in |
| 6.5 mm 143gr ELD-X | 2700 (823) | 1026 / 1122 | 0.2746–0.3065 | 0.2996 | 0.314 | high | +4.8% | 0.1453 | +41.7 cm / +16.4 in |
| 6.5 mm 147gr ELD-M | 2910 (887) | 1230 / 1345 | 0.3059–0.3334 | 0.3204 | 0.351 | high | +9.6% | 0.3243 | +110.0 cm / +43.3 in |
| .277 145gr ELD-X | 2970 (905) | 1072 / 1172 | 0.2573–0.2751 | 0.2702 | 0.270 | in | −0.1% | 0.0115 | +2.3 cm / +0.9 in |
| 7 mm 150gr ELD-X | 2770 (844) | 1029 / 1126 | 0.2632–0.2934 | 0.2879 | 0.289 | in | +0.4% | 0.0160 | +6.1 cm / +2.4 in |
| 7 mm 162gr ELD-X | 2975 (907) | 1199 / 1312 | 0.2921–0.3075 | 0.3011 | 0.318 | high | +5.6% | 0.1968 | +66.8 cm / +26.3 in |
| 7 mm 175gr ELD-X | 3000 (914) | 1325 / 1449 | 0.3126–0.3408 | 0.332 | 0.347 | in | +4.5% | 0.1762 | +68.5 cm / +27.0 in |
| 7 mm 180gr ELD-M | 2975 (907) | 1416 / 1548 | 0.3439–0.3621 | 0.3552 | 0.391 | high | +10.1% | 0.3945 | +152.7 cm / +60.1 in |
| .308 168gr ELD-M | 2700 (823) | 878 / 960 | 0.2467–0.2564 | 0.2519 | 0.263 | high | +4.4% | 0.1180 | +28.2 cm / +11.1 in |
| .308 174gr ELD-VT | 3150 (960) | 1253 / 1370 | 0.2828–0.2918 | 0.2872 | 0.289 | in | +0.6% | 0.0260 | +9.8 cm / +3.9 in |
| .308 178gr ELD-M | 2960 (902) | 1053 / 1152 | 0.2584–0.2681 | 0.2647 | 0.275 | high | +3.9% | 0.1250 | +37.1 cm / +14.6 in |
| .308 178gr ELD-X | 2600 (792) | 852 / 932 | 0.2495–0.2703 | 0.2629 | 0.278 | high | +5.7% | 0.1421 | +33.1 cm / +13.0 in |
| .308 195gr ELD-M | 2930 (893) | 1156 / 1265 | 0.2876–0.3003 | 0.2958 | 0.294 | in | −0.6% | 0.0256 | −3.9 cm / −1.5 in |
| .308 200gr ELD-X | 2860 (872) | 1088 / 1189 | 0.2786–0.2978 | 0.2907 | 0.301 | in | +3.5% | 0.1164 | +37.5 cm / +14.8 in |
| .308 212gr ELD-X † | 2860 (872) | 1223 / 1338 | 0.314–0.3284 | 0.3221 | 0.334 | in | +3.7% | 0.1389 | +47.8 cm / +18.8 in |
| .308 225gr ELD-M † | 2810 (856) | 1383 / 1512 | 0.3644–0.3834 | 0.369 | 0.391 | in | +6.0% | 0.2502 | +91.1 cm / +35.9 in |
| .338 270gr ELD-X | 2800 (853) | 1389 / 1519 | 0.3694–0.3812 | 0.3753 | 0.381 | in | +1.5% | 0.0671 | +26.3 cm / +10.4 in |
| .338 285gr ELD-M | 2745 (837) | 1392 / 1522 | 0.3813–0.3931 | 0.3872 | 0.417 | high | +7.7% | 0.3145 | +115.9 cm / +45.6 in |
† Hornady lists two twist rates for these; the figures shown are for the slower one (1:10).
Annex A2: Hornady’s published G7 BC at Mach 1.75, bullet by bullet
| Bullet | Muzzle velocity, fps (m/s) | Transonic edge, m / yd | Honest range | Best BC at that muzzle velocity | Published | vs. honest range | vs. best BC | Average error, mrad | Miss at the transonic edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| .224 73gr ELD-M | 2790 (850) | 695 / 760 | 0.1745–0.1984 | 0.193 | 0.192 | in | −0.5% | 0.0145 | −0.6 cm / −0.2 in |
| 6 mm 80gr ELD-VT | 3300 (1006) | 909 / 994 | 0.1859–0.1993 | 0.1976 | 0.203 | in | +2.7% | 0.0759 | +19.3 cm / +7.6 in |
| 6 mm 103gr ELD-X | 2800 (853) | 939 / 1026 | 0.2501–0.257 | 0.2535 | 0.251 | in | −1.0% | 0.0314 | −7.1 cm / −2.8 in |
| 6 mm 108gr ELD-M | 2960 (902) | 1091 / 1193 | 0.2691–0.2758 | 0.2733 | 0.261 | low | −4.5% | 0.1737 | −49.2 cm / −19.4 in |
| .257 110gr ELD-X | 3140 (957) | 1006 / 1101 | 0.2271–0.2392 | 0.2346 | 0.227 | in | −3.2% | 0.1107 | −27.0 cm / −10.6 in |
| 6.5 mm 120gr ELD-M | 2910 (887) | 877 / 959 | 0.2193–0.2318 | 0.2273 | 0.227 | in | −0.1% | 0.0111 | +1.6 cm / +0.6 in |
| 6.5 mm 140gr ELD-M | 2710 (826) | 1059 / 1158 | 0.2959–0.3092 | 0.303 | 0.310 | in | +2.3% | 0.0761 | +23.3 cm / +9.2 in |
| 6.5 mm 143gr ELD-X | 2700 (823) | 1026 / 1122 | 0.2746–0.3065 | 0.2996 | 0.294 | in | −1.9% | 0.0629 | −12.9 cm / −5.1 in |
| 6.5 mm 147gr ELD-M | 2910 (887) | 1230 / 1345 | 0.3059–0.3334 | 0.3204 | 0.321 | in | +0.2% | 0.0213 | +8.2 cm / +3.2 in |
| .277 145gr ELD-X | 2970 (905) | 1072 / 1172 | 0.2573–0.2751 | 0.2702 | 0.257 | in | −4.9% | 0.1820 | −48.9 cm / −19.3 in |
| 7 mm 150gr ELD-X | 2770 (844) | 1029 / 1126 | 0.2632–0.2934 | 0.2879 | 0.281 | in | −2.4% | 0.0807 | −19.1 cm / −7.5 in |
| 7 mm 162gr ELD-X | 2975 (907) | 1199 / 1312 | 0.2921–0.3075 | 0.3011 | 0.308 | in | +2.3% | 0.0851 | +31.0 cm / +12.2 in |
| 7 mm 175gr ELD-X | 3000 (914) | 1325 / 1449 | 0.3126–0.3408 | 0.332 | 0.341 | in | +2.7% | 0.1097 | +45.0 cm / +17.7 in |
| 7 mm 180gr ELD-M | 2975 (907) | 1416 / 1548 | 0.3439–0.3621 | 0.3552 | 0.368 | in | +3.6% | 0.1556 | +63.8 cm / +25.1 in |
| .308 168gr ELD-M | 2700 (823) | 878 / 960 | 0.2467–0.2564 | 0.2519 | 0.251 | in | −0.4% | 0.0122 | −1.0 cm / −0.4 in |
| .308 174gr ELD-VT | 3150 (960) | 1253 / 1370 | 0.2828–0.2918 | 0.2872 | 0.283 | in | −1.5% | 0.0614 | −19.8 cm / −7.8 in |
| .308 178gr ELD-M | 2960 (902) | 1053 / 1152 | 0.2584–0.2681 | 0.2647 | 0.254 | in | −4.0% | 0.1477 | −39.4 cm / −15.5 in |
| .308 178gr ELD-X | 2600 (792) | 852 / 932 | 0.2495–0.2703 | 0.2629 | 0.271 | in | +3.1% | 0.0794 | +19.5 cm / +7.7 in |
| .308 195gr ELD-M | 2930 (893) | 1156 / 1265 | 0.2876–0.3003 | 0.2958 | 0.285 | in | −3.7% | 0.1452 | −41.4 cm / −16.3 in |
| .308 200gr ELD-X | 2860 (872) | 1088 / 1189 | 0.2786–0.2978 | 0.2907 | 0.291 | in | +0.1% | 0.0160 | +5.6 cm / +2.2 in |
| .308 212gr ELD-X † | 2860 (872) | 1223 / 1338 | 0.314–0.3284 | 0.3221 | 0.324 | in | +0.6% | 0.0256 | +10.5 cm / +4.1 in |
| .308 225gr ELD-M † | 2810 (856) | 1383 / 1512 | 0.3644–0.3834 | 0.369 | 0.362 | in | −1.9% | 0.0905 | −33.5 cm / −13.2 in |
| .338 270gr ELD-X | 2800 (853) | 1389 / 1519 | 0.3694–0.3812 | 0.3753 | 0.372 | in | −0.9% | 0.0416 | −13.4 cm / −5.3 in |
| .338 285gr ELD-M | 2745 (837) | 1392 / 1522 | 0.3813–0.3931 | 0.3872 | 0.400 | in | +3.3% | 0.1442 | +54.1 cm / +21.3 in |
† Hornady lists two twist rates for these; the figures shown are for the slower one (1:10).
Annex A3: Berger’s published G7 BC, bullet by bullet (on Hornady’s curves)
The honest range, the best BC and the errors in this table are all taken from Hornady’s radar data for the bullet, i.e. two different ballistic labs are being compared. They show how well the published BC agrees with that data, not which lab’s numbers are right.
| Bullet | Muzzle velocity, fps (m/s) | Transonic edge, m / yd | Honest range | Best BC at that muzzle velocity | Published | vs. honest range | vs. best BC | Average error, mrad | Miss at the transonic edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| .224 80.5gr Fullbore Target | 2700 (823) | 763 / 835 | 0.1947–0.2299 | 0.2263 | 0.226 | in | −0.1% | 0.0089 | +1.7 cm / +0.7 in |
| 6 mm 95gr Classic Hunter | 3140 (957) | 938 / 1026 | 0.2102–0.2196 | 0.217 | 0.223 | in | +2.8% | 0.0803 | +21.3 cm / +8.4 in |
| 6 mm 108gr BT Target | 2800 (853) | 967 / 1058 | 0.2567–0.2678 | 0.2597 | 0.268 | in | +3.2% | 0.0982 | +24.8 cm / +9.8 in |
| 6 mm 108gr Elite Hunter | 2931 (893) | 1099 / 1202 | 0.2732–0.282 | 0.2786 | 0.287 | in | +3.0% | 0.1037 | +31.6 cm / +12.4 in |
| 6.5 mm 135gr Classic Hunter | 2850 (869) | 1126 / 1231 | 0.2914–0.3008 | 0.2965 | 0.303 | in | +2.2% | 0.0792 | +24.5 cm / +9.6 in |
| 6.5 mm 140gr Elite Hunter | 2750 (838) | 1126 / 1231 | 0.3091–0.318 | 0.3134 | 0.310 | in | −1.1% | 0.0412 | −10.8 cm / −4.3 in |
| 7 mm 195gr Elite Hunter | 2800 (853) | 1422 / 1555 | 0.3755–0.4041 | 0.3776 | 0.387 | in | +2.5% | 0.1167 | +39.8 cm / +15.7 in |
| .308 168gr Classic Hunter | 2675 (815) | 849 / 929 | 0.2415–0.252 | 0.2453 | 0.251 | in | +2.3% | 0.0626 | +14.3 cm / +5.6 in |
| .308 175gr OTM Tactical | 2668 (813) | 902 / 987 | 0.2571–0.2709 | 0.2613 | 0.263 | in | +0.7% | 0.0196 | +5.0 cm / +2.0 in |
| .308 180gr Elite Hunter | 2500 (762) | 878 / 960 | 0.2777–0.2907 | 0.2802 | 0.295 | in | +5.3% | 0.1423 | +31.4 cm / +12.4 in |
| .308 185gr Hybrid Target | 2450 (747) | 880 / 962 | 0.288–0.2999 | 0.2908 | 0.295 | in | +1.4% | 0.0408 | +8.3 cm / +3.3 in |
| .308 185gr Juggernaut Target | 2608 (795) | 929 / 1016 | 0.2743–0.29 | 0.277 | 0.284 | in | +2.5% | 0.0753 | +17.7 cm / +7.0 in |
Annex A4: Lapua’s published G7 BC, bullet by bullet (on Lapua’s own radar curves)
| Bullet | Muzzle velocity, fps (m/s) | Transonic edge, m / yd | Honest range | Best BC at that muzzle velocity | Published | vs. honest range | vs. best BC | Average error, mrad | Miss at the transonic edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| .224 69gr Scenar (GB541) / Scenar-L (GB544) | 2723 (830) | 630 / 689 | 0.1738–0.1822 | 0.1755 | 0.171 | in | −2.6% | 0.0567 | −10.0 cm / −3.9 in |
| .224 77gr Scenar (GB527) / Scenar-L (GB545) | 2600 (792) | 664 / 727 | 0.1965–0.2079 | 0.1978 | 0.193 | in | −2.4% | 0.0561 | −10.6 cm / −4.2 in |
| 6 mm 90gr Scenar (GB493) | 3200 (975) | 957 / 1046 | 0.2016–0.2198 | 0.2179 | 0.216 | in | −0.9% | 0.0271 | −5.4 cm / −2.1 in |
| 6 mm 90gr Scenar-L (GB543) | 3200 (975) | 969 / 1059 | 0.204–0.2239 | 0.221 | 0.216 | in | −2.3% | 0.0727 | −17.1 cm / −6.7 in |
| 6.5 mm 100gr Scenar (GB504) | 3200 (975) | 957 / 1046 | 0.2115–0.219 | 0.2156 | 0.212 | in | −1.7% | 0.0547 | −12.9 cm / −5.1 in |
| 6.5 mm 108gr Scenar (GB464) | 3050 (930) | 965 / 1055 | 0.2278–0.2358 | 0.2317 | 0.231 | in | −0.3% | 0.0109 | −1.5 cm / −0.6 in |
| 6.5 mm 120gr Scenar-L (GB547) | 2900 (884) | 938 / 1025 | 0.2334–0.2536 | 0.2388 | 0.246 | in | +3.0% | 0.0906 | +22.9 cm / +9.0 in |
| 6.5 mm 123gr Scenar (GB489) | 2790 (850) | 970 / 1061 | 0.2604–0.2669 | 0.263 | 0.263 | in | 0.0% | 0.0022 | 0.0 cm / 0.0 in |
| 6.5 mm 136gr Scenar-L (GB546) | 2740 (835) | 1001 / 1095 | 0.2672–0.3117 | 0.2718 | 0.274 | in | +0.8% | 0.0282 | +5.1 cm / +2.0 in |
| 6.5 mm 139gr Scenar (GB458) | 2700 (823) | 1038 / 1135 | 0.2929–0.3002 | 0.2951 | 0.290 | in | −1.7% | 0.0611 | −17.1 cm / −6.7 in |
| 7 mm 180gr Scenar-L (GB554) | 2400 (732) | 1008 / 1102 | 0.3328–0.3816 | 0.3367 | 0.332 | in | −1.4% | 0.0501 | −16.7 cm / −6.6 in |
| .308 154/155gr Scenar (GB491) / Scenar-L (GB552) | 2820 (860) | 879 / 961 | 0.2293–0.2517 | 0.2317 | 0.230 | in | −0.7% | 0.0216 | −5.6 cm / −2.2 in |
| .308 167gr Scenar (GB422) | 2690 (820) | 776 / 848 | 0.2182–0.2301 | 0.223 | 0.223 | in | 0.0% | 0.0067 | +1.0 cm / +0.4 in |
| .308 175gr Scenar-L (GB550) | 2602 (793) | 825 / 903 | 0.2388–0.2719 | 0.2446 | 0.247 | in | +1.0% | 0.0279 | +5.3 cm / +2.1 in |
| .308 185gr Scenar (GB432) | 2475 (754) | 751 / 821 | 0.2384–0.2605 | 0.2428 | 0.242 | in | −0.3% | 0.0083 | −1.8 cm / −0.7 in |
| .308 185gr FMJBT (D46) | 2600 (792) | 842 / 920 | 0.2506–0.2648 | 0.2557 | 0.254 | in | −0.7% | 0.0196 | −2.6 cm / −1.0 in |
| .308 200gr FMJBT (D166) | 2300 (701) | 630 / 688 | 0.2282–0.2587 | 0.2301 | 0.224 | in | −2.7% | 0.0571 | −9.7 cm / −3.8 in |
| .338 250gr Lock Base (B408) | 2920 (890) | 1172 / 1282 | 0.2917–0.3167 | 0.3033 | 0.310 | in | +2.2% | 0.0812 | +29.8 cm / +11.7 in |
| .338 250gr Scenar (GB488) | 2920 (890) | 1280 / 1399 | 0.3194–0.3436 | 0.3234 | 0.322 | in | −0.4% | 0.0188 | −6.1 cm / −2.4 in |
| .338 300gr Scenar (GB528) | 2690 (820) | 1365 / 1493 | 0.3758–0.4325 | 0.3816 | 0.368 | low | −3.6% | 0.1764 | −69.3 cm / −27.3 in |
Entries with two names are Scenar and Scenar-L bullets of the same weight, with identical radar curves, mass, calibre and published BC, listed once.
Annex A5: Lapua’s published G7 BC, bullet by bullet (on Hornady’s curves)
The honest range, the best BC and the errors in this table are all taken from Hornady’s radar data for the bullet, i.e. two different ballistic labs are being compared. They show how well the published BC agrees with that data, not which lab’s numbers are right.
| Bullet | Muzzle velocity, fps (m/s) | Transonic edge, m / yd | Honest range | Best BC at that muzzle velocity | Published | vs. honest range | vs. best BC | Average error, mrad | Miss at the transonic edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.5 mm 136gr Scenar-L | 2740 (835) | 1063 / 1162 | 0.2889–0.3094 | 0.2947 | 0.274 | low | −7.0% | 0.2782 | −77.8 cm / −30.6 in |
| 6.5 mm 139gr Scenar | 2700 (823) | 1022 / 1118 | 0.2833–0.3091 | 0.2856 | 0.290 | in | +1.5% | 0.0531 | +11.6 cm / +4.6 in |
| .308 167gr Scenar | 2690 (820) | 764 / 836 | 0.2156–0.223 | 0.221 | 0.223 | in | +0.9% | 0.0220 | +5.1 cm / +2.0 in |
| .308 175gr Scenar-L | 2602 (793) | 846 / 925 | 0.2453–0.2826 | 0.2481 | 0.247 | in | −0.4% | 0.0157 | −5.3 cm / −2.1 in |
| .308 185gr Scenar | 2475 (754) | 755 / 825 | 0.2377–0.2795 | 0.2402 | 0.242 | in | +0.7% | 0.0198 | +2.1 cm / +0.8 in |
| .308 220gr Scenar-L | 2700 (823) | 1215 / 1329 | 0.3318–0.388 | 0.3357 | 0.324 | low | −3.5% | 0.1587 | −56.2 cm / −22.1 in |
| .338 250gr Lock Base | 2920 (890) | 1165 / 1274 | 0.2917–0.3015 | 0.2975 | 0.310 | high | +4.2% | 0.1507 | +47.9 cm / +18.9 in |
| .338 300gr Scenar | 2690 (820) | 1338 / 1463 | 0.3748–0.4058 | 0.3775 | 0.368 | in | −2.5% | 0.1182 | −44.5 cm / −17.5 in |
Annex B: the best G7 BC to use, and the error to expect
For every bullet of this study, the single G7 BC that makes a plain solver reproduce the bullet’s trajectory most closely across muzzle velocities from Mach 2.2 to 2.8 (2456 to 3126 fps, 749 to 953 m/s), rounded to three decimals (the “gift BC”), together with the error you can expect against the bullet’s own Cd–Mach curve (Hornady’s curves for B1, B2 and B4, Lapua’s own radar curves for B3) at the bullet’s own muzzle velocity, for a flat shot with no zeroing in a standard atmosphere. Average error is in mrad (0.01 mrad is 1 cm at 1000 m), from the muzzle to the transonic edge; the miss at the transonic edge is in cm and inches, + meaning the solver puts the bullet higher than it really lands and − lower. The published BC and its error are shown for comparison (for the Hornady bullets it is the Mach 2.25 BC, the specs BC). Bullets whose muzzle velocity is outside the window are marked with an asterisk. For seven bullets the published BC does better than the gift BC: see the table below. Bullets are sorted by caliber and weight. In B3, Scenar and Scenar-L bullets of the same weight whose radar curves are identical are listed as one entry.
Annex B1: Hornady bullets, on Hornady’s curves
| Bullet | Muzzle velocity, fps (m/s) | Published BC (Mach 2.25, the specs BC) | Gift BC (best for Mach 2.2–2.8) | Published BC is above (+) / below (−) by | Average error with the published BC, mrad | Average error with the gift BC, mrad | Miss at the transonic edge with the gift BC | Transonic edge, m / yd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| .224 73gr ELD-M | 2790 (850) | 0.200 | 0.193 | +3.6% | 0.0769 | 0.0087 | +1.5 cm / +0.6 in | 695 / 760 |
| 6 mm 80gr ELD-VT | 3300 (1006)* | 0.206 | 0.198 | +4.0% | 0.1153 | 0.0058 | +1.9 cm / +0.7 in | 909 / 994 |
| 6 mm 103gr ELD-X | 2800 (853) | 0.258 | 0.253 | +2.0% | 0.0532 | 0.0075 | −1.0 cm / −0.4 in | 939 / 1026 |
| 6 mm 108gr ELD-M | 2960 (902) | 0.270 | 0.273 | −1.1% | 0.0444 | 0.0066 | +0.1 cm / 0.0 in | 1091 / 1193 |
| .257 110gr ELD-X | 3140 (957)* | 0.234 | 0.233 | +0.4% | 0.0136 | 0.0246 | −3.1 cm / −1.2 in | 1006 / 1101 |
| 6.5 mm 120gr ELD-M | 2910 (887) | 0.245 | 0.227 | +7.9% | 0.1961 | 0.0111 | +1.6 cm / +0.6 in | 877 / 959 |
| 6.5 mm 140gr ELD-M | 2710 (826) | 0.326 | 0.304 | +7.2% | 0.2310 | 0.0145 | +5.4 cm / +2.1 in | 1059 / 1158 |
| 6.5 mm 143gr ELD-X | 2700 (823) | 0.314 | 0.301 | +4.3% | 0.1453 | 0.0199 | +7.6 cm / +3.0 in | 1026 / 1122 |
| 6.5 mm 147gr ELD-M | 2910 (887) | 0.351 | 0.319 | +10.0% | 0.3244 | 0.0269 | +0.3 cm / +0.1 in | 1230 / 1345 |
| .277 145gr ELD-X | 2970 (905) | 0.270 | 0.269 | +0.4% | 0.0115 | 0.0192 | −1.3 cm / −0.5 in | 1072 / 1172 |
| 7 mm 150gr ELD-X | 2770 (844) | 0.289 | 0.288 | +0.3% | 0.0160 | 0.0098 | +3.1 cm / +1.2 in | 1029 / 1126 |
| 7 mm 162gr ELD-X | 2975 (907) | 0.318 | 0.300 | +6.0% | 0.1968 | 0.0193 | −0.5 cm / −0.2 in | 1199 / 1312 |
| 7 mm 175gr ELD-X | 3000 (914) | 0.347 | 0.330 | +5.2% | 0.1762 | 0.0324 | −1.9 cm / −0.7 in | 1325 / 1449 |
| 7 mm 180gr ELD-M | 2975 (907) | 0.391 | 0.354 | +10.5% | 0.3945 | 0.0219 | −0.1 cm / 0.0 in | 1416 / 1548 |
| .308 168gr ELD-M | 2700 (823) | 0.263 | 0.253 | +4.0% | 0.1180 | 0.0143 | +4.2 cm / +1.7 in | 878 / 960 |
| .308 174gr ELD-VT | 3150 (960)* | 0.289 | 0.287 | +0.7% | 0.0260 | 0.0048 | +0.1 cm / 0.0 in | 1253 / 1370 |
| .308 178gr ELD-M | 2960 (902) | 0.275 | 0.264 | +4.2% | 0.1250 | 0.0125 | −0.4 cm / −0.2 in | 1053 / 1152 |
| .308 178gr ELD-X | 2600 (792) | 0.278 | 0.265 | +4.9% | 0.1421 | 0.0234 | +6.9 cm / +2.7 in | 852 / 932 |
| .308 195gr ELD-M | 2930 (893) | 0.294 | 0.295 | −0.3% | 0.0256 | 0.0151 | 0.0 cm / 0.0 in | 1156 / 1265 |
| .308 200gr ELD-X | 2860 (872) | 0.301 | 0.290 | +3.8% | 0.1164 | 0.0176 | +2.2 cm / +0.9 in | 1088 / 1189 |
| .308 212gr ELD-X † | 2860 (872) | 0.334 | 0.322 | +3.7% | 0.1389 | 0.0111 | +2.6 cm / +1.0 in | 1223 / 1338 |
| .308 225gr ELD-M † | 2810 (856) | 0.391 | 0.369 | +6.0% | 0.2502 | 0.0034 | −0.4 cm / −0.2 in | 1383 / 1512 |
| .338 270gr ELD-X | 2800 (853) | 0.381 | 0.375 | +1.6% | 0.0671 | 0.0082 | +0.1 cm / 0.0 in | 1389 / 1519 |
| .338 285gr ELD-M | 2745 (837) | 0.417 | 0.388 | +7.5% | 0.3145 | 0.0121 | +5.2 cm / +2.0 in | 1392 / 1522 |
† Hornady lists two twist rates for these; the figures shown are for the slower one (1:10).
- The bullet’s muzzle velocity is outside Mach 2.2–2.8 (2456–3126 fps); the gift BC is still the best one for that window, and the error shown is at the bullet’s own muzzle velocity.
Annex B2: Berger bullets, on Hornady’s curves
The errors in this table are measured against Hornady’s radar data for the bullet, i.e. two different ballistic labs are being compared. They show how well each BC agrees with that data, not which lab’s numbers are right; if you trust the manufacturer’s own data more, the published BC is the number to use.
| Bullet | Muzzle velocity, fps (m/s) | Published BC | Gift BC (best for Mach 2.2–2.8) | Published BC is above (+) / below (−) by | Average error with the published BC, mrad | Average error with the gift BC, mrad | Miss at the transonic edge with the gift BC | Transonic edge, m / yd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| .224 80.5gr Fullbore Target | 2700 (823) | 0.226 | 0.225 | +0.4% | 0.0089 | 0.0155 | −0.3 cm / −0.1 in | 763 / 835 |
| 6 mm 95gr Classic Hunter | 3140 (957)* | 0.223 | 0.216 | +3.2% | 0.0803 | 0.0156 | −2.6 cm / −1.0 in | 938 / 1026 |
| 6 mm 108gr BT Target | 2800 (853) | 0.268 | 0.260 | +3.1% | 0.0982 | 0.0041 | +0.7 cm / +0.3 in | 967 / 1058 |
| 6 mm 108gr Elite Hunter | 2931 (893) | 0.287 | 0.278 | +3.2% | 0.1037 | 0.0096 | −0.9 cm / −0.4 in | 1099 / 1202 |
| 6.5 mm 135gr Classic Hunter | 2850 (869) | 0.303 | 0.296 | +2.4% | 0.0792 | 0.0086 | −0.7 cm / −0.3 in | 1126 / 1231 |
| 6.5 mm 140gr Elite Hunter | 2750 (838) | 0.310 | 0.314 | −1.3% | 0.0412 | 0.0089 | +3.2 cm / +1.3 in | 1126 / 1231 |
| 7 mm 195gr Elite Hunter | 2800 (853) | 0.387 | 0.377 | +2.7% | 0.1167 | 0.0105 | −6.7 cm / −2.6 in | 1422 / 1555 |
| .308 168gr Classic Hunter | 2675 (815) | 0.251 | 0.246 | +2.0% | 0.0626 | 0.0087 | +2.2 cm / +0.9 in | 849 / 929 |
| .308 175gr OTM Tactical | 2668 (813) | 0.263 | 0.262 | +0.4% | 0.0196 | 0.0089 | +2.3 cm / +0.9 in | 902 / 987 |
| .308 180gr Elite Hunter | 2500 (762) | 0.295 | 0.281 | +5.0% | 0.1423 | 0.0087 | +1.3 cm / +0.5 in | 878 / 960 |
| .308 185gr Hybrid Target | 2450 (747)* | 0.295 | 0.292 | +1.0% | 0.0408 | 0.0123 | +1.7 cm / +0.7 in | 880 / 962 |
| .308 185gr Juggernaut Target | 2608 (795) | 0.284 | 0.278 | +2.2% | 0.0753 | 0.0115 | +2.2 cm / +0.9 in | 929 / 1016 |
- The bullet’s muzzle velocity is outside Mach 2.2–2.8 (2456–3126 fps); the gift BC is still the best one for that window, and the error shown is at the bullet’s own muzzle velocity.
Annex B3: Lapua bullets, on Lapua’s own radar curves
| Bullet | Muzzle velocity, fps (m/s) | Published BC | Gift BC (best for Mach 2.2–2.8) | Published BC is above (+) / below (−) by | Average error with the published BC, mrad | Average error with the gift BC, mrad | Miss at the transonic edge with the gift BC | Transonic edge, m / yd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| .224 69gr Scenar (GB541) / Scenar-L (GB544) | 2723 (830) | 0.171 | 0.175 | −2.3% | 0.0567 | 0.0070 | −1.7 cm / −0.7 in | 630 / 689 |
| .224 77gr Scenar (GB527) / Scenar-L (GB545) | 2600 (792) | 0.193 | 0.197 | −2.0% | 0.0561 | 0.0095 | −2.4 cm / −0.9 in | 664 / 727 |
| 6 mm 90gr Scenar (GB493) | 3200 (975)* | 0.216 | 0.217 | −0.5% | 0.0271 | 0.0132 | −1.7 cm / −0.7 in | 957 / 1046 |
| 6 mm 90gr Scenar-L (GB543) | 3200 (975)* | 0.216 | 0.220 | −1.8% | 0.0727 | 0.0158 | −1.9 cm / −0.7 in | 969 / 1059 |
| 6.5 mm 100gr Scenar (GB504) | 3200 (975)* | 0.212 | 0.214 | −0.9% | 0.0547 | 0.0249 | −5.1 cm / −2.0 in | 957 / 1046 |
| 6.5 mm 108gr Scenar (GB464) | 3050 (930) | 0.231 | 0.230 | +0.4% | 0.0109 | 0.0240 | −5.1 cm / −2.0 in | 965 / 1055 |
| 6.5 mm 120gr Scenar-L (GB547) | 2900 (884) | 0.246 | 0.238 | +3.4% | 0.0907 | 0.0125 | −2.2 cm / −0.9 in | 938 / 1025 |
| 6.5 mm 123gr Scenar (GB489) | 2790 (850) | 0.263 | 0.263 | 0.0% | 0.0022 | 0.0022 | 0.0 cm / 0.0 in | 970 / 1061 |
| 6.5 mm 136gr Scenar-L (GB546) | 2740 (835) | 0.274 | 0.273 | +0.4% | 0.0282 | 0.0159 | +1.8 cm / +0.7 in | 1001 / 1095 |
| 6.5 mm 139gr Scenar (GB458) | 2700 (823) | 0.290 | 0.296 | −2.0% | 0.0611 | 0.0101 | +2.3 cm / +0.9 in | 1038 / 1135 |
| 7 mm 180gr Scenar-L (GB554) | 2400 (732)* | 0.332 | 0.335 | −0.9% | 0.0501 | 0.0213 | −8.5 cm / −3.3 in | 1008 / 1102 |
| .308 154/155gr Scenar (GB491) / Scenar-L (GB552) | 2820 (860) | 0.230 | 0.232 | −0.9% | 0.0216 | 0.0049 | +0.4 cm / +0.2 in | 879 / 961 |
| .308 167gr Scenar (GB422) | 2690 (820) | 0.223 | 0.225 | −0.9% | 0.0067 | 0.0237 | +5.5 cm / +2.2 in | 776 / 848 |
| .308 175gr Scenar-L (GB550) | 2602 (793) | 0.247 | 0.247 | 0.0% | 0.0279 | 0.0279 | +5.3 cm / +2.1 in | 825 / 903 |
| .308 185gr Scenar (GB432) | 2475 (754) | 0.242 | 0.247 | −2.0% | 0.0083 | 0.0429 | +7.8 cm / +3.1 in | 751 / 821 |
| .308 185gr FMJBT (D46) | 2600 (792) | 0.254 | 0.257 | −1.2% | 0.0196 | 0.0158 | +4.3 cm / +1.7 in | 842 / 920 |
| .308 200gr FMJBT (D166) | 2300 (701)* | 0.224 | 0.237 | −5.5% | 0.0571 | 0.0589 | +8.8 cm / +3.5 in | 630 / 688 |
| .338 250gr Lock Base (B408) | 2920 (890) | 0.310 | 0.302 | +2.6% | 0.0812 | 0.0241 | +0.3 cm / +0.1 in | 1172 / 1282 |
| .338 250gr Scenar (GB488) | 2920 (890) | 0.322 | 0.323 | −0.3% | 0.0188 | 0.0063 | −1.6 cm / −0.6 in | 1280 / 1399 |
| .338 300gr Scenar (GB528) | 2690 (820) | 0.368 | 0.380 | −3.2% | 0.1764 | 0.0226 | −12.4 cm / −4.9 in | 1365 / 1493 |
Entries with two names are Scenar and Scenar-L bullets of the same weight, with identical radar curves, mass, calibre and published BC, listed once.
- The bullet’s muzzle velocity is outside Mach 2.2–2.8 (2456–3126 fps); the gift BC is still the best one for that window, and the error shown is at the bullet’s own muzzle velocity.
Annex B4: Lapua bullets, on Hornady’s curves
The errors in this table are measured against Hornady’s radar data for the bullet, i.e. two different ballistic labs are being compared. They show how well each BC agrees with that data, not which lab’s numbers are right; if you trust the manufacturer’s own data more, the published BC is the number to use.
| Bullet | Muzzle velocity, fps (m/s) | Published BC | Gift BC (best for Mach 2.2–2.8) | Published BC is above (+) / below (−) by | Average error with the published BC, mrad | Average error with the gift BC, mrad | Miss at the transonic edge with the gift BC | Transonic edge, m / yd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.5 mm 136gr Scenar-L | 2740 (835) | 0.274 | 0.295 | −7.1% | 0.2782 | 0.0064 | +1.6 cm / +0.6 in | 1063 / 1162 |
| 6.5 mm 139gr Scenar | 2700 (823) | 0.290 | 0.285 | +1.8% | 0.0531 | 0.0103 | −4.5 cm / −1.8 in | 1022 / 1118 |
| .308 167gr Scenar | 2690 (820) | 0.223 | 0.221 | +0.9% | 0.0220 | 0.0039 | +0.7 cm / +0.3 in | 764 / 836 |
| .308 175gr Scenar-L | 2602 (793) | 0.247 | 0.247 | 0.0% | 0.0157 | 0.0157 | −5.3 cm / −2.1 in | 846 / 925 |
| .308 185gr Scenar | 2475 (754) | 0.242 | 0.241 | +0.4% | 0.0198 | 0.0101 | +0.1 cm / 0.0 in | 755 / 825 |
| .308 220gr Scenar-L | 2700 (823) | 0.324 | 0.335 | −3.3% | 0.1587 | 0.0165 | −8.6 cm / −3.4 in | 1215 / 1329 |
| .338 250gr Lock Base | 2920 (890) | 0.310 | 0.297 | +4.4% | 0.1507 | 0.0090 | −0.3 cm / −0.1 in | 1165 / 1274 |
| .338 300gr Scenar | 2690 (820) | 0.368 | 0.377 | −2.4% | 0.1182 | 0.0077 | −4.8 cm / −1.9 in | 1338 / 1463 |
Annex B-paradox
The bullets where the published BC does better. For 7 of the 64 bullets in Annex B, the published BC gives a smaller average error at the bullet’s own muzzle velocity than the gift BC:
| Set | Bullet | Muzzle velocity, fps (Mach) | Published BC | Gift BC | Best BC for exactly this muzzle velocity | Average error, published / gift (mrad) | Miss at Mach 1.1, published / gift, cm (in) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hornady (published at Mach 2.25) | 110gr ELD-X | 3140 (2.81)* | 0.234 | 0.233 | 0.2346 | 0.0136 / 0.0246 | 0.7 (0.3) / 3.1 (1.2) |
| Hornady (published at Mach 2.25) | 145gr ELD-X | 2970 (2.66) | 0.270 | 0.269 | 0.2702 | 0.0115 / 0.0192 | 2.3 (0.9) / 1.3 (0.5) |
| Berger | 80.5gr Fullbore Target | 2700 (2.42) | 0.226 | 0.225 | 0.2263 | 0.0089 / 0.0155 | 1.7 (0.7) / 0.3 (0.1) |
| Lapua, own radar | 108gr Scenar (GB464) | 3050 (2.73) | 0.231 | 0.230 | 0.2317 | 0.0109 / 0.0240 | 1.5 (0.6) / 5.1 (2.0) |
| Lapua, own radar | 167gr Scenar (GB422) | 2690 (2.41) | 0.223 | 0.225 | 0.2230 | 0.0067 / 0.0237 | 1.0 (0.4) / 5.5 (2.2) |
| Lapua, own radar | 185gr Scenar (GB432) | 2475 (2.22) | 0.242 | 0.247 | 0.2428 | 0.0083 / 0.0429 | 1.8 (0.7) / 7.8 (3.1) |
| Lapua, own radar | 200gr FMJBT (D166) | 2300 (2.06)* | 0.224 | 0.237 | 0.2301 | 0.0571 / 0.0589 | 9.7 (3.8) / 8.8 (3.5) |
* The bullet’s muzzle velocity is outside Mach 2.2–2.8.
Bold: the gift BC has the smaller miss.
In simple words: the gift BC (the one in Annex B) is a compromise. It is the best single number for every muzzle velocity from Mach 2.2 to 2.8 at once, so it can’t be the very best for any one muzzle velocity, though the difference between “optimal for a particular muzzle velocity” and “optimal for a range of muzzle velocities” is a fraction of a scope click anyway. That is luck, not method: manufacturers don’t publish their BCs for a particular muzzle velocity, so a published BC has no reason to be right for yours, and the gift BC is the one to use if your muzzle velocity is different or not known precisely. Finally, look at the last column: for three of the seven (the bold entries) the gift BC has the smaller miss at Mach 1.1 despite the larger average error. That is because its [fraction of a click] error changes sign along the flight and can pass through zero near the end, so the miss at Mach 1.1 alone flatters it; the average error over the whole flight is the fairer measure.