.015-.025No difference between a .500 G1 BC and a .250 G1 BC?
I submit, regardless of the rounding error, my point stands.
Do you disagree?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.015-.025No difference between a .500 G1 BC and a .250 G1 BC?
.015-.025
I submit, regardless of the rounding error, my point stands.
Do you disagree?
I disagree and I agree..015-.025 G1 change isn’t what anyone is talking about. How about a 6mm 107gr with a .477 g1, 70 points lower than the 107gr SMK- and lower than the 95gr SMK (.490)? Or a .277 135gr option? No one asked for that.
Most of the line doesn’t make sense, and certainly isn’t competitive with other offerings.
For sure, I get 2 grand a post. I’m slipping it right past the moderators.Do you reckon he works for the green?
Dude, the 142 smkX, is a g7 of 278, the standard smk is around 312, I've shot a lot of em. How can the 107smk and smkX have the same form factor but still be 242 g7 VS a 278 g7 of a standard 107? These bullets suck on paper spec wise compared to the standard smk counterparts. Heavy for cal tmk or bust from Sierra, unfortunately that where I sit with this company.I disagree and I agree.
My point was broader than just the MKX line. It wasn’t just the MKX line bc’s that were compared after all by the previous commenters. My general point is that sometimes we can over-stress bc to a defeee that doesn’t equate to real world results. Sierra can still hang and shouldn’t be overlooked.
You, after all, are probably the biggest proponent of their bullets these days.
Nonetheless, let’s stick to the MKX line.
The .308 offerings are perfectly in line with the bc’s of competitor offerings. As is the 142 6.5.
I’ll cede you the point on the .277 135 being an odd ball. Someone with a .270 win will love it.
Here’s where we really disagree….at least if Sierras marketing holds true. Allegedly the 107 MKX is the same form factor as the 107 SMK. They suggest that you can run your match load, not change your dies, then run the MKX for hunting. I use a 6 BR as a trainer with the SMK, if I could really just pop in the MKX and not have to change anything, that’s pretty useful.
If it shot great and I didn’t have to change my dope too much, I would use it. You’re apparently using 77 TMK’s out to 700 yards on elk out of a .223. The 107 MKX at BR velocity still beats that.
It serves a purpose.
I disagree agree though a high bc 107 TMK would be more appealing.
Correction, the 142 MK has an advertised bc of .303 g7.Dude, the 142 smkX, is a g7 of 278, the standard smk is around 312, I've shot a lot of em. How can the 107smk and smkX have the same form factor but still be 242 g7 VS a 278 g7 of a standard 107? These bullets suck on paper spec wise compared to the standard smk counterparts. Heavy for cal tmk or bust from Sierra, unfortunately that where I sit with this company.
That may been a typo on the 287 VS 278, but I have shot probably 3k of the 142smk pointed bullets from smk line, and they have trued out at at 310-314g7, they're slightly better than a 140 hybrid in flight.Correction, the 142 MK has an advertised bc of .303 g7.
The MKX has an advertised g7 of .287….not .278.
If you go g1, its .626 for the MK and .595 for the MKX.
At 800 yards, a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps and an elevation of 6,250 feet (elk country), that is literally one tenth of a mil difference in elevation. Plug it in your calculator and see for yourself.
You are not going to miss a target or an animal over a tenth of a mil (literally 2.88 inches at that range). It is entirely possible (even likely), that those of us who get excellent accuracy and consistency from Sierra bullets now have a great hunting bullet with virtually the same ballistic performance.
Regarding the 107, that’s not clear. If I had to guess, they are calling it the “107 MKX” but it must weigh less. Just like the 143 ELDX is the same form factor as the 147 ELDM.
Dunno, but I’m not going to shit on Sierra over it. Especially when, as hopefully I have pointed out, bc tends to be overrated.
Also, the jury isn’t out on the MKX. We all rave about the TMK…..maybe the MKX performance will be even better. Who knows, maybe it will be a go-to, best in class design once it’s made the rounds.
I for one am going to put my money where my mouth is (already have) and give it a shot.
Or you could just shoot a 108/109 eldm for both and not worry about switching bullets.Here’s where we really disagree….at least if Sierras marketing holds true. Allegedly the 107 MKX is the same form factor as the 107 SMK. They suggest that you can run your match load, not change your dies, then run the MKX for hunting. I use a 6 BR as a trainer with the SMK, if I could really just pop in the MKX and not have to change anything, that’s pretty useful.
Elevation isn't where you see the biggest gain with a high-BC bullet. Wind drift (and specifically, resistance to changes in wind speed and direction) is far more important.At 800 yards, a muzzle velocity of 2,700 fps and an elevation of 6,250 feet (elk country), that is literally one tenth of a mil difference in elevation. Plug it in your calculator and see for yourself.
You are not going to miss a target or an animal over a tenth of a mil (literally 2.88 inches at that range).
Or you could just shoot a 108/109 eldm for both and not worry about switching bullet
Yep, that’s .4 inches difference in a ten mile an hour wind at 800 yards.Elevation isn't where you see the biggest gain with a high-BC bullet. Wind drift (and specifically, resistance to changes in wind speed and direction) is far more important.
It can matter more than you might think.Yep, that’s .4 inches difference in a ten mile an hour wind at 800 yards.
Less than half an inch…..
I noticed a while ago that Sierra did away with listing their stepped BC numbers on their website. I find that annoying as I thought it was interesting information. I wish more folks would publish the BCs measured with radar at various Mach values like Hornady does for their ELD-M/ELD-X/A-Tip bullets, though it doesn't seem to really matter a whole lot before one gets out there quite a ways. [ETA: So maybe Berger's single average G7 is more practical. If only everyone could do the same thing!]As I remember one of the sierra 6mm tipped bullets had significant variation in BC based on Mach number. I can’t remember if it was the 90, 95, or 100gr TGK or TMK. I wonder if their reluctance to make one particular bullet isn’t because it had such BC variance. Of course now I can’t find their stepped BC numbers.