keep in mind this is just a discussion.
And therein lies the problem. The number of people who have done any significant testing, particularly in recent years with the better long jackets, is quite small. Of those who've even tried, most have taken, say, their 600 yard rifle & tested a bit at 100. I've done this too. I've even fired 5 consecutive targets under match timing.
Results are inconclusive, because few of us have *studied* performance -- shot under match conditions when the wind is up & there were more conventional chambered BR rifles to compare results.
Even fewer the number of people who have built, say, a 10.5 pound 6BR or PPC with an 8-twist barrel. There are a few HVs, still not many. Joel Kendrick used a point-blank legal 6mm HV the year he won the 600 yard SOY. But he didn't study performance at 200 under match conditions, and used a chambering closer to a 6XC. The only one I know of is R. G. Robinett, who fired a HV-legal Dasher at 200 yards at a few matches, using his 121-grain flat base bullets. At least one 2nd place at a regional-level match.
Data point, 1.
It takes more than one. Look at you conclusion about .30BR performance in the wind, based on what happened to you. Now your conclusion is wrong, but you have evidence for it. It's "wrong" using simple ballistics, as R. G. Robinett pointed out. Its "wrong" with counterexamples, because I've used a .30BR several times at the 300 yard Southeastern Regional championships. One of those was in heavy wind -- average agg was over 1 inch that day. My .30BR was in the top 10.
But you did some work for your conclusion, and that work counts. As it turns out, ballistic theory is against you, and other examples don't match yours. If the poor results weren't due to your shooting -- and I doubt they were -- that might mean there is something slightly off with your .30 BR. Maybe the build, more likely choice of bullets for that barrel, but something. That in itself is worth knowing for you personally, though it doesn't help the rest of us much.
These winter "discussions" often wind up doing more harm than good. Everybody trots out passed down conventional wisdom, so even more people wind up believing it and passing it on. Trying something once & drawing a conclusion (we all do it, me too) can be even worse than a discussion, because now there is "evidence."
Think it through. There are any number of steps that can be taken to try and get slightly better performance in the wind. To put it generally, to see if improved BC matters in the wind. Some can be done relatively cheaply.
Here's one. Take your existing setup, and try meplat trimming and repointing the bullets. You can test your technique by shooing at 100 yards on a calm day. Your groups should be as good as with unmodified bullets. If they aren't, work on your technique until they are. With these ballistically better bullets (which are just as accurate as unmodified ones, because you've tested them), shoot at 200 for a year. Or, for quicker results, accept you're going to wear out a barrel with no "match rewards," & test them extensively.
That will tell you just how much BC matters. It does, of course, the trick is to (1) get enough improvement to be worth the work or expense, and (2) the compromises, if any, with light-wind conditions are worth it.
If the little step proves out, now you're ready to commit to a bigger one, such as a fast-twist barrel & higher BC bullets.
This is the life of an experimenter. Not much in it except the satisfaction of learning.
Why don't Wayne Campbell and Tony Boyer etc. use high BC bullets if they're an advantage? Because they don't need to. They are
competitors. What do I mean? Suppose, for example, that high BC bullets do offer a slight advantage in the wind only. To use them, you have to change barrels, powder, etc. Even more important, your hard-earned knowledge/honed instincts about how far the bullet is going to move in *this* wind gets muddled.
Competition and experimenting don't often go well together. Maybe Ferris Pindell is in the Hall of Fame, I don't know. The IBS has the
Precision Rifleman and
Long Range Marksman programs, which tracks long-term competitive performance. A few of the experimentally-minded gunsmiths are in these; most are pure competitors. It took me much longer to make the long-range marksman bronze level than most people on the list. Now maybe that's because I'm a lousy shot, or maybe it's because I'm an experimenter, who will spend a year chasing down some notion. Not all good ideas work, you know.
Even worse, when you wind up proving out an idea, if it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, it will catch on very slowly. Too many people have had "discussions" where the conclusion was "That'll never work."
