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

Pyroducksx3

LRO Product Review Editor
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kitsap Co, WA
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...

As far as Im aware the ios version isnt out yet. I have an iphone as well so I was running bullet flight and ballistic ae to get what applied ballistics is offereng, except a kestrel is never going to bluetooth to the ios products. For that reason alone I wanted to go to a driod based app. So ive gotten a galaxy tab 3 7" and applied ballistics with an otterbox case and its awesome. Once I get a kestrel with blue tooth and weather vane accessory ill be much happier. So to make the jump to mobile applied ballistics you have to go droid. A ios version has been rumored for awhile but without thevability to bluetooth the kestrel it didnt interest me much anyway

 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
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 :)

I'm working on getting the scale printed on a vinyl banner with grommets, I came up with it a couple years ago along with a heavy adjustable base with a rail mounted to it and together it lets me check the optic and get a turret calibration, mount and set the level with the scope in it's rings then all I have to do is transfer it to the rifle and it's already to go.
 

BryanLitz

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2013
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Michigan
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...

Shooter runs the AB solver and is available on iOS and android.

AB Mobile is currently being developed for iOS as well.

-Bryan
 

BryanLitz

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2013
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Michigan
The free online calculator can apply a turret correction factor. It's in the lower left of the inputs, and it's called 'SSF' = Sight Scale Factor.

The difference in the various AB programs is in the number and type of inputs allowed. The core solver is the same in each, but not all are made to accept all inputs.

On one hand, this can be seen as 'inconsistent', but the deliberate intent is to offer tools at various levels of complexity. Another program which uses the AB solver is the Berger Ballistics page: http://www.bergerbullets.com/ballistics/
This, and the PM Solver which comes with the book, are the simplest tools because they're intended for beginning level shooters, sort of like a gateway drug!

If every version of the software were to be fully capable with all input varibles required, they would be too difficult and complex for many users. This is the reason for offering programs with various input sets.

Take care,
-Bryan
 

BryanLitz

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2013
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Michigan
I'm working on getting the scale printed on a vinyl banner with grommets, I came up with it a couple years ago along with a heavy adjustable base with a rail mounted to it and together it lets me check the optic and get a turret calibration, mount and set the level with the scope in it's rings then all I have to do is transfer it to the rifle and it's already to go.

I've thought about doing specialized tall targets like this. However there is a practical downside to pre-printed targets. In order for the exact printed scale to 'work', you need to be EXACTLY 100 yards from the target. If you print a 1 MOA grid, it would be 1.047" at 100 yards. But the problem is you can't always get exactly 100 yards. Benches at some ranges are set up at 99 yards, or 103 yards. In these cases, the precise grid target is more misleading than helpful.

This is why I teach the 'plumb line and tape measure' method; because it's more flexible to any situation. If you have a range which you know is at exactly 100 yards, then you can make use of pre-printed targets for yourself, I'm not discouraging that. But for my purpose, which is providing materials which work for many people in many locations, my decision was to use a more general, flexible approach.

Just something to think about.

-Bryan
 

Idaho Redneck

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Idaho Falls
The free online calculator can apply a turret correction factor. It's in the lower left of the inputs, and it's called 'SSF' = Sight Scale Factor.

The difference in the various AB programs is in the number and type of inputs allowed. The core solver is the same in each, but not all are made to accept all inputs.

On one hand, this can be seen as 'inconsistent', but the deliberate intent is to offer tools at various levels of complexity. Another program which uses the AB solver is the Berger Ballistics page: http://www.bergerbullets.com/ballistics/
This, and the PM Solver which comes with the book, are the simplest tools because they're intended for beginning level shooters, sort of like a gateway drug!

If every version of the software were to be fully capable with all input varibles required, they would be too difficult and complex for many users. This is the reason for offering programs with various input sets.

Take care,
-Bryan

Thanks Brian for clearing this up, I figured everyone here wasnt using the same AB, hence some cant get the same soloution as Broz and Rhian who are running the most advanced AB. Is it expected that even though the programs use the same solver different soloutions would be had using the advanced version vs the beginner free version? ....thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
I've thought about doing specialized tall targets like this. However there is a practical downside to pre-printed targets. In order for the exact printed scale to 'work', you need to be EXACTLY 100 yards from the target. If you print a 1 MOA grid, it would be 1.047" at 100 yards. But the problem is you can't always get exactly 100 yards. Benches at some ranges are set up at 99 yards, or 103 yards. In these cases, the precise grid target is more misleading than helpful.

This is why I teach the 'plumb line and tape measure' method; because it's more flexible to any situation. If you have a range which you know is at exactly 100 yards, then you can make use of pre-printed targets for yourself, I'm not discouraging that. But for my purpose, which is providing materials which work for many people in many locations, my decision was to use a more general, flexible approach.

Just something to think about.

-Bryan

I takes at times some effort to get the target set exact, but much like offering different levels of ballistic programs I think having an exact grid just tightens up and really takes the turret question out of the equation. The board face is measured to the inch of the turret with a surveyors tape, and is tall enough that you can check 80 MOA of travel then reset and check the final amount even on a ATACR Nightforce.

I think with the grid target a guy would have to have an app to go with it eventually, this would eliminate the need to set it up exact and would allow easy use for any turret configuration not just MOA, you'd still have to know the distance precisely but you could then easily just put it up anywhere. Coldbore has this built into the program and is a huge benefit!!!
 

Broz

LRO Owner~Editor~Long Range Hunting Specilist
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
12,696
Reaction score
6,774
Points
113
Location
Foot of the Big Belt Mountains near Townsend MT.
I have a surveyors "story pole" that extends to 13' and is in inches with .25" increments. It would be perfect except it starts at the bottom with 1 and 13 is at the top. If you don't mind reading upside down numbers just invert it. These are aluminum, telescoping and I have seen them at Home Depot for $55. Just becareful purchasing as they come in inches as well as tenths of a foot.

Jeff
 

ELRS

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
477
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Arvada, Colorado
I takes at times some effort to get the target set exact, but much like offering different levels of ballistic programs I think having an exact grid just tightens up and really takes the turret question out of the equation. The board face is measured to the inch of the turret with a surveyors tape, and is tall enough that you can check 80 MOA of travel then reset and check the final amount even on a ATACR Nightforce.

I think with the grid target a guy would have to have an app to go with it eventually, this would eliminate the need to set it up exact and would allow easy use for any turret configuration not just MOA, you'd still have to know the distance precisely but you could then easily just put it up anywhere. Coldbore has this built into the program and is a huge benefit!!!

Good info guys! I need to build one of these soon. My brother inlaw should be receiving his LRKM anytime now and I want to help him set it up. Bryn mentioned that 100 yard target must be setup exactly 100 yards away. Do I measure from the end of barrel or to center of scope (turrents) ? I would think to the center of scope but just want to clarify :cool:

Ray
 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
I built it with a broken tape measure I had around then used Gorilla tape which is one inch wide so with an optic that I could not read the tape with I could still check it easily.

I use a surveyor's tape and measure to the turret down to the inch, its just a little more work but worth it knowing exactly how it moves through the range.
 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
If no one puts the science and programing to the test in the field then all that work is strictly for laboratory condition and of no use to the average end user, but if we can take as much care to give the programs accurate numbers using tools that the average shooter can readily access then we have we prove that the science behind the programing will yield something useful to a shooter looking across a canyon at a bull elk, this is a win win for everyone! At some point the science and programing has to be used in the application it was theoretically design for, that is the area that interests me, rubber meet the road!!!
 

PaulDH

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Points
6
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.

An interesting read and a tremendous effort by Broz ang bigngreen. I try to take advantage of the value-based information communicated in a Thread like this, rather than dwell on personal preferences or style of communicating those preferences. Thumbs up for all the effort and sharing of information by all.

bigngreen, I just started playing with CB1.0 Phone edition. When you say the units for the turrets changes when you 'change pages', can you give a couple of examples so I don't get caught off-guard? Once you're on the shoot screen, which page do you commonly go to while set up in the field which causes the turret units to default back to something other than what you intended? That's what I'm trying to figure out... Thanks
 

PaulDH

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Points
6
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.


Take care,
-Bryan

The bolded part is what I recognize and prioritize in a ballistics program. I can't possibly field proof my loads in the variety of environments I'll encounter game while backpack hunting in the mountains. I find the game in the environment they live, pick my best location for setting up for the shot, and then implement at whatever azimuth, angle, range, and atmospheric conditions exist at that time. I want the program that's most often the most correct, with the quality of data I'm able to feed into it. No tweaking required. It looks like we now may have a number of software options for the ranges of engagement I'm most interested in.
 
Last edited:

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
An interesting read and a tremendous effort by Broz ang bigngreen. I try to take advantage of the value-based information communicated in a Thread like this, rather than dwell on personal preferences or style of communicating those preferences. Thumbs up for all the effort and sharing of information by all.

bigngreen, I just started playing with CB1.0 Phone edition. When you say the units for the turrets changes when you 'change pages', can you give a couple of examples so I don't get caught off-guard? Once you're on the shoot screen, which page do you commonly go to while set up in the field which causes the turret units to default back to something other than what you intended? That's what I'm trying to figure out... Thanks

Thanks for the thumbs up!! The turret value defaults to MOA when you come back to the Shoot page from the Tracks page or the front page, it remains where you leave it when you come back to the Shoot page from the Tools or Graphs pages. You can swipe through the other tools in the Shoot page without changing so that's not a worry but I use the Tracks page a lot.
 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
I like have the ability to look at the solution at times in other click settings but unless a guy is shooting at close range or your optic tracks dead on with the click value we want to be on the most accurate solution which is turret "mode". It would be very nice if somehow the turret mode could somehow be a click setting or one could lock it.

I was in and out of the Tracks page a lot making environmental changes while working on this shooting test, I gave each program the temp and baro for each shot not a range of temps or baro condition we shot in that day, we would not have gotten the solid info we needed or really learned much of anything.

I return to the Tracks page because condition change while in the mountains hunting, we always input the starting environmental conditions when we start into a hunting area, I won't have Coriolis on at this point. We could be in elk the whole way back to where we normally hunt, this will start at 6000 ish feet elevation and can get up to 10,000 ft elevation in a half hour drive. It's nothing to see 40 degree temp swing, at sun up and sun down you'll see a rapid change that you have to stay on top of. Just in this test we saw the affects of a few degree temp movement in just the drive time from the target and back.

Not a big deal setting on the range, when I go to the range the conditions tend to stay fairly stable while I'm there, if it does not I leave but when I go elk hunting I leave in the dark and hunting the whole legal hunting day, conditions move, elk move so the program better be able to handle it or it gets left home or for range use only.
 

PaulDH

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Thanks guys for clarifying the issue for me. I see what you're describing now as I work CB 1.0 on my Windows Phone. I too would prefer the turret units to be locked, once selected, the entire time the same Track is kept open.

I also experience the need to change temps and azimuth when I'm hunting, even when I sit in one location and glass a mountain side and valley throughout the day. Large temperature changes occur throughout the day. In addition, the game animal may appear over an azimuth that can vary by 180 degrees. So I will commonly access the Tracks menu to change the temperature and azimuth throughout the day. And this will cause the turret units to change. One more thing to have to remember to take care of.

I messed up once on a mountain goat hunt using LB 3.0 Mobile by having the turret units in IPHY rather than Clicks for my son. We only dialed the elevation turret 1/4 of the way for holdover, as a consequence. We were in a situation where we needed to get the shot off pretty quickly. I can't remember if this occurred because I had to change temperature or azimuth. I do clearly remember the bullet splat about 10 feet beneath the goat. After that I had to re-evaluate and sort through all the input data. That's when I saw the error with my turret units.

All in all, CB 1.0 Phone edition is much more user friendly than CB 1.0 Mobile, in my opinion. Partially because the Windows Phone processing is so much faster than the outdated Dell Axim X51V that I use to operate CB 1.0 Mobile edition. And partially because I like the presentation of inputs and the shoot! screen better on the Phone edition than on the Mobile edition. Using the CB 1.0 Phone inclinometer feature to determine the angle of shot inclination or declination with the smartphone is another nice feature.

BTW, I'm not having any problems scrolling up and down the screen on my Nokia Lumia 822 Windows Phone. At least not sitting here in the house. No hesitations during processing. This Nokia phone smokes through the solutions.

I've never owned or operated the other ballistic software/programs being discussed on this Thread. Which is why I'm only commenting on CB 1.0. Cheers!
 
Last edited:

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
Thank for posting Paul, I was beginning to think I was crazy, my dad missed a stud of a bull this year because of not tracking on the elevation changes from what he was dialed for, with a hold on the shoulder the bullet only hit hair on the top of his back, followed him all day then later in the evening we watched him and three other bulls out of range, next year!!!
 

Broz

LRO Owner~Editor~Long Range Hunting Specilist
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
12,696
Reaction score
6,774
Points
113
Location
Foot of the Big Belt Mountains near Townsend MT.
I return to the Tracks page because condition change while in the mountains hunting, we always input the starting environmental conditions when we start into a hunting area, I won't have Coriolis on at this point. We could be in elk the whole way back to where we normally hunt, this will start at 6000 ish feet elevation and can get up to 10,000 ft elevation in a half hour drive. It's nothing to see 40 degree temp swing, at sun up and sun down you'll see a rapid change that you have to stay on top of. Just in this test we saw the affects of a few degree temp movement in just the drive time from the target and back.

Not a big deal setting on the range, when I go to the range the conditions tend to stay fairly stable while I'm there, if it does not I leave but when I go elk hunting I leave in the dark and hunting the whole legal hunting day, conditions move, elk move so the program better be able to handle it or it gets left home or for range use only.

Well supported view Rhian and good point. This is what hunters and shooters need to compare and consider while choosing the app that best suits their needs.

We have already proven with the testing that many apps will provide a good accurate dial ups close to 2000 yards. So these differences in the way we use an app will separate and define the best for ones personal needs.

Jeff
 

PaulDH

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Points
6
I can't tell you how many times I've momentarily lost track of the PDA stylus while parked prone position in the field hunting, next to my rifle and spotting scope. My trigger finger is now my stylus, and it's pretty difficult to lose that finger, no matter the excitement level going on associated with the hunt. Simply point my finger and peck away on the smartphone touchscreen display.

Like I said, I'm a relative newcomer to smartphones and the touchscreen interactive display. This is probably evident by the comments I've posted. The touchscreen display is much more intuitive, and therefore, user friendly. This form of interaction is bred into our genetics over the eons. Which is why Steve Jobs was so successful with his design and marketing of interactive touchscreen I-Pads and I-Phone hardware and software.

My advice to those currently owning/operating CB 1.0 Mobile edition: treat yourself and buy a Windows Phone operating system smartphone, and convert over to CB 1.0 Phone edition. The longer you delay, the harder you'll kick yourself when you finally do convert over.
 
Last edited:

PaulDH

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Points
6
We have already proven with the testing that many apps will provide a good accurate dial ups close to 2000 yards. So these differences in the way we use an app will separate and define the best for ones personal needs.

Jeff

Broz/bigngreen,

I am tending to agree.

I think you have reasonably demonstrated that the accuracy of the programs is comparable out to the distances you've tested. And I'm scratching my head considering whether or not it's even humanly possible to collect accurate enough field drops from 1700 yds out to 3000 yds, no matter how many precautions are taken, in order to establish once and for all that one ballistic program is more accurate than another. A 1/2 mph downdraft or updraft, some mirage, or slightly errant BC or custom drag curve values - when combined - are enough to booger up your point of impacts and skew the data. The ballistic software calculated dope error would have to significantly exceed the error built into the measured drops in order to reach a valid conclusion that one program is clearly more accurate, or less accurate, than the others. So the question is, what's the magnitude of error inherent in the measured drops at 3000 yds? Bryan Litz could likely run some statistics and explain how magnitude of the error in the measured drops would affect the ability to reach a statistically valid conclusion about the accuracy of the ballistic programs.

I'm not saying that shooting out to 3000 yds to develop a field-proofed drop chart isn't critically valuable if you intend to engage targets for fun, or game animals at these extended long range distances. Besides the fact that it can be an enjoyable and educational endeavor. I am expressing doubt about the level of accuracy that can be read into the POI at ranges past 1500-2000 yds. It seems a person would have to be set up in a 3000 yd indoor range, and repeat shooting events multiple times under differing temps and station pressures, in order to establish utter confidence in the accuracy of the POI and drop data at such extended distances.

I haven't read the entire Sniper's Hide Thread on the Ballistic Program comparisons that have been referenced in this Thread. Can someone identify exactly how they established the 100% correct drop data at 3,080 yards for the purpose of comparing the relative accuracy of the various ballistics programs?

A 1 mph 90-degree crosswind causes a 2.4 moa correction at 3000 yds, if I tweek my 300 Win Mag input data on my ballistics program, and increase the MV to 3,200 fps (for comparison purposes with Broz's MV). A 0.5 mph crosswind = 1.2 moa correction. I presume a vertical updraft or downdraft would have the same effect as a 90-degree crosswind. Add slight errors in actual bullet BC value (or custom drag values) that can be expected from any different rifle bore, add a little mirage, and add whatever else can have a slight affect on POI, and we're really stretching things to the max, as far as the utter accuracy of the POI and measured drops.

But if you do shoot to measure drops at 3000 yds, I'll be avid reader!
 
Last edited:

Broz

LRO Owner~Editor~Long Range Hunting Specilist
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
12,696
Reaction score
6,774
Points
113
Location
Foot of the Big Belt Mountains near Townsend MT.
Broz/bigngreen,

I am tending to agree.

I think you have reasonably demonstrated that the accuracy of the programs is comparable out to the distances you've tested. And I'm scratching my head considering whether or not it's even humanly possible to collect accurate enough field drops from 1700 yds out to 3000 yds, no matter how many precautions are taken, in order to establish once and for all that one ballistic program is more accurate than another. A 1/2 mph downdraft or updraft, some mirage, or slightly errant BC or custom drag curve values - when combined - are enough to booger up your point of impacts and skew the data. The ballistic software calculated dope error would have to significantly exceed the error built into the measured drops in order to reach a valid conclusion that one program is clearly more accurate, or less accurate, than the others. So the question is, what's the magnitude of error inherent in the measured drops at 3000 yds? Bryan Litz could likely run some statistics and explain how magnitude of the error in the measured drops would affect the ability to reach a statistically valid conclusion about the accuracy of the ballistic programs.

I'm not saying that shooting out to 3000 yds to develop a field-proofed drop chart isn't critically valuable if you intend to engage targets for fun, or game animals at these extended long range distances. Besides the fact that it can be an enjoyable and educational endeavor. I am expressing doubt about the level of accuracy that can be read into the POI at ranges past 1500-2000 yds. It seems a person would have to be set up in a 3000 yd indoor range, and repeat shooting events multiple times under differing temps and station pressures, in order to establish utter confidence in the accuracy of the POI and drop data at such extended distances.

I haven't read the entire Sniper's Hide Thread on the Ballistic Program comparisons that have been referenced in this Thread. Can someone identify exactly how they established the 100% correct drop data at 3,080 yards for the purpose of comparing the relative accuracy of the various ballistics programs?

A 1 mph 90 degree crosswind causes a 2.4 moa correction at 3000 yds, if I tweek my 300 Win Mag and increase the MV to 3,200 fps (for comparison purposes with Broz's MV). A 0.5 mph crosswind = 1.2 moa correction. I presume a vertical updraft or downdraft would have the same effect as a 90 degree crosswind. Add slight errors in actual bullet BC value (or custom drag values) that can be expected from any different rifle bore, add a little mirage, and add whatever else can have a slight affect on POI, and we're really stretching things to the max, as far as the utter accuracy of the POI and measured drops.

But if you do shoot to measure drops at 3000 yds, I'll be avid reader!




Paul, Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate that you grasped what we also saw and reported. And by simply looking first hand at what a very slight or undetected environmental change in field conditions could do to a POI at 3000 yards. Your above post is exactly what I have been trying to relay and explain. With your back ground and scientific knowledge your post is truly appreciate.

Once again, Thank you!
Jeff
 

ELRS

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
477
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Arvada, Colorado
Broz/bigngreen,

I am tending to agree.

I think you have reasonably demonstrated that the accuracy of the programs is comparable out to the distances you've tested. And I'm scratching my head considering whether or not it's even humanly possible to collect accurate enough field drops from 1700 yds out to 3000 yds, no matter how many precautions are taken, in order to establish once and for all that one ballistic program is more accurate than another. A 1/2 mph downdraft or updraft, some mirage, or slightly errant BC or custom drag curve values - when combined - are enough to booger up your point of impacts and skew the data. The ballistic software calculated dope error would have to significantly exceed the error built into the measured drops in order to reach a valid conclusion that one program is clearly more accurate, or less accurate, than the others. So the question is, what's the magnitude of error inherent in the measured drops at 3000 yds? Bryan Litz could likely run some statistics and explain how magnitude of the error in the measured drops would affect the ability to reach a statistically valid conclusion about the accuracy of the ballistic programs.

I'm not saying that shooting out to 3000 yds to develop a field-proofed drop chart isn't critically valuable if you intend to engage targets for fun, or game animals at these extended long range distances. Besides the fact that it can be an enjoyable and educational endeavor. I am expressing doubt about the level of accuracy that can be read into the POI at ranges past 1500-2000 yds. It seems a person would have to be set up in a 3000 yd indoor range, and repeat shooting events multiple times under differing temps and station pressures, in order to establish utter confidence in the accuracy of the POI and drop data at such extended distances.

I haven't read the entire Sniper's Hide Thread on the Ballistic Program comparisons that have been referenced in this Thread. Can someone identify exactly how they established the 100% correct drop data at 3,080 yards for the purpose of comparing the relative accuracy of the various ballistics programs?

A 1 mph 90 degree crosswind causes a 2.4 moa correction at 3000 yds, if I tweek my 300 Win Mag and increase the MV to 3,200 fps (for comparison purposes with Broz's MV). A 0.5 mph crosswind = 1.2 moa correction. I presume a vertical updraft or downdraft would have the same effect as a 90 degree crosswind. Add slight errors in actual bullet BC value (or custom drag values) that can be expected from any different rifle bore, add a little mirage, and add whatever else can have a slight affect on POI, and we're really stretching things to the max, as far as the utter accuracy of the POI and measured drops.

But if you do shoot to measure drops at 3000 yds, I'll be avid reader!


Paul, I was trying to figure out how to word what you just wrote but you saved me the trouble and did it better than I ever would. Bottom line is we have some wonderful ballistic programs at our finger tips and we should all feel very fortunate that we do. I am of the opinion that it does not matter which program is used. With the right operator any of these programs can be tweaked or should I say fine tuned to a specific caliber and the end result will be scary precision!

Ray
 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
Look under the Recreational products page and you'll find the mobile app we use, I can not see the cost since I already own it the site just gives me installed but I believe it was $30, the Applied Ballistics Desktop software and Tactical Mobile software are not what we used, I may purchase the Desktop software at some point because it has some interesting features I've seen no other place!

Coldbore Phone App is FREE to download but is not functional enough that it's basically a demo and not usable in the field unless you also have a Desktop License, just the desktop license is $85 the $150 is for a Desktop and Mobile which is for using a Dell Axim or something of that nature.
 

lovdasnow

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
91
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
oregon
i have bullet flight and ballistic AE on my phone. but have used bullet flight since it came out years ago. I don't care for the user interface with ballistic. i have taken a handful of big game animals and lots of varmints out to 1000yds cold bore hits over the years with bullet flight. i have shot to over 2000yds on rocks, etc, but i'm rarely dead on with cold bore shots over around 1300-1400yds. i know there are tons of variables, but i also want to have the most accurate calculator available to me.
since i have an iphone and cannot run applied ballistics, i'm curious what your thoughts are on bullet flight? i know they have hidden Litz g7 profiles on there, which i use, so i was wondering if Bryan had anything to do with it's development. also are the calculating "engines" similar in bullet flight and applied ballistics?

thanks,i hope i'm not highjacking this thread, but i know a lot of guys that run bullet flight, and it only came up once in this thread. is it junk:)??
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Redondo Beach, CA
Look under the Recreational products page and you'll find the mobile app we use, I can not see the cost since I already own it the site just gives me installed but I believe it was $30, the Applied Ballistics Desktop software and Tactical Mobile software are not what we used, I may purchase the Desktop software at some point because it has some interesting features I've seen no other place!

Coldbore Phone App is FREE to download but is not functional enough that it's basically a demo and not usable in the field unless you also have a Desktop License, just the desktop license is $85 the $150 is for a Desktop and Mobile which is for using a Dell Axim or something of that nature.

Thanks for the leads:

The AB rec page leads to the Google Play store - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appliedballisticsllc.appliedballistics&hl=en If you then click on the small Applied Ballistics text to the right of the logo "A" you get to the purchase page - https://play.google.com/store/apps/developer?id=Applied+Ballistics where its $29.99

For CB the lead page shows what I posted (which seems to indicate only the combo is available). However, once you pursue purchase the option to puchase each or both becomes available - http://www.patagoniaballistics.com/download_checkout.html - $85 each or $150 for both.
 

Eaglet

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Carson City, Nevada
thanks for posting, and also thanks to the guys for working out their issues. don't want to see anyone take their ball and leave.

i have bullet flight and ballistic AE on my phone. but have used bullet flight since it came out years ago. I don't care for the user interface with ballistic. i have taken a handful of big game animals and lots of varmints out to 1000yds cold bore hits over the years with bullet flight. i have shot to over 2000yds on rocks, etc, but i'm rarely dead on with cold bore shots over around 1300-1400yds. i know there are tons of variables, but i also want to have the most accurate calculator available to me.
since i have an iphone and cannot run applied ballistics, i'm curious what your thoughts are on bullet flight? i know they have hidden Litz g7 profiles on there, which i use, so i was wondering if Bryan had anything to do with it's development. also are the calculating "engines" similar in bullet flight and applied ballistics?

thanks,i hope i'm not highjacking this thread, but i know a lot of guys that run bullet flight, and it only came up once in this thread. is it junk:)??

lovdasnow, why don't you put Bullet Flight through the steps using the data collected by Jeff and BnG? Let us all know how well it does comparing it to the different distances that they got solutions for. That'll give us all a pretty good idea as to how well it stacks up. At least you'll know if you can trust it up to 1 mile away... If you have done it and I did not read it then disregard my idea! :)
 

lovdasnow

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
91
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
oregon
good call eaglet. this is what i got. I used a 190 yd zero because I don't have a zero offset option in bullet flight. I'm just comparing the AB g7 profile come ups that Jeff shared to the bullet flight g7 profile come ups. I also didn't have a way to change the moa turret deviation in my program, so there is that discrepancy.

800yds AB 11.4moa Bullet Flight 11.3moa

1200yds AB 21.9moa Bullet Flight 21.6moa

1600yds AB 34.8moa Bullet Flight 34.4moa

1773yds AB 41.8moa Bullet Flight 41.5moa

it's real close, just a little behind, but I wonder if that's because I don't have the turret correction in there?
looking forward to picking up my LRKM, so I can work with these numbers in the field. I sold my last .338, my RUM is at the smiths, and the 6.5 isn't cutting it at 1200 plus:)
 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
Just looking at the numbers I'd say it's about right that the turret correction is what is making the difference. I think turret correction is one that is really causing a lot of small issues that guys try to tune out with velocity or BC changes and then it all spirals!

I really like having the zero elevation and windage not just a range, I shoot several bullets sometimes so instead of re zeroing the optic for each bullet I just put in the zero elevation and windage for each bullet and the program takes it from there and I don't have to change my dials.
 

Broz

LRO Owner~Editor~Long Range Hunting Specilist
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
12,696
Reaction score
6,774
Points
113
Location
Foot of the Big Belt Mountains near Townsend MT.
Really, did you read through it? I think it's kind of lame to cheap shot it as a glorified JBM, the WEZ could be interesting to work with to try to find your weak points in your cold bore hits when comparing log book data to calculated data, it comes loaded with the full Litz library of custom drag models as well as the ability to create them from your field data. The wind profile analysis is very interesting and certainly nothing you'll find in any other program, I've found the need for a wind value for and up or down draft, while not a mobile solution I can definitely build a wind profile with it to log in my book for a certain canyon or hide, this is certainly more robust wind solution than any thing else I own! It's allowing for aerodynamic jump which is something I find interesting knowing some shooters who do put quite a little value in it, and the condition I shoot in it's something I have to consider looking at, only a handful of programs work with that input.
Is it worth $200, don't know but I have more than that tied up in Loadbase and Coldbore so cost isn't really my deciding factor nor is a glossy cool look!

These are some of the features I find so interesting as well. Don't take the custom drags that is only offered by Applied Ballistics lightly guys. The custom drag is the feature that put AB ahead of many in our testing the farther we went out. I see this as a huge advantage even if some do not and choose to down play it. If you want 100% confidence that your Ballistic Solutions match your rifle at ALL distances you will surely have to go shoot it at these distances and confirm solid drop data for each distance , then re-shoot and reconfirm in my book. This is not something that can be completely done from the comfort of your home with a cup of joe while sitting behind your PC. Once you have this data, with Applied Ballistics you can design your own personal custom drag model, for your bullet, to match your real world shot drop data to be spot on in the field. This is indeed a perfectly matched custom drag that your combination is producing. I have personally set up and dialed in many many rifles for long range hunting with many combination and apps. I see real value in this option , more than anything else on the market. I realize for some this may not be as huge of a deal. But for me, being a long range hunter, above all it is what I need to be spot on for the first shot out of a cold rifle I just pulled from my pack.
 

Broz

LRO Owner~Editor~Long Range Hunting Specilist
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
12,696
Reaction score
6,774
Points
113
Location
Foot of the Big Belt Mountains near Townsend MT.
good call eaglet. this is what i got. I used a 190 yd zero because I don't have a zero offset option in bullet flight. I'm just comparing the AB g7 profile come ups that Jeff shared to the bullet flight g7 profile come ups. I also didn't have a way to change the moa turret deviation in my program, so there is that discrepancy.

800yds AB 11.4moa Bullet Flight 11.3moa

1200yds AB 21.9moa Bullet Flight 21.6moa

1600yds AB 34.8moa Bullet Flight 34.4moa

1773yds AB 41.8moa Bullet Flight 41.5moa

it's real close, just a little behind, but I wonder if that's because I don't have the turret correction in there?
looking forward to picking up my LRKM, so I can work with these numbers in the field. I sold my last .338, my RUM is at the smiths, and the 6.5 isn't cutting it at 1200 plus:)

Lovedasnow, I think it is safe to say Bullet Flight is definitely in the hunt. If you like it and it serves you well I am confident some miner tuning would get you even closer. I can not predict how it will be at very long ELR distances but if you are considering a change I hope our testing and reports will give you what you need to make that decision.

I am very fond of my LRKM and "Longshot06" has one on order too. This rifle has opened doors way out there for us. I am growing very confident in my LRKM and the other gear I have chosen to complement it. From what I know about you I think you are going to be very happy with your new ELR stick as well.

Jeff
 

Norm

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2013
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jeff, and Rhian.

I have been following this thread with interest. Thank you for taking the time and effort to post your results. Don’t be put off by some of the negative posts, there are people reading who respect what you are doing and are looking forward to your future results.
As a keen hobby ELR shooter I have done my own ballistic testing and tuning of ballistic programs to match field results. It’s a lot of fun and the search for better results is rewarding in itself.
Over the last few years the knowledge that hobby shooters have developed is amazing. Once 1000 yards was a long way. Not so much now.

One thought on getting accurate distance measurements. Why not go down to your local Survey equipment hire store and hire out an EDM and a couple of sets of reflectors for the day. They are not that expensive to hire. You will then be able to set out your targets to within an inch or so.

This will help with your 100 yard targets for scope turret calibration. It will also take out all of the uncertainty from those 2000 and 3000 yard distances. You can then bang in some steel spikes at these points to use as reference marks for the future. Anything that can remove some of the uncertainty from measurements will help with the confidence level of your results.

Keep up the good work.
 

Broz

LRO Owner~Editor~Long Range Hunting Specilist
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
12,696
Reaction score
6,774
Points
113
Location
Foot of the Big Belt Mountains near Townsend MT.
Thank you Norm for the kind words and support, I am pleased you find value in our work.

Also I love the Idea of using survey lasers and reflectors. I will be looking to see if I can get a hold of some of this equipment to use. Great suggestion and something my personal range could surely benefit from.

Thanks
Jeff
 

lovdasnow

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
91
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
oregon
Lovedasnow, I think it is safe to say Bullet Flight is definitely in the hunt. If you like it and it serves you well I am confident some miner tuning would get you even closer. I can not predict how it will be at very long ELR distances but if you are considering a change I hope our testing and reports will give you what you need to make that decision.

I am very fond of my LRKM and "Longshot06" has one on order too. This rifle has opened doors way out there for us. I am growing very confident in my LRKM and the other gear I have chosen to complement it. From what I know about you I think you are going to be very happy with your new ELR stick as well.

Jeff


Your testing has given me AB envy. If they had it for iOS I would have bought it already. AB seems to have a few features that I really wish bullet flight had. thanks again, for everyone's input on this thread. Here's to hoping that you guys get some super calm weather to do testing even further out...
 

Eaglet

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Carson City, Nevada
good call eaglet. this is what i got. I used a 190 yd zero because I don't have a zero offset option in bullet flight. I'm just comparing the AB g7 profile come ups that Jeff shared to the bullet flight g7 profile come ups. I also didn't have a way to change the moa turret deviation in my program, so there is that discrepancy.

800yds AB 11.4moa Bullet Flight 11.3moa

1200yds AB 21.9moa Bullet Flight 21.6moa

1600yds AB 34.8moa Bullet Flight 34.4moa

1773yds AB 41.8moa Bullet Flight 41.5moa

it's real close, just a little behind, but I wonder if that's because I don't have the turret correction in there?
looking forward to picking up my LRKM, so I can work with these numbers in the field. I sold my last .338, my RUM is at the smiths, and the 6.5 isn't cutting it at 1200 plus:)

As it has been expressed, you are right!

kclaf6.jpg


Pretty close! Thanks for posting it! :)
 
Last edited:

lovdasnow

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
91
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
oregon
right on eaglet, thanks! that's pretty stinking close. i'll keep using bullet flight for now as i love the interface and usability. it would be fun to try AB but it's not even an option any with iOS.

thanks again
 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
I think looking at what the programs are all doing it clear that there is very little between most programs out to about 2000ish yards depending on the bullet and launch velocity, after that some maybe very close and some may need a minor adjustment to bring them back on. Picking a programs that you get along with is a higher priority for me now that it's clear there isn't a huge difference between the better programs.

Applied Ballistics is being worked on for the iPhone so there is that option coming.
 

Broz

LRO Owner~Editor~Long Range Hunting Specilist
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
12,696
Reaction score
6,774
Points
113
Location
Foot of the Big Belt Mountains near Townsend MT.
I think looking at what the programs are all doing it clear that there is very little between most programs out to about 2000ish yards depending on the bullet and launch velocity, after that some maybe very close and some may need a minor adjustment to bring them back on. Picking a programs that you get along with is a higher priority for me now that it's clear there isn't a huge difference between the better programs.

Applied Ballistics is being worked on for the iPhone so there is that option coming.

Bingo!! and the Applied Ballistics option of the custom drag models and creating a custom perfect fit drag from my rifle / bullets own true field drops is the tie breaker. At least for me.

Jeff
 

lovdasnow

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
91
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
oregon
why couldn't carefully recorded data from POI results be used to build a custom drag model? aren't we all doing that in a really rough way when we tweak BC or velocity to come up with in field results that match with what our calc's tell us? aren't we just changing the "drag curve" essentially? sorry if this is a dumb question:)
 

Ryan Avery

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
271
Reaction score
98
Points
28
Location
North Idaho
I would love to see how many people in this thread have actually shot over 2000 yards?? How many rounds over 2000 and under what atmospheric conditions!!
 

lovdasnow

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
91
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
oregon
I would love to see how many people in the thread have actually shot over 2000 yards?? How many rounds over 2000 and under what atmospheric conditions!!

i've honestly probably only shot around 20 rounds over 2000 yds. i've shot a lot in the 1400-1850yds ranges. when I get my LRKM i'll focus more on the 1800-2500 ranges when conditions present themselves. (read low wind days). I find the farther out i shoot consistently, the more confident I am when a "short" 800-1000 yd shot comes along on a game animal.
 
Last edited:

Pyroducksx3

LRO Product Review Editor
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kitsap Co, WA
I've never shot over 2000, only a couple at 1760 and I'd say only a couple dozen over 1200 with the heart of my shooting being between 700-1100 yards. On Call of Duty I'd say I have over 400 kills at 1500+ yards though
 
Last edited:

PaulDH

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Points
6
...maybe the new personal radar set up will work if I can figure a way to trigger it at range.

Rhian,
I went straight to the manufacturer's rep with an e-mail and asked if their LabRadar unit could be used to record bullet velocity down range at 400 yds or 800 yds. He said no, without any allowance for ifs, ands, or buts... Here's Richard's response:

""Paul,
It is not possible to set up multiple LabRadars to obtain velocities at greater distances. The radar is designed to be triggered by the muzzle blast within twenty four inch or less from the unit. However, since you are obtaining measured velocities downrange at multiple distances your extrapolation of bullet performance at greater distances is greatly improved compared to just one measurement near the muzzle.

Labradar is positioned besides the shooter, not downrange. The shooter aligns the radar using a built-in sighting notch with the target he will shoot at. Ideally LabRadar should be positioned to the side of the shooters muzzle. You should position your firearm approximately 12”-18” from the side of the radar. Make sure that the weapon recoil will not cause the radar to be struck. If you are shooting in a prone position you can position your radar on a mini tripod or other suitable stand to protect it from damage. If you are shooting a firearms that may discharge debris that could strike the radar it may be best to move the firearm slightly forward so the muzzle, cylinder gap, ejecting cases or other discharge will not damage your LabRadar. Upon firing the shot, the radar unit will begin transmitting and will continually track the bullet, reporting numerous velocities along its path. Based upon the large amount of data gathered from the tracked projectile the muzzle velocity can also be determined.

If you have any other questions let us know.

Best regards,

Richard
LabRadar"

I was disappointed. Maybe they don't know how many guys would like to be able to record downrange bullet velocity. Or maybe it's really difficult to trigger the radar on from the downrange location. Dunno. If you figure out how to use it down range, please let me know. That's the only reason I'd buy one - to record downrange velocity.
 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
Soooo, for kicks and giggles I did some playing, lets assume that Coldbore is dead on and based on that we all know we will start to see a divergence in most other programs we've used here starting in the 2000+ yard range with the G7, with that in mind I took and used Coldbore to set the calibration using the trajectory calibration tool in Applied Ballistics.
This changed Applied ballistics by 9 fps and made a +0.4% at Mach 0.8 and a +1.2 % at Mach .75, I applied this calibration to G7 and checked the trajectory against Coldbore and found it to be about .3 MOA low by 3500 yards, I changed my BC to .4167 and they now match within a tenth of an MOA.

I think we need to step back and look at what we are talking about, just a few years ago many guys who are considered by some ELR kings would deny the effects of spin drift and Coriolis, there were only a few select ways to get a decent range past 1800 yards, and a good number of use were hacking away with Exbal and velocity banding while shooting bullets that had a BC closer to a brick. And now were are having a serious conversation about solid numbers that we are going to the field and shooting at 2000+ yards with 1/2 MOA or less accuracy, WOW!!!!
 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
Rhian,
I went straight to the manufacturer's rep with an e-mail and asked if their LabRadar unit could be used to record bullet velocity down range at 400 yds or 800 yds. He said no, without any allowance for ifs, ands, or buts... Here's Richard's response:

""Paul,
It is not possible to set up multiple LabRadars to obtain velocities at greater distances. The radar is designed to be triggered by the muzzle blast within twenty four inch or less from the unit. However, since you are obtaining measured velocities downrange at multiple distances your extrapolation of bullet performance at greater distances is greatly improved compared to just one measurement near the muzzle.

Labradar is positioned besides the shooter, not downrange. The shooter aligns the radar using a built-in sighting notch with the target he will shoot at. Ideally LabRadar should be positioned to the side of the shooters muzzle. You should position your firearm approximately 12”-18” from the side of the radar. Make sure that the weapon recoil will not cause the radar to be struck. If you are shooting in a prone position you can position your radar on a mini tripod or other suitable stand to protect it from damage. If you are shooting a firearms that may discharge debris that could strike the radar it may be best to move the firearm slightly forward so the muzzle, cylinder gap, ejecting cases or other discharge will not damage your LabRadar. Upon firing the shot, the radar unit will begin transmitting and will continually track the bullet, reporting numerous velocities along its path. Based upon the large amount of data gathered from the tracked projectile the muzzle velocity can also be determined.

If you have any other questions let us know.

Best regards,

Richard
LabRadar"

I was disappointed. Maybe they don't know how many guys would like to be able to record downrange bullet velocity. Or maybe it's really difficult to trigger the radar on from the downrange location. Dunno. If you figure out how to use it down range, please let me know. That's the only reason I'd buy one - to record downrange velocity.

I read that it was being triggered by muzzle blast, but it holds some very serious interest in my mind for the same reason I know your thinking so I've been thinking about this and the possibility I came up with is to use a trigger mechanism at the shooter that would trip a timer at the radar way down range and at the appropriate time the timer would trigger a noise loud enough to trigger the radar, elaborate, yes but worth it if you did start getting radar data at stupid long ranges! Probably just another couldawouldashouldas!
 

Broz

LRO Owner~Editor~Long Range Hunting Specilist
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
12,696
Reaction score
6,774
Points
113
Location
Foot of the Big Belt Mountains near Townsend MT.
Rhian, so let me get this straight. You took the shooting solutions that CB gave you as a true prediction of actual field drops like you had shot them and proved them to be correct. Then you entered them in the Applied Ballistics custom drag trajectory validation model to create a custom drag curve. And the end result was,,, using the AB model, that you created using actual drop data from CB, made both apps agree within .3 moa at 3500 yards? 1 click of the turret? Is this correct?

Jeff
 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
Yes Jeff, and it really only was at the extreme end that it was of and then a very slight BC change was all that was needed to put them spot on. I think I would have like to knock the velocity back just a couple fps and it would have done it also but in a custom trajectory you can tune the BC but not the velocity, at any rate very interesting!
 

Broz

LRO Owner~Editor~Long Range Hunting Specilist
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
12,696
Reaction score
6,774
Points
113
Location
Foot of the Big Belt Mountains near Townsend MT.
Yes Jeff, and it really only was at the extreme end that it was of and then a very slight BC change was all that was needed to put them spot on. I think I would have like to knock the velocity back just a couple fps and it would have done it also but in a custom trajectory you can tune the BC but not the velocity, at any rate very interesting!

Boy I'll say interesting! That is the final nail in this coffin for me. As far as I am concerned this proves, at least to me, once again, beyond any reasonable doubt that the only difference between any of these apps tested in this thread other than the corrected shooting solution (Dial up), is personal preference IE features. Since I prefer to spend more time in the field practicing and hunting rather than doing comparisons, graphs, tables, spread sheets and all the number stuff on my PC, the choice is easy.

So, now I will move on to the final stages of dialing in my rifle, fine tuning and real world field practice. I will be using Applied Ballistics and I have confidence I can improve my skill set and I am not giving up anything with this method.

BnG Thanks for being open minded enough to come up with that comparison. I see it as thinking outside the box.

Well done my friend.

Jeff
 

ELRS

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
477
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Arvada, Colorado
Soooo, for kicks and giggles I did some playing, lets assume that Coldbore is dead on and based on that we all know we will start to see a divergence in most other programs we've used here starting in the 2000+ yard range with the G7, with that in mind I took and used Coldbore to set the calibration using the trajectory calibration tool in Applied Ballistics.
This changed Applied ballistics by 9 fps and made a +0.4% at Mach 0.8 and a +1.2 % at Mach .75, I applied this calibration to G7 and checked the trajectory against Coldbore and found it to be about .3 MOA low by 3500 yards, I changed my BC to .4167 and they now match within a tenth of an MOA.

I think we need to step back and look at what we are talking about, just a few years ago many guys who are considered by some ELR kings would deny the effects of spin drift and Coriolis, there were only a few select ways to get a decent range past 1800 yards, and a good number of use were hacking away with Exbal and velocity banding while shooting bullets that had a BC closer to a brick. And now were are having a serious conversation about solid numbers that we are going to the field and shooting at 2000+ yards with 1/2 MOA or less accuracy, WOW!!!!

Hmm?
If I understand Bng's little test here, he was able to get CB & AB to within .1 moa of eachother out to 3,500 yards! Now I know you country boys are shooters but I do not think even you guys could confirm shots taken at 3,500 yards and tell which program is better at that distance! Not .3 moa much less .1 moa! Bng is dead on about how far be have come in a few short years. I recall when I first started out in this thing we call LR, Exbal, Swaro rangefinders and a Kestrel 2500 were kings. The only real bullet for the 338's was SMK's. Oh, almost forgot! A LRKM? What is that? I think Shawn gave away a dvd to the first person that could guess what it stood for :cool:

I have only shot once over 2k. I used a real estate for sale sign as target. Distance was 2,188 yards and 2-3 mile an hour wind from 310 degrees. Missed 1st shot just over top of target. Nailed it 2nd shot and then just missed to the right of target two more times. I was shooting my 338 LAI at 2,989 fps with 300gn SMK's. My comfort zone with this rifle is 1,500 yards only because I have not practiced further.

My brother inlaw just got his LRKM+P from Shawn. I am doing all his load workups for him and shooting at distance to get his drops. Really looking forward to this! I have to say that LRKM is really something to see up close. Pictures do not do it justice that is for sure. I will use this thread as a standard for setting up the LRKM :cool:

Jeff & Rhian, the test you fella's did here (however unscientific it was) set a new standard for developing drops and showing all of us how to calibrate and setup a ballistic app. For me personally, this test was much more than just a comparison of ballistic apps. I feel that I have a better understanding of this thing we call ELR and the confidence to get it done. Thanks guys!

Ray
 

bigngreen

Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
712
Reaction score
16
Points
18
Location
SW Montana
I think we all have small parts to contribute in the effort and desire for that long range cold bore shot, for some of us it the theories and numbers of how things work, some of use bring amazing in field skills and can almost will a bullet to the target, other bring the mechanics of the rifle system, few of us have all aspects in one package. I personally love the mechanics, taking a pile of parts and turning them into a precision hunting rifle turns my crank but I do need the help of guys who enjoy the programs and what's behind the programs and the guy who can read the wind and terrain to help in getting that perfect cold bore shot.
Our ability to communicate to each other sometimes is ugly through :)

One thing I know is I'm getting pumped up to build another ELR rifle and do this all over again and see if we can repeat!!
 

Broz

LRO Owner~Editor~Long Range Hunting Specilist
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
12,696
Reaction score
6,774
Points
113
Location
Foot of the Big Belt Mountains near Townsend MT.
Thanks for your post Eaglet and a question to you if I may?

After all the smoke has cleared we have discovered , and reviled, more than once, and in more than one way, that in the end if allowed to utilize their best methods, each app we tested are scary close to each other. The two that have been discussed most AB and CB , when given equal chance will end up with like dial ups to .3 moa at 3500 yards. As indicated by Rhian's test last night of taking the proposed dial ups from CB and inputting them into AB's "Ballistic Calibration" like they were confirmed drops. The result being the apps agreed to .3 moa to 3500 yards. Rhian took it to 3500 yards as any distance shorter than that showed less than one .25 moa click of the scope turret.

Above you said "CB1 is the Best there is and I stand by that until the envelope is pushed beyond supersonic and then we'll know" Now, since your statement is indicating we are looking for the most accurate shooting solution (Dial up) and leaving all other app options aside for personal preference and need. How would you suggest one goes about telling the difference to .25 or .3 moa at 3500 yards? And please lets not handicap any one of the apps by not using a custom drag or any of their specific option to obtain an accurate dial up. To me it only seems fair if we allow the apps to use all they offer in achieving a dial up solution.

I see many of these apps as having very good solutions for dial ups and really do not care what anyone uses. But I will admit, I have always, and still do have a problem with some of the claims that one is "the best" "hands down" and other phrases that I simply do not see when they are so equal with the solutions given.

I simply see them as equal in this area and that many can be used to get good drops.

Does any of this make sense?

Thanks
Jeff

 

Forum Sponsors

Top