Field Test of Ballistic Apps. Cold Bore 1.0 , Applied Ballastics, & others

[Broz]

Phase 1
Page 1


Jeff entering first part of the data then switching to Rhian when noted.



To start this off we need to say we used the best equipment we had available to us. We compared Ketsrels using two for each set of field conditions. We used a Leica 1600 CRF as well as my Vectronix PLRF10 for distances until we were past the distances the Leica would record. They were in agreement all the way. Distance readings were taken off the truck last stake pocket each time and the truck was moved even 1’ if needed where distances would teeter between two. Final distances were confirmed with 3 exact consecutive readings. Shooting was done in the truck bed prone off a bipod and bags off a piece of plywood with a 3/4 “ board to rest the legs on for proper bipod preload. Paralax was finely adjusted until eliminated for each shooting location. Bubble level was used for each shot. Dialed turret corrections were dialed and called out for verification and rechecked as the scope was dialed back down to zeros after each series of shots.



But first lets talk about the rifle used. My new Defensive Edge LRKM in .338 Terminator +P. This is one of the most accurate rifles I have ever owned. I have worked up a good solid load and have chrono tested it numerous times over two different Magneto speeds and an Oehler 35. I have also tested Muzzle Velocity at different ambient temps allowing the rifle and ammo to acclimate to these temps between shots. My data is sound. The averaging of this data over a wide set of tests brings us to the velocity of 3198 fps. This is what was used in all apps for this test. And the only MV used. Bullet used was the 300 Berger OTM.

Next we understand the need to mechanically test the scope tracking of the 5~25x56 Nightforce ATACR. Otherwise any app could give a good correction but if the scope is not in true .25 moa calibration it could suggest the app is incorrect. When in reality it is the scope that is the culprit. To do this we used Rhian’s scope calibration board. The board was placed at exactly 100 yards from the scope turrets. The 100 yards was ranged with a laser and then verified with a surveyors tape. Testing was done every 20 moa. The 20 moa was multiplied by 1.047” to get the corrected inches per 100 yards the reticle should travel. On the board is a steel tape that can be read easily to the .25". Each black line is exactly 1". This works very well and I feel was very accurate. Then the turret was returned to zero as a check to insure the crosshairs also returned to our zero mark to make sure nothing had moved.

The rifle was held in position by a high quality gun vice and also supported with sand bags. Frequent return to zero’s were preformed to insure nothing was moving. The tracking was confirmed through a full 120 moa of scope travel. In the end it was determined that the ATACR tracked as good as one could want. It was within .008 of true .25 moa. So the turret correction factor of 1.008 or an equivalent was entered into all programs.

Next we wanted to reconfirm the rifles 200 yard zero. 3 shots were fired at 200 yards and it proved the rifle was zeroed .25” low of a perfect zero. Since one click of .25 moa is 1/2” at 200 yards the scope zero was left where it was and under the zero data in all programs 200 yards was entered and -.25” was entered for zero Height.

Scope height was also rechecked and confirmed to be 2.7” from center of scope tube to center of rifle bore. Measurements were taken at the center of scope turret.

Rhian built us a very nice target to use for this test. When I seen it I said it was way to nice to shoot. It was constructed of two 4x8 sheets of plywood framed with 2x4's and hinged in the center. Folded open it gave a 8'x8' bullet catcher with a steel gong or taped off aim point in the center. It was placed on the face of our chosen berm for a back stop and secured with tie straps and four steel stakes, while the face was leveled plumb.

 

[Broz]

Page 2

Our playing field was a chosen low laying flat piece of ground I use for my personal range. It is flat and I drive down a fence row out to 1200 then can open a gate to get close to 3000 yards before the next section line fence. All on the level and facing pretty much East with an azimuth of 78 degrees. Latitude 46 degrees N

End Jeff and start Rhian's report.

All data entered for these shots were actual data from the scope turret calibration tests, actual muzzle velocity average, actual zero, Bergers advertised G7 BC and Bryan Litz Custom drag model from Applied Ballistics site. No tuning was done to the app before shooting.

Starting at 800 yards here's how things stacked up, a baro of 25.69 with 45 degree temp. Humidity 70%, Latitude 46* N and Azimuth of 78*. Dialed 11.5 up then 11.75 and split the difference since I could see the hits through the spotter. From here we doped each shot and fired a cold bore and a follow up shot then drove to confirm and record the hits. Wind was 3 MPH from 9 o'clock.

Program	Come up in MOA	Left Windage in MOA
ColdBore 1.0	11.4	1.2
Applied Ballistics G7	11.4	1.1
Applied Ballistics Custom Drag	11.4	1.1
Strelok	11.8	.8
Strelok Pro	11.4	1.1

The environmental data remained the same for 1200 yards. Dialed 22 MOA up.

Program	Come up in MOA	Left Windage in MOA
Coldbore 1.0	21.8	2.0
Applied Ballistics G7	21.9	1.9
Applied Ballistics Custom Drag	21.9	1.9
Strelok	22.9	1.3
Strelok Pro	21.7	1.9

The environmental data changed just a little for the 1600 yard, Baro 25.73 with a 50 degree temp. Dialed 35 MOA up.

Program	Dial up in MOA	Left windage in MOA
Coldbore 1.0	34.9	3.0
Applied Ballistics G7	34.8	2.8
Applied Ballistics Custom Drag	35.1	2.8
Strelok	37.9	1.9
Strelok Pro	34.6	2.8

The data for the 1773 yards shot, 25.93 baro, 43 degrees. 42.25 MOA was dialed for elevation with a 2 MPH from 7 o'clock.

Program	Dial up in MOA	Left Windage in MOA
Coldbore	42.3	2.2
Applied Ballistic G7	41.8	2.0
Applied Ballistics Custom Drag	42.2	2.0
Strelok	44.6	1.2
Strelok Pro	41.4	2.0

Note from Broz and Photo added.
Below are the actual shots with recorded and repeated results on the actual target. These are from the second round of shooting on day two. These shots were fired using the Applied Ballistics app., and the custom drag model, for dial ups. REMEMBER: All data entered for these shots were actual data from the scope turret calibration tests, actual muzzled velocity average, actual zero. No tuning was done to the app before shooting. Rhian has listed the field data above for each shot. Also the two numbers by the bullet holes are: Distance in yards on top, Dial up used below. The circle trace was from the 1773 yard shot where a 12" steel plate was used for an aim point. Then we switched to a 5x7" taped point of aim that was smaller and also so hits were not just splashes on steel.

Summary of hits in inches from center mass of aim point.

800 yards.....1= 2.25" high
...................1= 2.50" low

1200 yards....1= 6.50" high
....................1= 1.50" high

1600 yards....1= .50" high
....................1= 4.00" low

1773 yards....1= 1.75" low

(end of Broz note)

We did shoot well beyond a mile but the conditions got so touchy that it was getting very hard to put rounds on the center of the target and know that there was not an environmental condition aiding or if the dope was on. So as shooting days come the numbers will be added for ranges to the extreme end of the capable range of the programs.

I want to add some on the actual operation of the programs while in the field, the current focus is very much on the ballistic solution itself but when you go to the field under hunting conditions you don't need to be geeking out on a cool ballistics program you need an easy and accurate solution.

To get Coldbore up and running on the phone platform was not hard but required the purchase of the Desktop edition and having a Windows mobile phone, I really like the desktop edition with all the tools it brings and the ability to compare multiple ballistic traces side by side. The phone edition needs as large a screen as you can get, I have big mitts and it is a struggle on a small screen for me. You do have to change between two screens both with multiple tabs to make a change in environmental conditions but it defaults to MOA every time you exit the shoot page so you have to make sure you've re-selected the turret each time, I like the program over all but I have concerns about being in a hunting situation with it, I to easily made unwanted changes when scrolling and if you leave the program and come back to it your data needs to be re entered which is another issue for me because I use multiple apps to get data for the program. I would also like to see the ability to directly input ranges in 1 yard increments, it has a lot of tools in it the GPS is excellent and the turret truing tool is very useful and easy to use aiding in getting dialed in easily. All in all I'm excited to see what the future brings to the Coldbore phone edition.

Applied Ballistics has a very intuitive function to it, load up a rifle and bullet and you have only two pages to work with for the rest of the day, I can easily navigate with one hand and make changes while behind the gun. Applied Ballistics has been through enough updates that have really refined it making it the usable program it is today, the first version was not nearly as smooth as the current. I would like to see a tool for calibrating your turrets added though.
An important component to Applied Ballistics vs Shooter is the ability to use a custom drag either down loaded or created with the tool built into the program, you can start to see the value of this when the G7 starts dropping of.

I'm relatively new to the Strelok program, the free version is virtually worthless and not worth what you pay for it in my opinion but I decided to give the pro edition a try for this test, it's a very different lay out but functional, not as intuitive as the other programs but they give you help through it. Oddly it does not allow sight in height so I had to change the sight in range, it's really odd to save the rifle and bullet info but workable.
One thing it does bring that no other program I have seen do is you can have it correct an elevation change from a cross wind, you can tune the amount it adds to reflect what you see from shooting. I find this part of Strelok pro very interesting and something I'm wanting to explore, all told while having some interesting features it's harder to navigate than I like for hunting with.

 

[Broz]

My (Jeff's) summary for phase one out to 1 mile is. If due diligence is used in making sure all inputted data is entered correctly, we have some great apps to choose from. Just looking at the results on the target shows we could have left the bench and been in the kill zone of a deer for elevation out to 1 mile. That impresses me.

We were struggling at 2300 plus yards with changing conditions. This time of year you have a window of stable temps between about 12:00 noon and 3:30. Either side of that temps are rising or dropping pretty quickly. A 3 mile round trip cross country and across two small gulches in mud takes a little time. So to shoot and go to the target to verify and mark hits, make a correction and return to shoot again was a new set of field conditions. So we excluded those shots for now until we get more stable and repeatable results. Phase Two will be added later.

Ease of use and layout is very important to me in a hunting scenario. With Applied Ballistics you only need to toggle between two pages. And once field conditions are inputted you can change distance, and wind from the solution page. I like this feature and will be using Applied Ballistics for my long range and ELR hunting needs for now. The other thing we noticed was that for ELR especially past a mile, all field condition entries become super critical. A few degrees of temp could be the deal breaker. This is also true for yardage readings. Cold Bore 1.0 only allows yardage entries in 5 yard increments. Applied Ballistics - 1 yard increments. At 2400 yards the difference between 2400 and 2405 yards is equal to .4 moa which I round to 1/2 moa. to match .25 moa clicks and that equals 12.5" on the target. This error increases pretty rapidly going out toward 3000 yards.

Also seeing the inputted data on all apps come in so good reiterates the value to good solid input data. But also if needed there are many ways to tune the rifle and app to match your particular field drops. The two most common being velocity and BC or even multiple BC's. Another that came to mind while doing this is, if needed, I could create a separate bullet profile for say 2000 to 3000 yards or what ever. Then simply choose that bullet profile for shots in that distance range. Haven't needed to do this yet, but could be an option.

One must understand that for anyone to engage a target at 3000 yards + or even 2500 and shoot a few shots with one or two landing close to aim point, then calling this solid data to judge an app is risky business. I personally feel, to take those unrepeated results as solid data and run them, with limited actual hit data, during what very well could be changing conditions, and call one app better than the other is pretty risky. Especially when read by people that actually shoot at these distances. Example: 3000 yards under the same conditions we were shooting in our test. Dial up calls for 122.9 moa., add only an 11:00 3 mph wind, new dial up is 123.4 moa. That's .5 moa or close to 16". And that is just a slight change in breeze from 11:00. We are sending that bullet 322 feet above line of sight where a whole new set of environmental conditions could very well be different than at the rifle. Can you see where someone calling this solid data a bit of a stretch? Thus the reason we will be testing more to get average repeated results to compile before we claim anything. Doing anything else is just a long shot in itself.

I would like to thank Rhian for coming up here to help me put all this together. He put a lot of time into all this and is a very valuable friend to have when you are want to get things done. Thanks Rhian!!

How about some random pics from the two days.

1773 yard hit:

Broz's idea of a "tailgate party"

Bullet in frozen ground after a pass through plywood. I think one of the 1600's but not sure.

 

[Broz]

Here she is guys. Thanks for your patience. Hope you find it worth the wait.

Jeff & Rhian

 

[Pyroducksx3]

I was interested in switching from my iPod based ballistic cal (fte) to an android based one applied ballistics. I am upgrading my kestrel to the 4000 and wanted to be able to Bluetooth the data into the bc program. I wanted to mound the kestrel with wind vane and then just be able to click the update or whatever button and have the most current data automatically imputed into the bc cal. Applied ballistics will do this right?

 

[bigngreen]

Every program we used is capable of pulling environmental data from a Kestrel. I'm wanting to get set up similar with a weather vane and live data to tighten up ELR shots.

I miss spoke on this, Coldbore Mobile does not pull Kestrel data yet, the Loadbase version of it did so I would think it will come in an update at some time.

 

[Scrubbit]

Beauty data. Thanks for all the time and effort. Eli.

 

[Broz]

I'm wanting to get set up similar with a weather vane and live data to tighten up ELR shots.

Rhian I am seeing the possible value in this too. Are you thinking just for targets or hunting too. What is the average range of Bluetooth? I am thinking a short light bipod for hunting and a taller one for ELR practice.

Jeff

 

[bigngreen]

Rhian I am seeing the possible value in this too. Are you thinking just for targets or hunting too. What is the average range of Bluetooth? I am thinking a short light bipod for hunting and a taller one for ELR practice.
Jeff

I think that our work on getting solid numbers for beyond 2400 yards proved that it's tracking with the conditions we are fighting more than an app, the app accuracy is outstanding really but using the hand held Kestrel was really proving a weak link. I ran out of disposable income before getting the 4500 Kestrel, my idea is to use a tall pole maybe 10-15 ft to try to access the cleaner air that the bullet spend most of it's time in, it would be easy to pound a steal post and slip a couple pieces of conduit over it with a couple set bolts or something along those lines. The Bluetooth has about a 30 ft range, I may see using it on a hunt but mostly for ELR, with the 4500 on the weather vane it will give you wind speed and angle as well as environmental info, just tightening up the numbers. I may have to make a batter pack so it will run for an extended run time but we'll see.

 

[Pyroducksx3]

I'm waiting outside bestbuy to buy a tab 3 7" with an otterbox case to run AB on as we speak so I think I've decided to go the blue tooth route and use it whenever practical for longrangehunting and target shooting. I think it will be nice for the spotter to look up at the vane to check for wind shifts and then just hit update as a final check before giving me the "send it" and the Bluetooth will greatly simplify this. As far as kestrels I was going to go to the 4000 any reason to get the 4500 vs it? It seemed like the only option difference was that the 4500 did a longer weather trend

 

[Wile E Coyote]

Here she is guys. Thanks for your patience. Hope you find it worth the wait.

Jeff & Rhian

The thanks belong to both you and Rhian for the efforts and resources put into this project!!!

Thank you!

Pete

 

[Bear Camp]

Jeff and Rhian,

Thanks such an awesome test/write up! I have a question for you all. I know sometimes different shooters can shoot the same rifle to a little different point of impact especially at distance. So, did one shooter do all the shooting for this data? Great job once again. I bet this will be looked at/used by many. Only a few could do such a thorough test/write up.

 

[bigngreen]

Jeff did all the shooting, we took great pains to keep consistency from one data set to the next. I was on the NF spotting scope which is sweet by the way, calling wind and poking numbers.

 

[Broz]

Thanks guys, glad you are enjoying it and I hope it helps some people decide on what they want and how we set it up.

Brad, to keep all the consistency we could I did all the shooting.

jeff

EDIT , looks like we were posting at the same time and Rhian got me by 1 min.

 

[Eaglet]

Amazingly amazing how close those applications came to real life solutions. Of course I was not surprised of ColdBore 1.0 doing that but I was seriously surprised of the performance of the other ones. When I got AB, I had already been using Shooter for a long time. I knew the same programmer created shooter and AB. So when I
got AB, as many of you know it wasn't that long ago, I trusted it'd be as good as Shooter with some whistles bells added to it. I, of course, being of curious nature, tested all three applications and compared results to see how close they were between themselves. Shooter and AB were very consistent in spitting out similar solutions which were right on the money with CB up to about 900 yards. Farther away the two sister apps were spitting solutions different than CB; the farther away the bigger the difference and when gotten up to a mile away there were no less than two MOA difference between AB and CB1.0. Reason why I posted not too long ago something like "I say it again, after about 1100 yards away AB and CB will not spit out the same solution". Now, splitting numbers between 1773 and 1775 since CB will do 5 yards increments it results that both applications are spitting out identical results! Wow, wow... No... I will not walk with my head down since my claims have been right about CB. I did not run these applications for two days, ran them for many days checking even the Custom Drag and thinking to my self... "not much of a difference until you get close to transoceanic velocities"... So I'm shocked, I ran AB and CB and I'm seeing that the posted results are dead on... Basically on the money... And we're not even close to transonic and or subsonic velocities for which CB does not need no custom nothing.
Being that I have a hard time telling lies big or little, black or white, I truthfully say that I never in my many and many hours of running both programs and others seen anything coming that close to CB specially at a mile away and farther.

So, what has happened? I don't know! I do know that I recently got at least one upgrade for AB... Is that doing it? I don't know... Have I been lying all this time? What do you think!

Let me paste a quote from AB online user manual:

"In the advanced version of the Applied Ballistics Mobile App, you can download custom drag curves to model a specific bullet, rather than referencing drag to a standard. Using custom drag curves enables more accurate trajectory predictions for projectiles that slow to and below transonic speed which happens when shooting at Extended Long Range (ELR)."

My testings showed the above quote to be true but did not see difference until in the previously stated zone. Even without the custom drag curve it compares to CB within 1/2 MOA at 1773 yards... Never did that before. Not even close!

Please don't tell me that's because of the data collected, because comparisons between application solutions has nothing to do with the data as long as the data imputed on both application is exactly the same. Data collected has to be good in order to show how close to real world solution each application is capable of... So, I still don't know how is it that this time they are comparing so close... and I ran the data here presented on both programs and there is no doubt about it.

WILL CONTINUE

 

[Broz]

Eaglet, I have no idea. Rhian and I did this for a reason. We were in search of THE best app for our need in ELR. I too was impressed with the results of all the apps as I stated in my summary.

I will offer a couple things for you to consider. One, you know I have been running AB for a long time. Some updates have came through that slightly changed the looks of things. Example is quite a while back (months ago) an update added a "load Target" option right above the place to enter the shot distance. Shot distance use to be on top. This bugged the heck out of me until I got use to it. I still never use it but have learned to ignore it. After that I have not allowed any updates to my app. I get prompted to do it and I think there are like 13 updates ready for my stuff but I have not updated. Now I am not sure if any of those 13 are for AB or not. I guess I hate change to something I am familiar with and use often. So that should cover the question about recent updates since I have not updated in the time you have had AB.

Two, we need Rhian to tell you what it was but there were some defaults resetting on CB 1.0 he was fighting with that would change back when he changed screens. He stated he really had to watch this so both apps were using the same inputs. Maybe that is what was happening to you before??? I will let Rhian elaborate as that was not my part of the testing.

In the end if we all get good dial ups I think we all should be happy... Now I just hope we can get repeated solid results for the rest of the test. But I expect it to take time as we have vowed to make the results repeat more than once so compiled data will hold water.

Jeff

 

[Broz]

A note about the Applied Ballistics "custom drags" I look at this as a very positive option. It gives a user not only the standard options of G1 and G7 BC's but also a step above for those of us that want or need them. Not all users will go beyond 1200, 1500 or a mile, but for those that do I feel it is of value. I say this because in the time I have owned my LRKM I have made shots past 2000 yards more than a couple occasions where the first round shot either made contact or was scary close. One instance was at the Townsend shoot at something like 2450 yards with several spotters and witnesses. I have bullet profiles for both G7 and the custom drags. I have found at these crazy long distances the custom drag has helped me to be successful. So I view it as an advantage over some apps that do not offer it. Well worth the $1.99 it cost to add to the Applied Ballistics app.

 

[Eaglet]

CONTINUING POST:

I think it’s important to correctly clarify, that there are 3 editions righ now of ColdBore 1.0

Desktop (PC), Mobile (PDA) and Phone (Windows Phone)

I see that in the post, CB1 is called “mobile”, please change that to “Phone”, since they are two different animals, and the one used is the CB1 Phone edition.

On the other hand, CB1 Phone is FREE, which is not the same as saying you must purchase the Desktop edition, since all users already running it don’t need to purchase another license.

 

[bigngreen]

CONTINUING POST:

I think it’s important to correctly clarify, that there are 3 editions righ now of ColdBore 1.0

Desktop (PC), Mobile (PDA) and Phone (Windows Phone)

I see that in the post, CB1 is called “mobile”, please change that to “Phone”, since they are two different animals, and the one used is the CB1 Phone edition.

On the other hand, CB1 Phone is FREE, which is not the same as saying you must purchase the Desktop edition, since all users already running it don’t need to purchase another license.

I think I got mobile struck out and replaced with phone, I will look at re writing the purchase part. If you already own the Desktop version of Coldbore you could see the phone version as a free BUT if your looking for a functional app you will quickly find that you will need to buy the Desktop as well to unlock the free app which leave a not so free felling in you wallet.

 

[Pyroducksx3]

Well I got galaxy tab 3 to run applied ballistics and I am having some pretty big problems. I cant seem to access or even find the ballistic call, preference, or web sync functions. I see the app was uodated on 1/22/14 so I wonder if there is glitch in the system now? I have an email into bryan so hopefulky he gets back to me. Anyone else run applied ballistics on a tablet or updated it after the 22 had these issues?

I have not had an issue with a Droid Bionic or Maxx, I know I've read some guys running it on tablets fine but I don't so not much help, hopefully they get back to you soon and help get it sorted.

 

[Eaglet]

CONTINUING POST:

You do have to change between two screens both with multiple tabs to make a change in environmental conditions but it defaults to MOA every time you exit the shoot page so you have to make sure you've re-selected the turret each time

I to easily made unwanted changes when scrolling and if you leave the program and come back to it your data needs to be re entered which is another issue for me because...

1) In the latest update, you can LOCK the fast panel in order to avoid any accidental parameter change.

2) In AB you too need to switch between pages to re enter conditions.

Applied Ballistics

has a very intuitive function to it, load up a rifle and bullet and you have only two pages to work with for the rest of the day, I can easily navigate with one hand and make changes while behind the gun

Ease of use and layout is very important to me in a hunting scenario. With Applied Ballistics you only need to toggle between two pages. And once field conditions are inputted you can change distance, and wind from the solution page

1) It really is a matter of preference, we can nick pick to death, what is logical to one person may not be to another person, on AB you tap once and you're where you can make the changes. But you would be scrolling on a longer sheet per say; while on CB if I'm going to make environmental changes after the first tap I tap on "env" don't have to scroll on a long sheet looking but is just there, anything else you tap on "data". I just like it better... I don't have to wear out my old eyes. Just my preference! If you have to change env for zero good luck with AB not so with CB, but that can be argued... like why would I want to do that and it goes on and on to never ending... As implied before, is good to have choices.

2) In CB1 while on the Shoot! use the Fast Panel to change Range, Wind Angle and Speed, Slope and Target Angle and Speed…so where is the “advantage” in AB? It would be only in personal preference!

One very important thing to be understood by readers is the fact that in CB1.0 you can load it for any bullet out on the market and as long as one has good info. Very accurate solutions can be had. While in AB if you don't have that "custom Drag" for that specific bullet because it is not for sale then things for AB start falling short. That's all! That's not nick picking, that's a major influence that custom drag would have on AB at transonic and subsonic velocities.

Most notably, CB1 doesn’t need a“Custom Drag” to be extremely accurate…

It's important to keep in mind that BC for WP is just beginning to exist and is already amazingly powerful. Changes are being made as users make comments and a good example is the locking portion of Shoot screen and it now shakes when a vertical angle reading is taken.

Just for the sake of this post and readers information, with CB 1.0 you can use either G1 BC or G7 BC and the graph on both trajectories would almost be one on top of the other. Why is this important? because not all bullet manufacturers are giving G7 BC's as of right present. It's changing but CB won't let you down with either BC.

With all these choices we can knock our selves out!

 

[Broz]

I think Bryan has given thought to the bullets that could be used for distances past a mile and has covered them first. So I don't see not having custom drag for some offerings as an issue.

Peoples minds work differently, that is for sure. Eaglet is well versed in programming and computer function. I am not. This is probably why I and Rhian find Applied Ballistics and Shooter so much easier to use in the field than CB 1.0 or the older Version Load Base 3.0. I never did get LB 3.0 to work and finally after many trips afield a quit using it.

One thing we did leave out was cost. Rhian and I actually never talked about this as we were willing to pay the price for an app that has better final data. Correct me Rhian if I am wrong but CB 1.0 has a cost to user of I believe $85 and Applied Ballistics $29 Shooter $10 All a lot less expensive these days than the first version of CB 1.0 , "Load Base 3.0" I think I paid like $150 for it maybe more??

I want to wait for my final analysis of the distances past a mile, but at this point I feel I can very easily make Applied Ballistics do anything that any other app will do. We still have all the many tuning options IF needed. Plus to me the Applied Ballistics app is just plain simpler to run and it has proven itself to me in the field for my hunting uses. That is why after this test we decided we would both be sticking with Applied Ballistics.

Now, I do not use this , but Rhian is very fond of the home desktop version he purchased for CB 1.0. It offers some great things if you like to sit and compare ballistics. I just don't do this as of now so I don't see the value in it, not at this point at least.

Jeff

 

[Broz]

I think I got mobile struck out and replaced with phone, I will look at re writing the purchase part. If you already own the Desktop version of Coldbore you could see the phone version as a free BUT if your looking for a functional app you will quickly find that you will need to buy the Desktop as well to unlock the free app which leave a not so free felling in you wallet.

Rhian maybe this would be a good place to add the retail prices of each app?? Or I thought we could add them in parentheses by each app where you noted their corrections given?

Just a thought as I think we left that out.
Jeff

 

[bigngreen]

The cost break down, Coldbore Phone is free IF you own Coldbore Desktop which at some point cost $85, Applied Ballistics was $30, Shooter $10 and Strelok was $8, if I remember right I can't see the cost on a program I have bought. I'm not concerned about cost really as long as it works well, I have no problem with this kind of money to know for myself how it works and us all the programs.

 

[Broz]

I'm not concerned about cost really as long as it works well, I have no problem with this kind of money to know for myself how it works and us all the programs.

Exactly! It also should be noted that all but Cold Bore 1.0 was loaded to your phone you already had. CB 1.0 does not operate of a Droid or I phone it required a windows based separate device. Not sure if we covered that either.

Jeff

 

[Wile E Coyote]

Exactly! It also should be noted that all but Cold Bore 1.0 was loaded to your phone you already had. CN 1.0 does not operate of a Droid or I phone it required a windows based separate unit. Not sure if we covered that either.

Jeff

Jeff

For me, and I'm sure for others also, the equipment these applications operate on is an important part of this conversation. And not just availability, but also reliability .

Case in point:

Until last fall, I had been using Exbal on a Dell X51. For my purposes and skill level, it was adequate. Then one day after travelling an hour and hiking another half hour to the shooting location, the PDA did its death wobble. Today, it is a good paper weight.

I then started using CB 1.0 on my not really smart phone. The phone has issues.

Perhaps this should be a separate thread on electronics (pull it down or move it as you see fit) but the applications only have value when the platform they operate on is also reliable.



Sorry for what may sound like a rant. I'm just not having a good day, ... errr ... month, ... errr . make that year, with computers and electronics.

Pete

 

[Broz]

I hear you Pete. I have had incredible luck with my 4 yr Droid X. I know it is time to update, but almost scared to. Some things get "improved" to the point they are not reliable or no longer work at all and then they stay there. Like windows 8. Also kinda like some people get promoted to jobs they cant do, and there they stay....

Jeff

 

[JNWilliams]

Great information from the tests. Thanks for all the work you both put into the task at hand. I for one see no reason to switch programs after seeing the data. Thanks again for all of the information.

 

[bigngreen]

Eaglet, I was running with the latest up dates on all programs. I did like the lock function but the turret graduation button needs to default to TURRET, this is not a thing anyone expects to change every time you change pages, Applied Ballistics does a similar thing with the Range and Wind when you page and it defaults to the input on the first page but these are variables that we always change and the lay out brings your eye straight to them.

The advantage in the shoot screen with Applied Ballistics is with my thumb I can change an input, no unlocking or scrolling. Coldbore I have to unlock the screen, scroll which I find hard to do unless I run the app left handed then I can scroll on the side of the screen that does not change any values when I scroll, but I'm always changing stuff in Coldbore before I get it locked again. I also can hold the range and input a range down to one yard, I HATE holding the button in Coldbore and waiting for a five yard increment.

At some point a guy will need to tune Coldbore, which is easy with the drag function, using the custom drag is the same with Applied Ballistics no different IMO. What if there is not a custom drag you ask, Applied Ballistic has the tool on it to form a custom drag in the app beyond the range that a good G7 will get you which we are seeing is quite a ways.

I definitely agree that Coldbore Phone is a a packed program, that is why I'm excited see it develop into a very fluid and field usable tool! We really are trying to not let this be a this program vs that program but it is inevitable that we will compare functions of them in an effort to find or help build the best ballistics solution we can.

 

[BryanLitz]

Very good work and write up Jeff!

As a designer/supplier of ballistics programs I've put a great deal of thought into the various topics which you've all been discussing. Here's the high points:

1) Raw accuracy potential. If you're limiting your shooting to the supersonic range of your bullets, and especially if this is within 1000 yards, most any ballistics program will provide sufficiently accurate outputs if you give it accurate inputs. Without accurate inputs, NONE of them will give accurate outputs.
How capable is the app at calibrating based on observed impacts? Some programs have quick easy MV corrections (Shooter) some have more points you can use to bend your trajectory into alignment. Some of these methods are scientifically sound and some are less so. The consequence of doing this improperly is that your calibrated solution may not apply in other environments, or may be off at different ranges in the same environment.
What are the raw predictive capabilities of the app beyond supersonic range prior to truing/calibrating? This is where the truly accurate systems begin to shine and the others fall off.

2) System approach. A ballistic solver itself is only part of the puzzle. Don't forget the major role that's played by the rest of the system, in particular bullet drag modeling. Drag modeling is one of the most important aspects of ELR trajectory prediction, and it's not easy. Each bullet shape will produce a different drag profile which is most different at transonic speed. Due to the importance of custom drag models to accurate ELR trajectory modeling, Applied Ballistics conducts ongoing live fire testing to measure bullet drag in the AB Laboratory. It takes time and careful science, but in the end, the drag models which result are the most complete and accurate representation of an individual bullets drag that is available. The solver and drag models are developed to work together, so there are no mistakes in how the data is applied in the solver.
This database of BC's and custom drag models is maintained and updated on all AB programs based on live fire testing. There's no such thing as a 'one size fits all' drag model for bullets thru transonic. Even the G7 model which fits well in supersonic can have substantial error in the transonic range which is why custom drag models are necessary for transonic trajectory prediction.
Don't confuse the first shot, raw predictive ability of a solver with a corrected/trued solution. Any solver can be corrected to match actual based on observations. The real test is how accurate can a solver be just based on initial conditions, and at ELR, this will depend heavily on the accuracy of the drag model used for a particular bullet.

3) Platforms. In order to address the various needs of LR shooters including hunters, tactical shooters, competitors, MIL and LE professionals, etc. a ballistics solver must be made accessible in various different formats for various different platforms. Smart phones and PDA's are nice, but they don't address everyones full needs. Ballistics software must be accessible on a desktop platform for full scale analysis, as well as on portable devices for taking to the field. It helps to know the same solver is being used behind all the calculations.
The Applied Ballistics solver and data libraries are supported across: both android and iOS app markets, multiple desktop programs, integrated into the Kestrel weather meter, used to generate solutions for the A1st Whiz Wheel, integrated into the RAPTAR-M weapons mounted LRF, and multiple ongoing government projects involving fire control for small arms. Many of these devices can communicate with one another so that gun profiles can be transferred across platforms.

There are many good tools out there and the current app market puts them at our fingertips for less than the price of a box of bullets. There can't be one that's universally 'best' because it depends on your application. If you're only plinking to 600 for fun, anything will work. The more serious you are, the more serious your tools need to be.

This isn't intended to be a sales pitch, but it would be hard not to be. As a professional ballistics company, we've put a lot of time and effort into refining our software tools. It's very rewarding to see them regarded highly by those who really look close.

Also, nothing negative is implied toward other tools. I can just elaborate more on the AB stuff because it's what I'm involved in so I know the science behind it and the reasons for why things are done how they are.

Take care,
-Bryan

 

[Eaglet]

I truly don’t think that anyone’s knowledge on computers should be taken into account for this test, because that’s not a legitimate excuse for reviewing software that is not properly used in favor of a particular brand having the testers more experience with.

If you are going to do a write up, then it’s important to be well trained on all the mentioned programs, otherwise we are just confusing people by giving them wrong information or worst, biased opinions.

Just happens I have experience with both, AB and CB1 Phone, and as such I can pinpoint, for the benefit of all, some pretty noticeable mistaken conclusions, which in the end, most should be labeled as just personal preference given by a long exposure to a particular program.

The market offers over 3500 bullets to choose from, and only Berger and Litz (in his book, not public domain, meaning you must pay for getting it) are publishing G7 values, and only Litz sells “custom curves”…and to be honest, I don’t feel comfortable to be dependent on just two sources (one really, since Berger’s data comes from Litz).

Like I said before, outside that “G7” realm, with AB, JBM, Strelok, Shooter (all running the same Point Mass ballistics engine) using G1 you are not going very far in terms of accurate ELR predictions…and that’s a fact of life (or ballistics to be more precise). Not the case with CB1 given its powerful and accurate “G-independent” engine.

Regarding “field use” CB1 is king in the military/tactical market, as well as with lots of hunters worldwide, making “easier” just a personal opinion.

In terms of price alone, we are comparing apples to cows, because with CB1 you get a complete, feature rich (the most, hands down) solution, integrating a PC with a PDA or Windows Phone, with real sync capabilities, tactical features like GPS/Targets, tons of features, a complete Library, lots of reporting capabilities, none of them found on any other program on the market. So, “cheap” or “expensive” is again a very liberal term, meaning very different things to most people.

I think I explained this before, in CB1 you don’t need to step in 5 yards…just use the RANGE STEPS feature…it’s extremely simple…, please read the manual in full and spend more time with the program before making wrong statements that are quite misleading.

Locking or unlocking…it’s there, your call. Most people I talked to simply have no issue at all with the unlocked mode.

Yes, in AB you have the “wheels” but limited to ONLY 3 fields (Range, Wind Speed and Wind Angle)…so you need to navigate away in case you are making an angled or running shot. In CB1 all these parameters are ON THE SAME PAGE. Period. No need to go back and forth.

What? In AB the layout bring the eyes to them? In what sense? Have you seen the top big numbers in CB1? What are we really talking about?

The CB1 Shoot! page layout cannot be more simple to use. Where is the option in AB to differentiate between a MOA (or MRAD) and a TURRET solution? In AB you are simply limited to MILS and CLICKS or MOA and CLICKS, no other chance.

In CB1 you have MOA, IPHY, MRAD and TURRET options…all at the reach of your fingertips.

By the way, I don’t have any issue in using CB1 with my right hand, so this is one more time, a personal preference or time behind the wheel. Nothing else.

I’m truly excited to see the second part of the test, since for now what we have are all supersonic values, and as we all know, for that cartridge we need to go at least to 2570 yards to enter the subsonic range. In that range, is where things become interesting, at least for me.

Cold Bore 1.0 only allows yardage entries in 5 yard increments. Applied Ballistics - 1 yard increments. At 2400 yards the difference between 2400 and 2405 yards is equal to .4 moa which I round to 1/2 moa. to match .25 moa clicks and that equals 12.5" on the target. This error increases pretty rapidly going out toward 3000 yards.

Alright, looking at an example----- Let’s say you’re shooting at 2403 yards ---
2400 yards needs 74.8 moa up
2405 yards needs 75.1 moa up

That means that at 2403 by splitting the difference you basically would be right on. 0.3moa/2= 0.15 moa… Now 74.8 + 0.15 = 74.95 MOA…

This is true and very accurate to distances up to 3000 yards.

Keeping in mind that your Vectronix PLRF10 has an accuracy of ± 2 meters, You can also drive CB 1.0 to ± 2.5 yards.

So, I have no complaint there!!!

 

[Broz]

Eaglet, I just want you to know we are truly looking for the program that gives the best solutions. But also we do have opinions on functionality. I think it would be fair to say you give just as many personal opinions as we have. After all I doubt there has ever been a review that didn't include personal opinions. I feel it would be impossible to exclude them completely, we are human. I see them in your posts just like you do while reading ours.

You talk about the subsonic shots past 2500 yards as if it is as easy to obtain as the mile and under shots. If you have obtained the kind of accuracy needed to tell 1 or 2 moa difference between apps at these distances ,, and were able to repeat them enough to post that one is "King" like you are often doing,, you are way better than I. I am not even 100% sure it can be done. Have you tried shooting groups at these distances on more than one occasion and recorded data you would portray as solid? If so please post your personal first hand field data now. I would love to see it and it could save us time.

And lastly I take offense to this, was it meant that way, because it sound a little like it.

"If you are going to do a write up, then it’s important to be well trained on all the mentioned programs, otherwise we are just confusing people by giving them wrong information or worst, biased opinions."

Are you scolding us? Or implying our efforts was to give biased opinions?

I sure hope not. That was never our intent and we put all we had into this including some hard earned $$

Jeff

 

[Broz]

Eaglet,

May I ask you a question? You stated this above:
{" in CB1 you don’t need to step in 5 yards…just use the RANGE STEPS feature…it’s extremely simple…, please read the manual in full and spend more time with the program before making wrong statements that are quite misleading."}

I do not fully understand your statement and I didn't read the manual on CB 1. That was Rhian's part as he purchased the app and he did indeed read the manual.

We stated that CB 1.0 only took yardage in 5 yard steps. Do I understand you that you felt we were not correct with that statement? That you can indeed program to finer steps in yardage like Applied ballistics in 1 yard increments? If this is correct and I understand you correctly, then please tell me where you make this adjustment from 5 yards to 1 yard.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff

 

[JNWilliams]

I see shooting past 2000 yards as practice in reading conditions and having fun pushing the limits of my abilities and my rifles. I feel that a slight difference between those apps at that range is OK. Maybe I'm wrong here but even thinking I would want to shoot an animal at that range might carry too much unknown variances that we cannot see. As far as how far Broz and Rhian's tests went that to me is within tolerances with perfect conditions to killan animal. Of course proper caliber choise is a must. Behond that range it is just practice and understanding how our bullet is effected by the environmental conditions. As long as the app is giving solid data within the ethical kill range I see no issue with what app is used. I am getting the feeling reading some of the responces of a few that we might be arguing a little too much over so little difference. All the apps used showed very good consistency with in the ranges given. It would be cool to see the differences they show at 3000 yards but are we truly going to say one is inferior to the other at that range. Only a small percentage of people have the equipment to shoot that far. Thanks again for all the testing done this past weekend. Great work. Your tests have showed me that my app is infact a great app and I intend to keep using it and not worry if there is a better app out there. Thanks guys for all your efforts.

 

[Eaglet]

Jeff, I explained it at the bottom of post #33

At 3000 yards there would be about 0.1 MOA difference per yard so if at
3000 yards you need 125.1 UP then at 3003 you would adjust it to 125.4
Once I start doing it we find out that it can be done on your head.

and this is very ELR

 

[Eaglet]

I see shooting past 2000 yards as practice in reading conditions and having fun pushing the limits of my abilities and my rifles. I feel that a slight difference between those apps at that range is OK. Maybe I'm wrong here but even thinking I would want to shoot an animal at that range might carry too much unknown variances that we cannot see. As far as how far Broz and Rhian's tests went that to me is within tolerances with perfect conditions to killan animal. Of course proper caliber choise is a must. Behond that range it is just practice and understanding how our bullet is effected by the environmental conditions. As long as the app is giving solid data within the ethical kill range I see no issue with what app is used. I am getting the feeling reading some of the responces of a few that we might be arguing a little too much over so little difference. All the apps used showed very good consistency with in the ranges given. It would be cool to see the differences they show at 3000 yards but are we truly going to say one is inferior to the other at that range. Only a small percentage of people have the equipment to shoot that far. Thanks again for all the testing done this past weekend. Great work. Your tests have showed me that my app is infact a great app and I intend to keep using it and not worry if there is a better app out there. Thanks guys for all your efforts.

JNWilliams, I think you're probably right in all you said. We are actually over viewing the interface for two applications, the likes and dislikes... It just sounds good saying it like that!

 

[Broz]

Jeff, I explained it at the bottom of post #33

At 3000 yards there would be about 0.1 MOA difference per yard so if at
3000 yards you need 125.1 UP then at 3003 you would adjust it to 125.4
Once I start doing it we find out that it can be done on your head.

and this is very ELR

We or I, Stated in AB you can dial 1 yard increments and in CB you could only dial in 5 yard increments and we preferred AB's method. So here are the facts. What we posted was true. You feel that doing some math and splitting the difference after looking at the moa dial ups between two 5 yard stepped solutions is easy. I will admit it is not that hard, but I surely do not wish to be doing this while behind my rifle wanting a solution. So let me say it like this.

I by far prefer the AB program that I can enter the exact distance to the yard just as I see it on my rangefinder. As opposed to CB where I will need to enter a distance in 5 yard increments. Then toggle backwards or forwards to the next 5 yard step while getting the dial ups in moa for two distances, subtracting the differences from each other, dividing that difference into 1/2 then adding or subtraction that difference from one of the two dial ups I need to have remember in my head. Then finally dialing that corrected solution.

So, it seems what we stated was true and I stand by it. If you want to play the personal preference card then fine. But it is surely a personal preference supported with a reason and defined why in my above statement. One is right there in black and white. The other requires more farting around to get the solution.

Jeff

 

[bigngreen]

If you are going to do a write up, then it’s important to be well trained on all the mentioned programs, otherwise we are just confusing people by giving them wrong information or worst, biased opinions.

I've ran Patagonia ballistics for 5 years or so, Shooter and Applied Ballistics since they came out, in that time I've replace more than a couple barrels and built several rifles, most of those shots were with Loadbase. I have read all the manuals and hunted all but the Strelok, but with Pro I may do a little hunting with it.

Just happens I have experience with both, AB and CB1 Phone, and as such I can pinpoint, for the benefit of all, some pretty noticeable mistaken conclusions, which in the end, most should be labeled as just personal preference given by a long exposure to a particular program.

I've ran Patagonia more than any program, but I hunt with Applied Ballistics, why? It is in field performance while behind the gun, my personal preference is not with the program but how it works when I'm trying to get an elk dead, PERIOD!!!

The market offers over 3500 bullets to choose from, and only Berger and Litz (in his book, not public domain, meaning you must pay for getting it) are publishing G7 values, and only Litz sells “custom curves”…and to be honest, I don’t feel comfortable to be dependent on just two sources (one really, since Berger’s data comes from Litz).

Nosler is using G7, Lapua is using Doppler data that works with their program, Barnes is using Doppler. I'm perfectly comfortable using Coldbore even when that is a single very controlled source, similarly I'm comfortable using a custom drag, and you seem to be not getting the fact that the custom drag tool is in the program!

Regarding “field use” CB1 is king in the military/tactical market, as well as with lots of hunters worldwide, making “easier” just a personal opinion.

I go long range shoot with guys every chance I get some military, only ONCE has was there someone else running Patagonia ballistics, ONCE in the hundred of very qualified shooters I've been around. We aren't going to figure out why that is by declaring it the best and not taking a critical look at it and asking questions!!

I think I explained this before, in CB1 you don’t need to step in 5 yards…just use the RANGE STEPS feature…it’s extremely simple…, please read the manual in full and spend more time with the program before making wrong statements that are quite misleading.

Where in the manual does it tell me how to directly input a range or get single yard resolution? Get behind the a gun and think about the time you have to put a bullet on an elk and go through the motions of setting up the program, I've done this in the field dry firing on elk recently, that is why I'm hammering this, not a personal preference thing it's looking at what I have to do to get an accurate solution in the LEAST amount of thinking and work.

Yes, in AB you have the “wheels” but limited to ONLY 3 fields (Range, Wind Speed and Wind Angle)…so you need to navigate away in case you are making an angled or running shot. In CB1 all these parameters are ON THE SAME PAGE. Period. No need to go back and forth.

Shooter has wheels not Applied ballistics. Don't care about movers, punch in the numbers for a moving elk at 800 yards, you can not work with the program and dial and shoot fast enough to be on target so I don't care about it really, if it's there OK if not OK just as long as I don't accidentally make a solution change with it while scrolling.

What? In AB the layout bring the eyes to them? In what sense? Have you seen the top big numbers in CB1? What are we really talking about?

How do we read? Top to bottom right, what is at the top of the solution pages! Coldbore has the solution first then the stuff you need to check to be sure your using the right data, many other program put the stuff that needs checked first and after than is GTG you have your solution, dial and done. Much better flow!! I was going through more programs and did find a couple that are solution first similar to Coldbore, so I edited to reflect that.

The CB1 Shoot! page layout cannot be more simple to use. Where is the option in AB to differentiate between a MOA (or MRAD) and a TURRET solution? In AB you are simply limited to MILS and CLICKS or MOA and CLICKS, no other chance.

Why in all that is right would I want a different default value than what I have spent all this time to nail down? I don't care about having the other it's fine, but if it defaults to TURRET it will match what every your using first then if you want to know something else you can choose that.



Alright, looking at an example----- Let’s say you’re shooting at 2403 yards ---
2400 yards needs 74.8 moa up
2405 yards needs 75.1 moa up

That means that at 2403 by splitting the difference you basically would be right on. 0.3moa/2= 0.15 moa… Now 74.8 + 0.15 = 74.95 MOA…

This is true and very accurate to distances up to 3000 yards.

Keeping in mind that your Vectronix PLRF10 has an accuracy of ± 2 meters, You can also drive CB 1.0 to ± 2.5 yards.

We simply want to put in what the range finder says, simple accurate just like all the other data we are trying to use!!

So, I have no complaint there!!!

Remember I've been using Patagonia longer than anyother program, I use it as the gold standard in accuracy BUT when I'm in the feild and I take other programs out and us them while killing elk I have found that an other program works better. I ultimately want the most accurate and huntable program in one, it's that desire NOT personal preference that is making me ask questions!!!

 

[MontanaMarine]

Thanks for all the great info Jeff, and Rhian.

Although I'm not even using a kestrel/app, it's really impressive to see how close you are on a first poke out to the ranges you were shooting in Phase 1.

I'm still shooting 308/30-06 with a printed traj table, and I'm doing a lot of guessing as far as correcting for temps, etc. In my pursuits anything past about 1000-1200 yards is really just fooling around.

You guys are definitely pushing the envelope. It reminds me of field artillery in many ways, trying to determine and adjust for many types of different conditions. In the artillery we actually had a metro section, and they would launch a balloon and track it with two different optical instruments to measure winds aloft. We were shooting typically between 6-15Km, but sometimes distances out to 30Km. The artillery projo would have a TOF often over 30 seconds, and travel up to 20,000+ feet up into the atmo, at it's max ord. First round accuracy would typically be within 200 yards. Nowadays, there are precision-guided arty rounds, steel-on-steel, first shot.

Anyways, thanks for your efforts, and sharing your results. It's great info.

 

[Scrubbit]

Agree fully with the above. Good data is hard to find. It's in everyone's interests to support those who take the time and effort to run complicated tests and publish the data. Much appreciated.

 

[Broz]

In an effort to direct my mind toward further testing and fact finding I have been running numbers. We have already proven beyond any doubt, at least in my mind, that these programs are running together to a mile plus with no fudging or "Tuning" by modifying perimeters.

So lets take it out further to see where they start to spread out. I will do this comparing CB 1.0 to Applied Ballistics with the custom drag I use. No change in data or app perimeters from out previous proven field testing

Field conditions used will be from the 1773 yards shots which are:

Baro 25.93
Temp 43*
Hum 70%
Az 78*
Lat 46
Angle 0*

At 1800 yards they are together
1900 there is .2 moa difference
2000 there is .3 moa difference

The above is within .5 moa. I think we can all agree if my combination of rifle, ammo and shooter skill will hold .5 moa at 2000 yards we are doing extremely well. I also feel as we go farther that needs to open up. My best performances ever have been holding 1 moa for 3 shots at 2000 plus. So now lets look at the two aps at 2500.

At 2500 yards they differ by .9 moa. now the question??

Can we agree this will be hard to predict a difference in dial up that is within the projected moa of the rifle , ammo and shooter as a combination?

Lets take it on out and compare these two apps shooting solutions again.

3000 yards, and now subsonic flight at 987 fps and 0 wind from any direction. CB 1.0 calls for 125.6 moa up AB calls for 122.9 moa up. so to dial these we would dial 123 for AB and 125.5 for CB.

A difference of 2.5 moa. at 3000 yards that is precisely 78.5 inches or 6.5 feet for point of impact. Now if we consider a 1 moa of accuracy node that I think we all agree would make any ELR shooter happy. We are now looking for a difference of the 78.5" minus the accuracy node of 1 moa that is 31.41". so we are looking for data showing impact difference of 47" at 3000 yards.

The programs differ in subsonic flight by a mere 2.5 moa or 78.5" at 3000 yards. Not nearly what we thought going in, or what has been reported before by other tests on the same apps. I am sitting here looking at these results and have to believe them. So I stand behind this data.


This is why I want repeated tests and look for a pattern in the results from different days and conditions to look for a pattern after all actual field results are gathered. If anyone has a better way to get accurate field data that will repeat and hold water please offer suggestions. Multiple data in different conditions and reviewing this data looking for an average or pattern closer to predicted dial ups is the best way I can think of and the ONLY way I think we could ever say. One was closer.

Further more I would like to invite anyone to run the numbers and play with some head wind and ambient temps to see what difference a little undetected environmental condition changes make at 3000 yards. Then maybe you will understand why I said earlier that "I am not 100% sure we can even prove the best beyond reasonable doubt between the two.

Jeff

 

[Idaho Redneck]

Broz,
Just for curiositys sake, what does AB call for just using the standard Litz G7 bc at 2500 and 3000........I know that folks shooting that far are more likley to use custom drags simply from an accuracy standpoint, im just still trying to wrap my head around the discrepancy that started all this testing. Which was "coldbore is without a doubt more accurate beyond 1000 yards".

So in this initial testing basically theres a difference in POI of 2.0ft at 2500, and 4 ft at 3000 if you factor in the accuracy potential of the rifle and shooter combination.

Perhaps coldbore didnt use a custom drag or factor in the rifle shooter combination to show their initial 8 ft of difference.........in any case 2500-3000 yards is way beyond the realm of most shooters anyway lol. Thanks for your efforts Jeff and Rhian, this really is a fantastic thread.






Edit.........sheez I read your previous post 4 times and im still not sure im readin it right.....lol.....suppose ill keep my shooting limited to the first 1760 which I understand better...........haha smaller numbers.

 

[Broz]

Broz,
Just for curiositys sake, what does AB call for just using the standard Litz G7 bc at 2500 and 3000........I know that folks shooting that far are more likley to use custom drags simply from an accuracy standpoint, im just still trying to wrap my head around the discrepancy that started all this testing. Which was "coldbore is without a doubt more accurate beyond 1000 yards".

So in this initial testing basically theres a difference in POI of 2.0ft at 2500, and 4 ft at 3000 if you factor in the accuracy potential of the rifle and shooter combination.

Perhaps coldbore didnt use a custom drag or factor in the rifle shooter combination to show their initial 8 ft of difference.........in any case 2500-3000 yards is way beyond the realm of most shooters anyway lol. Thanks for your efforts Jeff and Rhian, this really is a fantastic thread.

122.2 moa at 3000 using a G7 BC of .419 opposed to 122.9 with the custom drag.

 

[Broz]

The best part about all this for me I guess is, if we can come up with a difference and AB is off I will just have a new custom drag model designed and be spot on all the way. I do have that option too as well as all the normal modifying perimeters like BC that is commonly done too. So for all this head scratching, burnt time, gas, barrel life and components at about $2 a pop,,, I hope to end up with a killer set of drops and field conditions for my rifle out to 3000 yards. I doubt many have such a thing. ??

Jeff

 

[jmden]

The Applied Ballistics solver and data libraries are supported across: both android and iOS app markets,

I may be dumb as a post, but I have not found this in the Apple app store...?

Edit: Is Bryan talking about the DVD that comes with the book and not the mobile app? Sure would like to see the app available for iPhones...

 

[Broz]

I want to add this includes what I posted tonight about the 3000 shot. I called Rhian to have him run it again on CB and while he was at it he also ran it on AB. Then I confirmed that my phone AB app was in agreement and it was to the tenth moa. Spot on.

So I am sorry I can not be of help as to why your app does not match?

Jeff

 

[Eaglet]

A long day today, worked a full shift and then had church service. A bit tired. Just getting old!

I did not mean to be a politician, I just got criss-crossed between answering and writing about "5 yards increment" relating to getting from 100 yard to XXXX yards and "5 yards increment" as in getting a ballistic solutions for ranges in increment of (1 yard). Sorry for my confusion on those two and not giving direct answers. Yes, CB 1.0 will not give ballistics solutions every one yard! The rest has been said.

 

[bigngreen]

In the Applied ballistics manual it shows the example of dialing the turret 30 MOA and only seeing 29 of actual movement, the example turret correction is 1.035, so following the manual for Applied ballistics I got a correction factor of 1.008 when we averaged the movement across 120 MOA of dialed travel.
Dialed/Actual= Correction Factor


Coldbore, as you likely know has a sweet tool that saves me the math and I just input my numbers and it give me the correction of .248 it then takes it from there and applies a correction factor in the way it was written to

 

[jmden]

As an observer of this post, I very much appreciate the discussion here and the effort ALL are putting into it.

 

[ELRS]

Short and sweet but X2 jmden!

Thanks Jeff & Rhian. Where can I get a scale or tape like you guys used? I want to conduct the same tests you fellas did. Thanks to you guys, I have solid understanding of what I need to do to calibrate my software, scope and drops