McGuire ballistics review

[Formidilosus]

I guess I am just going to keep my mouth shut on this from here on it before it turns into anymore or a pissing match than it is since Amassi seems to know a lot about a bullet he’s apparently never shot- and also apparently has no interest in even shooting so I am not really sure why he’s here- I’ll end it with spend 50 bucks just as I did- buy em yourself- and then form an opinion- if you’d like to see reciepts from orders I’ve placed with them I’d be glad to show ya- this whole thing is ridiculous

Not to speak for Amassi, but the issue is that so many companies have came out and stated ridiculous things- bordering on, or outright snake oil salesman; then “independent” reviewers follow with how awesome and great the new bullet is that defies all gravity and is “game changing” and they have no connection to the company. Which in the end, nearly always has been found to be false, and those “reviewers” were connected to the company somehow, or owners/employees.


So here’s what you have-

A bullet company that is producing a solid copper projectile, that has a BC so much higher than all competitors that hasn’t been verified by the company, that also somehow defies terminal ballistics reality and produces “blowing off half a lung” tissue damage at lower impact velocities than is physically required to cause permanent damage to elastic tissue, and supposedly does so with a bullet that does not fragment and retains a nose forward narrow mushroom.

Is it possible that they have somehow produced Warner Flatline BC’s, in a bullet that is “easy to load” for, and that the bullet is also yawing (tumbling) inside tissue to cause large wounds while somehow appearing as if they stay nose forward (and the people using them say they do)? Sure, maybe. But it also should cause a solid case of skepticism in critical thinking people until broadly proven in more than a couple peoples gun, and on more than a couple animals.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I don’t know. Hammer just outdid themselves with a polymer tipped bullet with LOWRER BC.

It's the best bullet known to man kind. Just ask Steve.

 

[28bang]

This is getting ridiculous gentlemen. Everyone keep posting results whatever they may be.

 

[philos]

OK. It seems we have some passionate folks here with strong opinions. Debate is good and disagreeing is certainly OK as long as you don't get crazy rude and condescending-which we are very close to seeing.

If you cannot discuss this without being a jackass please don't comment at all. This flaming stuff will be you banned- at a minimum- on a temporary basis.

 

[NK Hunter]

OK. It seems we have some passionate folks here with strong opinions. Debate is good and disagreeing is certainly OK as long as you don't get crazy rude and condescending-which we are very close to seeing.

If you cannot discuss this without being a jackass please don't comment at all. This flaming stuff will be you banned- at a minimum- on a temporarily basis.

Thank-You. I like facts, not emotions. Me? I just quietly buy some to sample and make personal observations.

 

[jdvangeystel]

Thank-You. I like facts, not emotions. Me? I just quietly buy some to sample and make personal observations.

I ordered more myself that shipped this week


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[J Batt]

I can tell you with absolute certainty it is impossible to make a shorter lighter bullet with a higher bc than the same style bullet they’re both vld solid copper boat tail projectiles. They’re so similar in shape the boat tails have the same angle and length on some of the like weight projectiles.

The lazer tip adds bc

There’s no magic to McGuire bullets that would make them have some exorbitantly high bc.

They appear to work fine, the advertised bc is BS. He’s not the first copper manufacturer to grossly exaggerate his bc. It’s the new trend. The problem is when a bullet is inferior (lead free) and it relies on velocity to achieve its marginal effectiveness then lying about your bc is foolish and leads to dumb statements like the one I quoted of the 128 gr being an 1100 yard projectile out of a 270 Winchester.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I am stuck using inferior monos for the foreseeable future. So I will be giving them a try.
I did not mean to mislead anyone by quoting a ballistic solution of an advertised BC. But I can see why you would point that out.
I agree with you that monos are inferior at killing. I would rather still use ELDX but legally cannot.
Also I would not personally shoot an animal at 1,000yards, but was referring to the widely accepted 2,000fps threshold for "minimum" impact velocity using Monos. Just a reference that I am pointing to, and not at all advocating for slinging monos to extreme ranges at the bare minimum velocity.
The bullets might be a better solution to the lead-free problem in my state. I will try some and report back.

 

[huntnful]

I wanted to test these out for myself. Maybe not for hunting quite yet. But for accuracy and BC. I bought 25 of the 178’s which came out to $70 after tax and shipping. I have a 9.5 twist on my Norma Improved. The owner found out that what I was planning from a friend on Instagram, and decided to send me some 195’s also to test in the 9.5 twist. I never even talked to him personally. He just put them in my order to get more info on them. So that’s always cool. He just wants feedback.

Still waiting on my new gun to get here though. But here’s some photo comparisons.

178 CR, 181 Hammer, 195 CR, 199 Hammer

178 CR, 215 Hybrid, 195 CR, 230 A-tip


I think the 178 is advertised at a .600 G1 and the 195 is .700 G1


I’ll be sharing results, good or bad, whenever I get around to testing them

 

[Mike D Texas]

My bull took 3 or 4 staggering steps, stopped knowing something was wrong. Tried to pick up his front leg and dropped dead. That was at 981yds. This was the 195.

This should be very easy to calculate the BC given that you know your MV, distance and bullet BC as given. Was your dial up correct on this shot based on the given BC or not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[28bang]

This should be very easy to calculate the BC given that you know your MV, distance and bullet BC as given. Was your dial up correct on this shot based on the given BC or not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Mike, yes it was.

 

[28bang]

I wanted to test these out for myself. Maybe not for hunting quite yet. But for accuracy and BC. I bought 25 of the 178’s which came out to $70 after tax and shipping. I have a 9.5 twist on my Norma Improved. The owner found out that what I was planning from a friend on Instagram, and decided to send me some 195’s also to test in the 9.5 twist. I never even talked to him personally. He just put them in my order to get more info on them. So that’s always cool. He just wants feedback.

Still waiting on my new gun to get here though. But here’s some photo comparisons.

178 CR, 181 Hammer, 195 CR, 199 Hammer
View attachment 564832
178 CR, 215 Hybrid, 195 CR, 230 A-tip
View attachment 564839

I think the 178 is advertised at a .600 G1 and the 195 is .700 G1


I’ll be sharing results, good or bad, whenever I get around to testing them

Glad you bought and got extra. Now you so you can see for yourself. You having a 9.5” twist will be interesting to see if it stabilizes. The bullet I believe has a recommended 9” which is most likely why you ordered the 178s. Some of the easiest load development I’ve ever done on any bullet. Curious to hear about your experience.

 

[SnakeRiverEric]

Glad you bought and got extra. Now you so you can see for yourself. You having a 9.5” twist will be interesting to see if it stabilizes. The bullet I believe has a recommended 9” which is most likely why you ordered the 178s. Some of the easiest load development I’ve ever done on any bullet. Curious to hear about your experience.

I was able to get the 195s to stabilize in my 10 twist 300 winmag (24" barrel) running 3010fps at 6000ft elevation. Will be interesting to hear how they perform for you.

 

[Ucsdryder]

I wanted to test these out for myself. Maybe not for hunting quite yet. But for accuracy and BC. I bought 25 of the 178’s which came out to $70 after tax and shipping. I have a 9.5 twist on my Norma Improved. The owner found out that what I was planning from a friend on Instagram, and decided to send me some 195’s also to test in the 9.5 twist. I never even talked to him personally. He just put them in my order to get more info on them. So that’s always cool. He just wants feedback.

Still waiting on my new gun to get here though. But here’s some photo comparisons.

178 CR, 181 Hammer, 195 CR, 199 Hammer
View attachment 564832
178 CR, 215 Hybrid, 195 CR, 230 A-tip
View attachment 564839

I think the 178 is advertised at a .600 G1 and the 195 is .700 G1


I’ll be sharing results, good or bad, whenever I get around to testing them

They are sexy. Not sure if they’re 3 dollars sexy, but definitely sexy!!

 

[huntnful]

They are sexy. Not sure if they’re 3 dollars sexy, but definitely sexy!!

Agreed. They will have to shoot unbelievably well for me to consider getting more them. But I do look forward to a little testing.

 

[NK Hunter]

I was able to get the 195s to stabilize in my 10 twist 300 winmag (24" barrel) running 3010fps at 6000ft elevation. Will be interesting to hear how they perform for you.

They might fly good but be terminally compromised on impact? That's the part I'd be concerned about with marginal stabilization.

 

[amassi]

They might fly good but be terminally compromised on impact? That's the part I'd be concerned about with marginal stabilization.

Or they’re perfectly stable since the bc is lower than advertised.
He’d be better off if they were compromised and tumbled anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NK Hunter]

Or they’re perfectly stable since the bc is lower than advertised.
He’d be better off if they were compromised and tumbled anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Try them and prove the BC is off. Not impressed with your approach. I'm about to give a detailed report of testing. Doing is better than talking.

 

[jdvangeystel]

Try them and prove the BC is off. Not impressed with your approach. I'm about to give a detailed report of testing. Doing is better than talking.

Be curious to see what you come up with- idk why it’s looked at as an incredibly high BC when the closest thing in comparison to the 168 is a 190 Berger and it has a listed BC of .751 G1 and these 168’s are longer and sleeker than a 190 hybrid even. With a balance point with that hollow void behind the tip and being CNC machined probably held to a tighter tolerance. Maybe they aren’t realizing the listed G1 of the Bergers- it’s not like this BC is just unheard of


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NK Hunter]

I sent some of these to Kirby Allen since I didn't have a 30 cal rifle to try in myself. Here's his detailed report:

******************************************************************
Got the load development and testing done with the McGuire Ballistics 30 cal 178 gr. My initial thoughts were that i assumed they would have a personality similar to the Barnes triple shock bullets. As such, expected them to be consistent and likely shoot well. I was a bit suspicious of the advertised 0.600 g1 BC but thought the small meplat may boost BC a bit.

The 178 gr is about as light as i would recommend for use in my 300 Allen Xpress. Bullet weight just helps with consistent powder ignition and consistent powder burn resulting in consistent muzzle velocities.

I tested this bullet with Retumbo powder and a fed-215 primer. Started at 95.0 gr and worked up to 106.0 gr. Here are the results of load development testing using a 3.820” oal which is roughly 0.010” off the lands. Test rifle, Raptor 300 AX w/ gen 1 Razor 5-20x 50mm, mil reticle, 32” Lilja barrel, 10tw, 6 groove. 65* F, 26.7 bar pressure @ 3400 ft elevation, 30% humidity

95.0 gr……….3357 fps
96.0 gr……….3401 fps
97.0 gr……….3419 fps
98.0 gr………3445 fps
99.0 gr………3465 fps
100.0 gr…….3521 fps
101.0 gr…….3544 fps
102.0 gr……3560 fps
103.0 gr……3591 fps
104.0 gr……3623 fps *** consider this max load with this combo. ***
105.0 gr……3652 fps noticeable ejector ring, no primer pocket loosening
106.0 gr……3674 fps MORE noticeable ejector ring, primer pocket loosening

From 95.0 gr to 99.0 gr velocity gains were somewhat inconsistent. This is not unusual or unexpected with this size of a cartridge. This happens until pressures start to approach the 60,000 psi level in large capacity magnum chamberings using slow burning powder.

At 100.0 gr and up, velocity gains per grain of powder became much more consistent at roughly 20 to 25 fps per grain of powder increase. Producing very consistent, predictable velocity gains which is as expected similar to what one would see using a barnes TSX or LRX bullet. These did seem a bit faster then the barnes bullets on average for bullet weight. This is likely due to the sub caliber bullet diameter ahead of the first seal band on the bullet body.

103.0 gr proved to be a comfortable load pressure wise and also produced a quality extreme spread at 23 fps for five shot string. Know this is a relatively short string but with limited bullets, i would see more data shooting at long range as far as velocity consistency was concerned.

Loaded 25 rounds up with the 103.0 gr load @ 3591 fps. Again, remember the 32” barrel length!! Likely would expect 20-25 fps drop per inch shorter then 32” down to 28” length, then likely 25-30 fps drop per inch from 28 to 24” in barrel length estimated.

This morning on the range, to test, again i used my 300 AX Raptor which is set up for my 215 gr berger @ 3350 fps load. Did not want to mess with rezeroing the rifle after these tests so i shot at an initial zero target at 550 yards. Once i was zeroed at this range i recorded the vertical turret adjustment setting which was 0.8 mil.

Ran the numbers on my ballistic program and produced an initial drop chart out to 1500 yards. I would then use this to test and compare actual BC to advertised BC.

First at 550 yards, it was easy to keep three shot groups inside 4” ctc. Most were 3” or less ctc. What variation there was in group size seemed to be vertical in nature but not bad at all. Shot very well. There was a decent amount of mirage which without that would have likely easily broke 1/2 moa at 550.

Accuracy test went as follows:
- Zero rifle at 550 yards.
- Let rifle cool
- fire two, three shot groups at 550 yards to confirm zero and visually check accuracy
- let barrel fully cool
- dial up and test at 860 yards, fire one three shot group, record point of impact to test drop chart(BC) as well as monitor consistency
- let barrel fully cool
- move out to 1010 yards, record point of impact for BC, observe consistency
- let rifle cool, return to original 550 yard zero.
- take two shots each at 550, 850 and 1010 yards as quickly as possible and observe any change in point of impact and group size. This tells us how the bullets will perform as a barrel heats up.

Test results:
- Again at 550 yards the 178 gr averaged just slightly over 1/2 moa in group size

- for 850 yards, dial up was 1.6 mil. Point of impact was pretty much dead on and group size maintained 1/2 moa class groups.

- at 1010 yards, dial up was listed at 2.7 moa. Actual impact was probably closer to 2.5-2.6 mil but close. Seems BC dropped off slightly from 850 to 1010 yards but its so close more testing would be needed to know that or if there was a slight down draft or up draft causing this slight variation. Close though. Group size was surprisingly good as well. Very happy with that.

Returned to 550, shot two rounds, 850, shot two rounds and then finished again at two rounds at 1010 yards. All were within 1/4 moa of point of aim at all ranges. No sign of consistency drop off as barrel warmed.

Final thoughts on the 178 gr. Impressed with them. Easy to load, consistent, predictable pressure build. No dramatic pressure spikes at top end. Good consistency, advertised BC actually seemed pretty close, this did surprise me a bit. In this rifle, easily a 1k yard class projo.

Only question would be terminal performance on game but ballistically, very good. At least as good as barnes LRX with a bit better BC but very similar loading personality.

 

[NK Hunter]

300 ax mcguire ballistics 178gr @ 3590fps
G1 BC, 3590 fps

BC 0.600 G1 Bullet Weight 178 gr
Muzzle Velocity 3,590 fps Zero Range 550 yds
Sight Height 3" LOS Angle 0°

Altitude 3400.0 Pressure 26.50 Hg. Temp 50.0° F RH 50% Wind Velocity 10.0 Wind Angle 90

Zero Altitude 3400.0 Zero Pressure 26.50 Hg. Zero Temp 59.0° F Zero RH 50% Max PBR Zero 399

Bullet Trajectory
Range (yards) Drop(in) Drop(mrad) Wind.(in) Wind.(mrad) Veloc.(fps) Energy (ft-lbs) Time(sec)
0 -3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3595 5107 0.00
100 4.8 1.3 -0.3 -0.1 3447 4695 0.09
200 9.7 1.4 -1.2 -0.2 3304 4313 0.17
210 10.0 1.3 -1.3 -0.2 3290 4277 0.18
220 10.3 1.3 -1.5 -0.2 3276 4241 0.19
230 10.6 1.3 -1.6 -0.2 3262 4205 0.20
240 10.8 1.3 -1.7 -0.2 3248 4169 0.21
250 11.0 1.2 -1.9 -0.2 3234 4133 0.22
260 11.2 1.2 -2.0 -0.2 3220 4098 0.23
270 11.3 1.2 -2.2 -0.2 3207 4063 0.24
280 11.4 1.1 -2.4 -0.2 3193 4029 0.25
290 11.4 1.1 -2.5 -0.2 3179 3994 0.26
300 11.4 1.1 -2.7 -0.3 3166 3960 0.27
310 11.4 1.0 -2.9 -0.3 3152 3926 0.28
320 11.4 1.0 -3.1 -0.3 3139 3893 0.29
330 11.3 1.0 -3.3 -0.3 3125 3860 0.30
340 11.2 0.9 -3.5 -0.3 3112 3826 0.31
350 11.0 0.9 -3.7 -0.3 3098 3794 0.31
360 10.8 0.8 -3.9 -0.3 3085 3761 0.32
370 10.6 0.8 -4.1 -0.3 3072 3729 0.33
380 10.3 0.8 -4.3 -0.3 3058 3697 0.34
390 10.0 0.7 -4.6 -0.3 3045 3665 0.35
400 9.7 0.7 -4.8 -0.3 3032 3633 0.36
410 9.3 0.6 -5.0 -0.3 3019 3602 0.37
420 8.9 0.6 -5.3 -0.3 3006 3570 0.38
430 8.4 0.5 -5.5 -0.4 2993 3539 0.39
440 8.0 0.5 -5.8 -0.4 2980 3509 0.40
450 7.4 0.5 -6.0 -0.4 2967 3478 0.41
460 6.8 0.4 -6.3 -0.4 2954 3448 0.42
470 6.2 0.4 -6.6 -0.4 2941 3418 0.43
480 5.6 0.3 -6.8 -0.4 2928 3388 0.44
489
↓
4.9 0.3 -7.1 -0.4 2917 3359 0.45
490 4.8 0.3 -7.2 -0.4 2915 3356 0.46
500 4.2 0.2 -7.4 -0.4 2903 3329 0.46
510 3.4 0.2 -7.7 -0.4 2890 3300 0.48
520 2.6 0.1 -8.0 -0.4 2877 3271 0.49
530 1.7 0.1 -8.3 -0.4 2864 3242 0.50
540 0.8 0.0 -8.6 -0.4 2852 3214 0.51
550
⊕
-0.1 -0.0 -8.9 -0.5 2839 3186 0.52
560 -1.1 -0.1 -9.2 -0.5 2827 3157 0.53
570 -2.2 -0.1 -9.6 -0.5 2814 3130 0.54
580 -3.2 -0.2 -9.9 -0.5 2802 3102 0.55
590 -4.3 -0.2 -10.2 -0.5 2789 3074 0.56
595
↑
-5.0 -0.2 -10.4 -0.5 2783 3058 0.57
600 -5.5 -0.3 -10.6 -0.5 2777 3047 0.57
610 -6.7 -0.3 -10.9 -0.5 2764 3020 0.58
620 -8.0 -0.4 -11.3 -0.5 2752 2993 0.59
630 -9.3 -0.4 -11.6 -0.5 2740 2966 0.60
640 -10.6 -0.5 -12.0 -0.5 2728 2940 0.61
650 -12.0 -0.5 -12.3 -0.5 2715 2914 0.63
660 -13.4 -0.6 -12.7 -0.5 2703 2888 0.64
670 -14.9 -0.6 -13.1 -0.5 2691 2862 0.65
680 -16.5 -0.7 -13.5 -0.5 2679 2836 0.66
690 -18.0 -0.7 -13.8 -0.6 2667 2810 0.67
700 -19.7 -0.8 -14.2 -0.6 2655 2785 0.68
710 -21.4 -0.8 -14.6 -0.6 2643 2760 0.69
720 -23.1 -0.9 -15.0 -0.6 2631 2735 0.70
730 -24.9 -0.9 -15.4 -0.6 2619 2710 0.72
740 -26.7 -1.0 -15.8 -0.6 2607 2685 0.73
750 -28.6 -1.1 -16.3 -0.6 2595 2661 0.74
760 -30.5 -1.1 -16.7 -0.6 2583 2637 0.75
770 -32.5 -1.2 -17.1 -0.6 2571 2613 0.76
780 -34.5 -1.2 -17.5 -0.6 2559 2589 0.77
790 -36.6 -1.3 -17.9 -0.6 2548 2565 0.78
800 -38.8 -1.3 -18.4 -0.6 2536 2541 0.80
810 -41.0 -1.4 -18.8 -0.6 2524 2518 0.81
820 -43.2 -1.5 -19.3 -0.7 2513 2495 0.82
830 -45.6 -1.5 -19.7 -0.7 2501 2472 0.83
840 -47.9 -1.6 -20.2 -0.7 2489 2449 0.84
850 -50.3 -1.6 -20.6 -0.7 2478 2426 0.86
860 -52.8 -1.7 -21.1 -0.7 2466 2403 0.87
870 -55.4 -1.8 -21.6 -0.7 2455 2381 0.88
880 -57.9 -1.8 -22.0 -0.7 2443 2359 0.89
890 -60.6 -1.9 -22.5 -0.7 2432 2337 0.91
900 -63.3 -2.0 -23.0 -0.7 2420 2315 0.92
910 -66.1 -2.0 -23.5 -0.7 2409 2293 0.93
920 -68.9 -2.1 -24.0 -0.7 2398 2271 0.94
930 -71.8 -2.1 -24.4 -0.7 2386 2250 0.96
940 -74.7 -2.2 -24.9 -0.7 2375 2229 0.97
950 -77.8 -2.3 -25.4 -0.7 2364 2208 0.98
960 -80.8 -2.3 -25.9 -0.8 2352 2187 0.99
970 -84.0 -2.4 -26.4 -0.8 2341 2166 1.01
980 -87.2 -2.5 -27.0 -0.8 2330 2145 1.02
990 -90.4 -2.5 -27.5 -0.8 2319 2125 1.03
1000 -93.8 -2.6 -28.0 -0.8 2308 2104 1.04
1010 -97.2 -2.7 -28.5 -0.8 2297 2084 1.06
1020 -100.6 -2.7 -29.0 -0.8 2285 2064 1.07
1030 -104.1 -2.8 -29.6 -0.8 2274 2044 1.08
1040 -107.7 -2.9 -30.1 -0.8 2263 2024 1.10
1050 -111.4 -2.9 -30.6 -0.8 2252 2005 1.11
1060 -115.1 -3.0 -31.2 -0.8 2241 1985 1.12
1070 -118.9 -3.1 -31.7 -0.8 2231 1966 1.14
1080 -122.8 -3.2 -32.3 -0.8 2220 1947 1.15
1090 -126.7 -3.2 -32.8 -0.8 2209 1928 1.16
1100 -130.7 -3.3 -33.4 -0.8 2198 1909 1.18
1110 -134.8 -3.4 -33.9 -0.8 2187 1890 1.19
1120 -139.0 -3.4 -34.5 -0.9 2176 1872 1.21
1130 -143.2 -3.5 -35.0 -0.9 2166 1853 1.22
1140 -147.5 -3.6 -35.6 -0.9 2155 1835 1.23
1150 -151.9 -3.7 -36.2 -0.9 2144 1817 1.25
1160 -156.3 -3.7 -36.7 -0.9 2134 1799 1.26
1170 -160.9 -3.8 -37.3 -0.9 2123 1781 1.28
1180 -165.5 -3.9 -37.9 -0.9 2112 1763 1.29
1190 -170.2 -4.0 -38.5 -0.9 2102 1746 1.30
1200 -174.9 -4.0 -39.1 -0.9 2091 1728 1.32
1210 -179.8 -4.1 -39.6 -0.9 2081 1711 1.33
1220 -184.7 -4.2 -40.2 -0.9 2070 1694 1.35
1230 -189.7 -4.3 -40.8 -0.9 2060 1677 1.36
1240 -194.8 -4.4 -41.4 -0.9 2049 1660 1.38
1250 -200.0 -4.4 -42.0 -0.9 2039 1643 1.39
1260 -205.2 -4.5 -42.6 -0.9 2029 1626 1.41
1270 -210.5 -4.6 -43.2 -0.9 2018 1610 1.42
1280 -216.0 -4.7 -43.8 -1.0 2008 1593 1.44
1290 -221.5 -4.8 -44.4 -1.0 1998 1577 1.45
1300 -227.1 -4.9 -45.0 -1.0 1987 1561 1.47
1310 -232.8 -4.9 -45.6 -1.0 1977 1545 1.48
1320 -238.5 -5.0 -46.2 -1.0 1967 1529 1.50
1330 -244.4 -5.1 -46.8 -1.0 1957 1513 1.51
1340 -250.3 -5.2 -47.4 -1.0 1947 1498 1.53
1350 -256.4 -5.3 -48.0 -1.0 1937 1482 1.54
1360 -262.5 -5.4 -48.7 -1.0 1927 1467 1.56
1370 -268.8 -5.4 -49.3 -1.0 1917 1452 1.57
1380 -275.1 -5.5 -49.9 -1.0 1907 1437 1.59
1390 -281.5 -5.6 -50.5 -1.0 1897 1422 1.60
1400 -288.0 -5.7 -51.1 -1.0 1887 1407 1.62
1410 -294.6 -5.8 -51.7 -1.0 1877 1392 1.64
1420 -301.4 -5.9 -52.4 -1.0 1867 1378 1.65
1430 -308.2 -6.0 -53.0 -1.0 1857 1363 1.67
1440 -315.1 -6.1 -53.6 -1.0 1848 1349 1.68
1450 -322.1 -6.2 -54.2 -1.0 1838 1335 1.70
1460 -329.2 -6.3 -54.9 -1.0 1828 1321 1.72
1470 -336.4 -6.4 -55.5 -1.0 1818 1307 1.73
1480 -343.8 -6.5 -56.1 -1.1 1809 1293 1.75
1490 -351.2 -6.5 -56.7 -1.1 1799 1279 1.77
1500 -358.7 -6.6 -57.4 -1.1 1790 1266 1.78
Range Drop Drop Wind. Wind. Veloc. Energy Time