MMACFIVE

270, From everything I've read 308 is right on the money, the money, the money. oh wait did I stutter. I have not seen you add a D!@#$ thing that actually contributes to this. In fact you have said a few things that are just foolish, And it seems to be pretty antagonistic. But lets not forget I'm the hostile one here....I have to admit I didn't recognize from the quality of your comments your expertise. But now that I noticed you have nearly 5000 posts so you must be an expert at nearly everything.

Thank you, I'll own that....the jerk comment might not of been helpful. But you have to admit previous comments could allow for much worse implications. I don't understand why these forums get so attacking. Why does someone need to prove their mental superiority? Yes penetration on animals is variable. Although this wasn't meant to to be about bullets selection I know that I use a bullets that work in the worst shot locations and if or when I lose and animal it will be on me, not my bullet. You almost never hear someone owing something they did wrong.....its always the bullet.

I'm just glad none of us are too old to learn something new. When all things were equal, SD was a pretty direct correlation to penetration. Now we have solids, monolithics, explosive, bonded, interlocked, etc so it doesn't' quite mean the same. Even though its been around along a long time other parameters have changed. Heck, even ole Bryan Litz might be learning a thing or two about BCs with Doppler now? So if you can't stay on point or if you just have to be jerk about it maybe you should just stay out of the conversation? SD is just a mathematical expression of weight to diameter. Given equal construction it gives us a reference point of penetration between multiple diameters...so maybe it isn't quite dead yet. Or had you already implied that and I missed it?

308, I think we are closer in thoughts than you think. I actually think if everything is held constant, SD, construction, form factor, etc the the BC from any caliber should be nearly the same. e.g all Nosler Accubonds with a SD of .260 should have nearly identical BCs. What do you think? ( and thats' not patronizing!)

308 nut: you said, and I quote "Also, 2 bullets that have equal caliber and form factor but have different SDs, which do you think will penetrate more? Lets pretend that one is a FMJ and one is a thinly explosive bullet. I think we can have both made with the same form factor and the same SD? Can't we? Then we have to agree that one will penetrate better then the other. So No, equal construction was not "Stated right tin the quote"! And as far as Sierra setting me straight: the 220gr 30 cal round nose has SD of .331 and a BC of .31 while the 220 HPBT MK has a SD of .331 and a BC of .629. So doesn't that actually "set you straight? My main point is that it is not accurate when a posters states they would not use bullets X because of SD. If I compare the venerable Nosler partition that has been one of my favorite bullets for nearly 50 years and recognized and one of the best penetrating bullets on the market I know I can shoot a Barnes (or eTIP, or GMX, or) that weights about 30% less and still get nearly the same penetration because of "Post Expansion SD". We could get on a tangent about BC vs Velocity, vs wind drift here if we want to go on a tangent but that was not my intention of the post. I am not Trolling. I am not telling anyone they should be shooting one bullet or another (although we have killed nearly 60 javelina, Deer, Antelope, Bighorns, Elk, and other big game animals with Barnes and have never had a single bad experience so I have complete faith in them. I also like speer, nosler, and hornady, among others. I am suggesting to not base penetration on SD alone! And 270: I kinda have to question you last statement.

1st, why do you say that the barnes will out penetrate the berger? It may in some cases and not in others. I am not trying to make this an argument between Berger and Barnes; Its just that they are kinda the extremes in construction right now. I'm just try to say that technology and changed so much over the last 50 or so years that SD does not have the meaning it once did. When all bullets were a form of cup and core a person could use SD as an estimation of penetration potential. That's not the case anymore. If all else were equal (ie construction, expansion ratio, material, etc...) the bullet with the higher SD wins. Period. Exactly, If all else is equal the bullet with the heavier SD will penetrate more. I can't not count the times I've read on these forums "don't use that 145g LRX cause it just wont have enough penetration compared to the 190 Berger...." B.S. Also, 2 bullets that have equal caliber and form factor but have different SDs, which do you think will penetrate more? I agree but you missed equal construction....I think you were implying that though? I think what you're looking at is a barnes 120 blowing through a section of ballistic gelatin where the berger might have exploded and didn't exit. That has nothing to do with SD but everything to do with construction and expansion properties. Once again I agree...I think this actually supports my theorem that "SD in and un iits-self" is worthless. SD is also a direct contributing factor to ballistic coefficient. That is part of the reason barnes bullets have such low BCs. Equal weight and form factor, the jacketed lead bullet will have a higher BC. Why? Because (among other contributing factors such as specific gravity and others) the all copper bullet has more mass which produces more air drag and doesn't weigh more to be able to offset the added drag. Which will penetrate more? That depends on how much each will expand. This statement I might have more problems with. SD is not a direct contributing factor to BC. Only if it has the same form factor (but you might have meant that too?) e.g. a cup and core 220g round nose and a cup and core 220g VLD form factor with have a very different BC. And BTW copper has less mass than a lead bullet not more. And mass does not produce more air drag; form factor does. That's why a 6.5mm 140g berger with a SD of .287 has about the same BC and SD and thier 7mm 168gr bullet. If they have the same velocities won't they have the same trajectory?

.

Its too bad you've have such a bad experience with the pressure with Barnes. Since the put grooves on the and called the TSX I have never seen this. I drive them at the same velocity with about the same powder charge as conventional bullets.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Becker is absolutely correct. A rifle does know if it is canted or not. It only matters if the scope is sighted in level and held level for all shots. Remember the barrel actually oscillates, or moves in a circular motion when it is fired. With a "good load" we are just catching the bullet exit at the same position of the barrels motion.

I have 2 VX6 3x18's. I just used the turrets as is (MOA). The new "Z-Lock" is really nice. I am converting my other scope to it. I have been shooting two VX6 3x18's and 2 VX3 4.5x14's quite a bit lately. I think the VX6's are far superior optics to the VX3's.

This may be stating the obvious but the standard CDS turret as is comes is MOA. Once you have one cut for a particular load you can still count the clicks and use it as MOA if you want.

I will go to $2400....but no lower.

I have an excellent Swarovski 80HD ATS (angled) spotting scope with 25-50x and a Snugfit case for sale. I NEED a 95! Asking $2500. I live in Flagstaff. Mike

What is the going rate for this scope?

The small scratch on the barrel of the eyepiece is the only flaw. Please ignore the dust.

See if this helps???? Mike

I've been doing more research on my asking price.....$2650 seems to be more inline? Mike

I have an excellent Swarovski 80HD ATS (angled) spotting scope with 25-50x and a Snugfit case for sale. The barrel of the eyepiece has a 1/4" scratch on it (the glass is perfect) I am asking $2800. I live in Flagstaff. Mike