How many of the extremely knowledgeable crowd that use the FTP still have the shroud on? I am sure they didn't ask AA for that to be fitted making the rifle more expensive so they could remove it. And not just remove it for cosmetic reasons, it ruins the accuracy, so zero shifting is a feature you are paying extra for!
Yep, loads of development work went into that!
Shooting is basically like a one make race series, we are all restricted to the same velocity/energy limit, so who is going to win, the one with the best aerodynamics!
When a manufacturer actually decides to put some effort into designing and developing a rifle with the emphasis on maximising bc then they would have a product that has an advantage over those that others produce.
When you see a regged 12ft/lb rifle with a 19" barrel you know straight away that no research into maximising the ballistic coefficient took place!
I once asked a manufacturer if they had made an improvement in the bc with their new rifle, they answered with a puzzled look and a question, "that's dictated by the pellet isn't it?"
If you don't think the rifles action can influence the bc look at this graph of a shot string from an unregged pcp showing both the velocity and bc of each shot.
From the lowest to the highest bc we see an increase of about 50%, so a rifle properly developed could out perform the rest of the market by a margin everyone would want!
The graph data is not mine but I have been working on this for years and it sickens me that manufacturers tell you what you want to hear but don't go nearly as far as they could with development, its all about money!
I know this thread and some of my comments have been about the FTP but I am now talking about manufacturers in general, we just need one of them to take development seriously to produce a game changer, then the rest will have to follow!