ORIGINAL: bigbulls
As for .264" and .284" bullets being ballistically superior to .277" bullets - theballistic properties of any caliber bullet depend on two factors-their sectional density (weight IN POUNDS divided by the square of the diameter in inches)and their form factor, or shape. (Sectional density / form factor = ballistic coefficient-B.C.) So if you take bullets of any given caliber, givethem a specific sectional density and identical form factors,they will ALL be ballistically IDENTICALregardless of their diameter - .264", .277", .284, .308", whatever. Of course, to remain ballistically identical, the shape has to remain the same, and weight must increase as diameter increases to maintain identical SD's.............
That's what I was saying but I guess I was proven wrong. [&:]
Agreed that the same S.D.'s and forms would produce the same B.C.'s... Can't argue with math. However, I was just saying that .277 bullets are ballistically inferior because we round off our bullet weights. A 120 grain .264 bullet and 140 grain .284 bullet both have higher S.D.'s than a 130 grain .277 bullet. Therefore, theyshould have higherB.C.'s. Also, for whatever reason, many .264 and .284 bullets happen to have really good streamlined shapes, which improves their B.C. relative to S.D.
This is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that the 140 grain .284 Nosler Ballistic Tip's B.C. is .485 and the 140 grain .277 Ballistic Tip's B.C. is only .456, even though it's S.D. is .013 higher than the .284's.That math doesn't work, unless the .284 bullet is designed more aerodynamically... Which mean's it's ballistically superior. Everyone agree?
And the original question per the title of the thread was whether or not a .27-08 is NEEDED, not whether people would buy it. If it's not obvious to some why we don't need a .27-08, then those are the exact same people who are the reason it might sell anyway. We do, afterall, live in the most excessive, over-the-top nation on Earth.