Applied Ballistics Weapons Division

[LastShot300]

The arguments were not so much anything more than we getting near dope book output, with FFS for short to far with G1 and later also with CB G1 or G7, for ranges requiring around 25mils of dialing. (Side note regardless calibers it seems drop decay really is accelerated after that come-up). AB was over estimating and always suggesting a much slower decay curve. Furthermore, not all AB products were spitting out the same info. The arguments came from the source basically saying we were wrong and the base math was wrong behind the programs that worked. Honestly, I only care about the output, not the math guru that made it work.

Maybe you can see the rub, when we are told G1 does not work, you need G7; so we run out and get lots of AB products to at least achieve the same level of prediction of FFS (at least I did) only to find after a lot of drop testing, curve fitting and 2k shooting, that oops maybe I need to create two curves, then was told the Litz curves were better, more shooting... oops. More news now, you need to buy the CDMs they really work, ok sure, (but also not available for all cutting edge offerings) more shooting more expense. All better each time, but not as good in that 25 mill range as with the programs some of us were also using. So I hope it is understandable that people who bought AB Analytics @ $200, several IOS versions and Android versions that always seemed get messed up, several AB kestrels based off some of what was being told to us, might be disenfranchised or at least healthily skeptical of a company ironically now pushing to brand ELR.

Ditto. Wise words. Numbers don't lie.

 

[ZiaHunter]

Putting the solvers and equipment aside, the top three shooters are some of the best competitive shooters in the world in their respective disciplines. Some used AB and believe one used FFS. The point being its the man behind the rifle and spotter making wind calls. Derrick is one of the top FTR shooters in the world and the scores he can put up are nothing short of amazing shooting a 308 at 1,000 yards. His ability to read conditions is second to none and that goes for Litz as well. More F class guys will be getting into the game and two High Master guys I shoot with are building rigs just for that purpose. I know both Derrick and Walt and have had the good fortune of shooting with both of them. They would be both at the top regardless of what equipment they used due to their skill level.

 

[TripleBull]

Bro, you call it "repeatable" because the same team won the prize twice?

Bro, you need to look up the definition of "snicker", and I don't mean the candy bar. The hole you are stuck in has gotten deep. Don't lecture me on stats but do learn to read.

They are really good when it comes to shooting, that was never under scrutiny as far as I'm concerned.

So they shoot well using crappy products that are all hype?

 

[LastShot300]

Bro, you need to look up the definition of "snicker", and I don't mean the candy bar. The hole you are stuck in has gotten deep. Don't lecture me on stats but do learn to read.

So they shoot well using crappy products that are all hype?

Mate, let's talk repeatability for the sake of keeping this as educated as possible. A little primer on stats! Snicker

2016 (stats for the winner)

Range P(h)
1454 60%
1556 66%
1724 66%
2011 20%
2477 40
3375 0%


2017 (stats for the winner)

Range P(h)
1443 100%
1722 100%
1888 100%
1953 33%
2677 40%
3028 40%
3368 20%

Bottom line? Easy...beyond 2000 (give or take) the P(h) goes down as fast as your non-sense. So...any need for an in-depth explanation of the true meaning of REPEATABILITY?

This trend was quite consistent among the top three shooters. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

So...talking about "winning" under this scenario is somewhat relative, BUT I recognize and honor the guys who took home the cup, indeed never said anything against them as a competing team.

Now, please do me a favor, and do your best to get me out of this deep hole I'm stuck into

In the end, winning KO2M, as I said before is far from being an endorsement for the AB products (or anyone's else). A far cry I'd say.

Marketing is a fantastic thing...creates illusion out of deep voids.

 

[LastShot300]

Putting the solvers and equipment aside, the top three shooters are some of the best competitive shooters in the world in their respective disciplines. Some used AB and believe one used FFS. The point being its the man behind the rifle and spotter making wind calls. Derrick is one of the top FTR shooters in the world and the scores he can put up are nothing short of amazing shooting a 308 at 1,000 yards. His ability to read conditions is second to none and that goes for Litz as well. More F class guys will be getting into the game and two High Master guys I shoot with are building rigs just for that purpose. I know both Derrick and Walt and have had the good fortune of shooting with both of them. They would be both at the top regardless of what equipment they used due to their skill level.

+1. Cannot agree more. The only drawback is when somebody tries to advertise this as the merit of some particular equipment capable of some voodoo, no other brand can do.

 

[TripleBull]

Bottom line? Easy...beyond 2000 (give or take) the P(h) goes down as fast as your non-sense.

And let's see your stats beyond 2K. Because if you can't compete, you shouldn't be so damn critical, mate.

I'd be happy as fuck to get 100% at 1888 and I think many here would be too. 40% at 3028? I'd be happy with that too, up until I learned to do better. But I'll probably never get there.

So tell us, do you shoot better than 40% at 3028? If you do, you need to get out there and prove it next year. I'll cheer for you if you win, or even get 2nd or 3rd or 5th.

The AB guys may spin and market like a bat out of hell, but until you outperform them, you're just a whining Internet critic. Let's see your stats.

So...any need for an in-depth explanation of the true meaning of REPEATABILITY?

I'd wager that it's a topic I know more about than you. In this context, you're arguing for an arbitrary standard. There is no Golden Ratio in shooting. The gods of math, physics and ballistics have not laid down a standard that you must match to be able to claim repeatability. You can argue for your opinion about a standard, but it's arbitrary. And your arbitrary argument is nonsense unless you can demonstrate how much better you have done while on the clock in a comp.

This trend was quite consistent among the top three shooters. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

Then why didn't #2 or #3 win? What were their percentages at 3368?

The Ko2M may not be an ideal comp, but it's one option on the table right now for serious ELR shooters. I've love to see more ELR comps with different variations on the rule themes so people can talk about what works and what doesn't. I find it exciting that a team can hit even 20% out near 2 miles in a comp, even if some more repeatable performance would be even better. But right now, this is what we got to look at, mate, er, dude, whatever.

 

[LastShot300]

The AB guys may spin and market like a bat out of hell, but until you outperform them, you're just a whining Internet critic. Let's see your stats.

There is no Golden Ratio in shooting. The gods of math, physics and ballistics have not laid down a standard that you must match to be able to claim repeatability. You can argue for your opinion about a standard, but it's arbitrary. And your arbitrary argument is nonsense unless you can demonstrate how much better you have done while on the clock in a comp.

Dude...seriously...you need a crash course on stats for dummies.

Have to say I saw it coming...if I don't win over AB I'm not entitled to speak about ELR. Good reasoning!

Please explain it to us all...since when was I arguing on "competing ? Please be a good boy and enlight us. Now, if you think all is about about bragging rights, then your point becomes moot by definition.

In case you haven't noticed: Your argument baseline was and is...AB products are almost perfect because they won KO2M...c'mon...gimme a break for God's sake!

REPEATABILITY does not need a "standard" and it's not "arbitrary" my friend, it's simple math 101 ... no more than we need AB to tell us what ELR is...in case you haven't been doing your homework lately.

Seriously, we need to get rid of this non-sense "pissing contest" and go back to what was being under discussion. I truly appreciate your insight but I bet it's enough for now. Let's say we can agree to disagree. LOL

 

[Rhyno]

I think a good question here is, why did the other people using AB not have equal success?

If TripleBull wants to ignore the other aspects outside of software, then how come others running the same software not do as well? (We’ve heard from one guy who stated his velocity was wrong the first day)

Who all ran AB and where did they place? How come the AB team didn’t take all the top spots?

 

[Hoffer]

If any ballistic system actually worked there would be no need to practice the days before a match. You simply plug it the data and hit targets. That does not happen. I believe the fact remains that it is too complicated for any system currently available to the public to forecast past transonic. What if you bullet wobbles at 2400 yards 20 ft sooner than expected. No way you can calculate the amount of wobble, drag and decay for another 1000 yards to target.

No way around it you need to know your own system and have your own data.
99% of shooters will never go past supersonic and all these programs will work for them.
So for the other 200 guys shooting unlimited range your out of luck believing your $25 app will make you KO2M champion.

 

[TripleBull]

TripleBull - who are you talking to? Sorry but a bit lost on parts of this.

Initially, I was talking to the thread in general. Lately, I've been talking to the dude or the mate or whatever his name is. No disrespect to you whatsoever.

 

[TripleBull]

If TripleBull wants to ignore the other aspects outside of software, then how come others running the same software not do as well?

In post 45 of this thread, I wrote:

"I think it all matters to some degree and agree with the team horsepower perspective. The value of the ballistic solver coupled to accurate range estimation and the initial wind call is that an effective solution will get you closer on the first shot. This allows that team horsepower to kick in on the live adjustments for the next shots where smaller required adjustments are a plus. Regardless, it's difficult to argue with success so the challenge is for another team to assemble the components and get it done."

Note the mention of team horsepower, accurate range estimation, initial wind call and live adjustments, then review your "ignore other aspects" blunder.

How come the AB team didn’t take all the top spots?

You're desperate.

 

[TripleBull]

REPEATABILITY does not need a "standard" and it's not "arbitrary" my friend, it's simple math 101

That's hilarious. I'm realizing how little you understand about math and statistics. "Simple math" does not define what does and does not qualify as repeatable. Math is just a means to determine an average, standard deviation, etc. - not to make a value judgement and claim a process is repeatable. To discuss repeatability, one has to draw a line in the sand. Is 3 out of 5 at ELR a demonstration of repeatability? Is 4 out of 5? Surely, you'd agree 5 of 5 is repeatable, but below perfection, any chosen threshold is arbitrary because there is no natural way of determining a repeatability threshold. As a different example, you could take a first shot kill requirement as a standard. Then you'd have go tell the current record holder for longest sniper kill (and others near the top of that list) that they are not repeatable. (And by some arbitrary standards, they are not repeatable) I doubt your opinion will cause them any lost sleep.

 

[Clearlight]

‘ Team horsepower ‘ is a pretty good description of AB’s lineup .
One of the best wind coaches who ever lived , 2 shooters with
multiple world championships between them in multiple disciplines ,
retired USMC sniper , retired USMC combat Veteran with an
electronic engineering degree , an ex rocket scientist etc etc .
Formidable is a word that comes to mind .....

Back on topic , if I had the bank , I’d buy the system . Who wouldn’t
want to shoot rather than dick around with loading and tuning ammo ?
I know some guys are really into the mechanical / nerdy aspects of
tuning up a system , but I prefer to shoot . And yes, I have just spent
a couple of months tuning and refining a 300 Norma Improved variant .

Look ar Formula One car racing : the last time a guy won a World
Championship with a car he designed was Aussie Jack Brabham
in the 70’s , that’s never going to happen again , ever .... Didn’t
Mitch win last year with his own design , the Lethal Magnum 375 ?

 

[TripleBull]

‘ Team horsepower ‘ is a pretty good description of AB’s lineup .
One of the best wind coaches who ever lived , 2 shooters with
multiple world championships between them in multiple disciplines ,
retired USMC sniper , retired USMC combat Veteran with an
electronic engineering degree , an ex rocket scientist etc etc .
Formidable is a word that comes to mind .....

Back on topic , if I had the bank , I’d buy the system . Who wouldn’t
want to shoot rather than dick around with loading and tuning ammo ?
I know some guys are really into the mechanical / nerdy aspects of
tuning up a system , but I prefer to shoot . And yes, I have just spent
a couple of months tuning and refining a 300 Norma Improved variant .

Look ar Formula One car racing : the last time a guy won a World
Championship with a car he designed was Aussie Jack Brabham
in the 70’s , that’s never going to happen again , ever .... Didn’t
Mitch win last year with his own design , the Lethal Magnum 375 ?

Agreed on Mitch's LM375. And I am a "rather shoot" person although part of the time, handloading and optimizing is entertaining. Other times, it's drudgery that has to be done because I want to shoot ASAP. Great team horsepower summary and F1 analogy. The future is here and a new one will be here before we know it.

 

[Rhyno]

In post 45 of this thread, I wrote:

"I think it all matters to some degree and agree with the team horsepower perspective. The value of the ballistic solver coupled to accurate range estimation and the initial wind call is that an effective solution will get you closer on the first shot. This allows that team horsepower to kick in on the live adjustments for the next shots where smaller required adjustments are a plus. Regardless, it's difficult to argue with success so the challenge is for another team to assemble the components and get it done."

Note the mention of team horsepower, accurate range estimation, initial wind call and live adjustments, then review your "ignore other aspects" blunder.



You're desperate.

Not at all. I really don’t care, I already have my opinion, which was formed from my experience and suits my needs.

 

[LastShot300]

That's hilarious. I'm realizing how little you understand about math and statistics. "Simple math" does not define what does and does not qualify as repeatable. Math is just a means to determine an average, standard deviation, etc. - not to make a value judgement and claim a process is repeatable. To discuss repeatability, one has to draw a line in the sand. Is 3 out of 5 at ELR a demonstration of repeatability? Is 4 out of 5? Surely, you'd agree 5 of 5 is repeatable, but below perfection, any chosen threshold is arbitrary because there is no natural way of determining a repeatability threshold. As a different example, you could take a first shot kill requirement as a standard. Then you'd have go tell the current record holder for longest sniper kill (and others near the top of that list) that they are not repeatable. (And by some arbitrary standards, they are not repeatable) I doubt your opinion will cause them any lost sleep.

Buddy...you ever realize...that you are digging yourself into a hole of cavernous size?...don't say I didn't warn you my friend! ok...keep it that way...

Ok, let's say maybe you have a valid point. Simple math it is...perhaps not for you.

AB is the greatest and baddest ass outift in the world of ELR. Good enough for you?

See ya.

 

[Hoffer]

First I'd have to agree no calculator is going to "give" a first round hit at those distance as routine.. Sure, we've all seen them, had them.. but ELR is a game of misses and corrections. But some squared away shooters should be getting to within a few 1/10 of their CEP elevation at least at that 2K range. BTW, thats the real crux, other than knowing the distances and (learning) the current wind.

Just a question, have you ever ran FFS with the supported finders, set up properly?

Not busting chops in anyway. I am just getting the feeling not all of us have used all of these ballistic programs tuned and in a near, to ELR setting.

To illustrate the point. (hope I can..)

Lets say, I am a fairly shaky shooter and do not understand wind. We really need to at least take wind off the drop discussion to get a point that we all can agree on.. Rough estimated drop.

Let's assume that I have a bunch of hours using mil grade RFs and figured out just how tricky it is to range plates (It is way, way harder that many people know to get the correct return).

Let's also say I do not have an app of any kind with me, but I have a V21, a partner with a backup up, could be a PLR 15C.. or even a 25C on occasion.

12" plates confirmed @ 400m, 900m and 2000m (honestly, I tend to use ISPs and my largest, is a 24", generally used past 1500.) but, let's use 12" for the illustration.

Scopes been tested and verified correct, that is huge of course.

Drop offset at 400m confirms chrono data to the nearest small part of an inch, 900m offset confirms BC the same.

Now again remembering I am a shaky shooter, (ha, as I type got myself into trap- I would have to really squared away to get the needed drop and BC stuff done, but bare with me).

So just like the pre-app days, damn, I've been doing this to long, I go to my log book, look at the closest conditions and distance I have to the 2k mark.. guess a lot and send rounds down range.. I walking my way in.

Ok.. I am not hitting..but all around the plate.. maybe I have a 1mil CEP and dancing all around the target. (honestly thats really bad once walked in)

I write that number in my book.. 22.4 mils is the dead center of my CEP.

Now, if my friend walked over and took my data, scope, env. conditions, AOF, DOF, LAT verified 400m drop confirmed velocity, 900m confirmed BC, dead nuts range and gets something like 22.5m that would be impressive.. but I still did not get a hit on the tiny 12' target with my huge CEP..

Now, if another app doing the same as I did with FFS, says 21.7 the the center of my CEP, it is not so impressive. A good shooter would be really, really low most of the time.

Here is I think you could agree, it can mislead people if the sample 1 mil group with a near perfectly centered of actual and predicted drop, is moved lower with the 21.7 mil inaccurate prediction. Say some of the high misses would end up in a strike. If we use only the results, but not the factors that are included in them, it might appear the wrong calculation worked better, from incomplete statics.. some people would say it did. Now toss my crappy 1mil ass of my gun and put someone better shooting .2 mil groups and it obvious what calculations would be better.

I think some of the cross communicate come from several factors. In my case certainly the basic ability to communicate, but many people will not see the above behavior if they only shoot and tune at ELR ranges. So a curve in a program might be great at almost at distances out to 1500 with one gun , then they use a special purpose ELR gun with profile adjust velocity or BC and also get great results at 1200 to 2K. By all accounts it works great. Again, why I proposed removing the calculators from this topic. However in truth, if you tried to curve fit the same program ELR system to strike dead center all along the bullet flight your'l find that one or the other of the curve become compromised fairly severely. Lastly, more and more I suspect fewer of us have shot all the programs extensively and side by side and in setting with mil grade finders running dope across the board. There would be less argument if we did.

I hope that makes sense.

PS-
For new ELR shooters sake and those that use AB as their only solver, I really hope the newest batch of CDMs don't suffer from their acoustic derived data of the CDMs I used.

Lastly, having used all the toys and being against phone based solvers, I have to say I really like the range cards in GeoBaslics phone app and how you can print them out for stuff in the PRS distance range.. ya it doesn't work correctly either at the range discussed nor do most app based type solvers. But again there is a work around just as there is for AB.. create 2 separate profiles 😉 But if it sold to do something... argued that it does or does not, told others they are wrong about their performance... wait.. wait.. not I was talking about him, hell, I like Lance Armstrong

Solvers to 2000 is not a big problem since its near supersonic for what we are doing. 2500 plus is were you can throw the solvers away and use DOPE

12" plate at 2000 yards ... you are my new hero!

I like a 12" plate at 2000 just so I can see my misses better .. not because I can hit it

 

[TripleBull]

Ok, let's say maybe you have a valid point. Simple math it is...perhaps not for you.

That's right, you got nothin'.


You and your simple math should go argue with the dudes at NIST when you want to talk about repeatability and arbitrary standards.

 

[_Windrider_]

I feel like I’m watching a rap battle

 

[LastShot300]

Center of CEP is all a calculator is supposed to deliver not hits.


My issue and point again was not to argue solvers, but point out ABs marketing ethics need help.

My points exactly. Too bad the dude cannot grasp the concept. Snicker

 

[TripleBull]

My points exactly. Too bad the dude cannot grasp the concept. Snicker

I grasp the issues just fine, and realize how hung up you are on the realities of some parts of the business world. Whine on, bro.

You're the one missing the basic concepts.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

I’m unaware of how they did it, I just know from conversations a year ago that that is what they did. IIRC Doc said he put the Custom Drag Curve together for them the day before the match. Even if they didn’t do it at that match (which is not what I remeber but my memory is terrible) it was still done with their rifles and their loads, a true custom drag curve unavailable to anyone else at the time.

I’ve never had much success with AB when I was using it, when I was shooting out to 1200 yards TRASOL put me on target AB with a custom curve did not. It wasn’t off by much, and a larger target it would have hit but that didn’t matter, shooting in a corn field that time of year it was extremely difficult to spot a miss alone.

Now as soon as I trued it it was good for that day, but the way it trued everything never made sense, why would I adjust Velocity when I know what it is? This lead to misses at later times of the year where I would have to re-true everything again.

TRASOLs and Hornady’s approach seemed to be much better, but I haven’t been able to test it.

Thats Been my experience, and I have no reason to try it again.

also I’m unsure where you guys are getting the “Lucky” part from, as I don’t remember saying it.

The Custom Drag Models went in to the solver raw. No truing. Straight from the library. This is true. We did not have to modify or edit anything. They just worked. On 4 different rifles.

However everything is tested and checked. The scope, the muzzle velocity, the rifles zero. All of it is checked and re-checked.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Not going to entertain any trolling but I will mark some of this off:

1) Repeatability - King Of 2 Miles 2016, King Of 2 Miles 2017, Worlds Longest Shot Challenge, NRA Inaugural ELR Event...

2) Proven solver - USASOC, KO2M, PRS Champions, NRL Champions. Lets be real here, just look around at the competitions and see what is leading the way. It is not by accident.

3) Industry Trusted - Again, just look around the industry and see what the most trusted solver to integrate in to products is. It is not by accident, it is because of performance and capability.

4) Proven in combat - Speaks for itself, easy to research. The best of the best trust AB.

These are facts, not hype.

This is just what is public knowledge. Take a look at the AB Ecosystem image on our front page. Things like that don't happen because of marketing hype or by accident. We are not here to share Hype. We are here to let users know of a new option they have in the Custom Rifle world. These things happen because of proven reliability and performance. We just finished another major upgrade to our lab. Expanded operations, and increased our capabilities to help meet with demand without sacrificing quality. Not hype, truth.

Now we are offering the ability for users to purchase a ready to go rifle. Which has been tested in the Lab. Not a demo rifle tested, and others matched to it. Each rifle is tested, and shipped ready to go past 2000 yards. You will see why soon enough. But for a consumer to have a guaranteed system coming from a qualified and proven ballistics laboratory is pretty cool in my eyes. That is what this is about. Taking the success, the proven success, and allowing for someone to use that successful system right out of the box. A verified system that is checked in a state of the art ballistics lab before it ships to the customer.

The price is what it is because the rifle comes ready to go. Checked and tuned in a state of the art ballistics lab. Just look at the cost of the optics alone.

 

[Jeffd]

Not going to entertain any trolling but I will mark some of this off:

1) Repeatability - King Of 2 Miles 2016, King Of 2 Miles 2017, Worlds Longest Shot Challenge, NRA Inaugural ELR Event...

2) Proven solver - USASOC, KO2M, PRS Champions, NRL Champions. Lets be real here, just look around at the competitions and see what is leading the way. It is not by accident.

3) Industry Trusted - Again, just look around the industry and see what the most trusted solver to integrate in to products is. It is not by accident, it is because of performance.

4) Proven in combat - Speaks for itself, easy to research. The best of the best trust AB.

This is just what is public knowledge. Take a look at the AB Ecosystem image on our front page. Things like that don't happen because of marketing hype or by accident. We are not here to share Hype. We are here to let users know of a new option they have in the Custom Rifle world. These things happen because of proven reliability and performance. We just finished another major upgrade to our lab. Expanded operations, and increased our capabilities to help meet with demand without sacrificing quality. Not hype, truth.

Now we are offering the ability for users to purchase a ready to go rifle. Which has been tested in the Lab. Not a demo rifle tested, and others matched to it. Each rifle is tested, and shipped ready to go past 2000 yards. You will see why soon enough. But for a consumer to have a guaranteed system coming from a qualified and proven ballistics laboratory is pretty cool in my eyes. That is what this is about. Taking the success, the proven success, and allowing for someone to use that successful system right out of the box. A verified system that is checked in a state of the art ballistics lab before it ships to the customer.

The price is what it is because the rifle comes ready to go. Checked and tuned in a state of the art ballistics lab. Just look at the cost of the optics alone.

Well stated Doc! I am a fan!

 

[LastShot300]

Just to set the record straight about the "uniqueness" of AB solver if someone out there is still confused about

Very simple and fair exercise: compare its output given the same inputs to two other well-known free programs, where the three of them, including AB running the "point mass" algorithm.

I don't see any significant difference between AB and JBM or Nimoh, so the claim that AB is somewhat "special" is overhyped in my opinion.

Ballistic Coefficient	0.500	Muzzle Velocity	3000 fps
Bullet Weight	155 grains	Zero Range	100 y
Bullet Diameter	0.308 inches	Sight Height	1.50 inches
Bullet Length	1.240 inches	Twist Rate	10.00 inches
Wind Speed	10.00 mph	Heading	0 degrees
Wind Direction	3 o'clock	Inclination	30 degrees
Pressure	29.92 inHg	Target Speed	0 mph
Humidity	0 % RH	Air Density	0.07654 lb/ft^3
Form Factor	0.467	Stability Factor (Sg)	2.230

AB						JBM						Nimoh
Range	TOF	Velocity	Elevation	Windage		Range	Time	Velocity	Drop	Windage		Range	Time	Velocity	Drop	Windage
	(s)	(fps)	(moa)	(moa)		(yd)	(s)	(ft/s)	(MOA)	(MOA)		(yd)	(s)	(ft/s)	(MOA)	(MOA)
0	0.0	3000.0	-0.4	0.0		0	0.0	3000.0	0.0	0.0		0	0.0	3000.0	0.0	0.0
100	0.1	2805.0	0.3	-0.6		100	0.1	2805.3	0.3	0.6		100	0.1	2806.2	0.3	0.6
200	0.2	2618.0	-0.9	-1.2		200	0.2	2619.7	-0.9	1.2		200	0.2	2620.5	-0.9	1.2
300	0.3	2441.0	-2.6	-1.8		300	0.3	2442.1	-2.6	1.8		300	0.3	2442.1	-2.6	1.8
400	0.5	2270.0	-4.7	-2.4		400	0.5	2272.1	-4.7	2.5		400	0.5	2270.5	-4.7	2.5
500	0.6	2108.0	-7.1	-3.1		500	0.6	2109.2	-7.1	3.2		500	0.6	2105.6	-7.1	3.2
600	0.7	1952.0	-9.8	-3.8		600	0.7	1953.7	-9.8	4.0		600	0.7	1947.7	-9.8	4.0
700	0.9	1804.0	-12.8	-4.5		700	0.9	1805.8	-12.7	4.9		700	0.9	1797.4	-12.8	4.9
800	1.1	1665.0	-16.2	-5.3		800	1.1	1666.2	-16.1	5.8		800	1.1	1655.6	-16.1	5.8
900	1.3	1535.0	-19.9	-6.2		900	1.3	1535.8	-19.9	6.8		900	1.3	1523.4	-19.9	6.8
1000	1.5	1415.0	-24.2	-7.1		1000	1.5	1415.7	-24.1	7.8		1000	1.5	1402.6	-24.2	7.9
1100	1.7	1308.0	-29.0	-8.1		1100	1.7	1307.4	-28.9	8.9		1100	1.7	1295.1	-29.1	9.0
1200	1.9	1214.0	-34.4	-9.1		1200	1.9	1212.5	-34.3	10.1		1200	1.9	1202.9	-34.6	10.2
1300	2.2	1135.0	-40.5	-10.1		1300	2.2	1132.6	-40.5	11.3		1300	2.2	1127.7	-40.8	11.5
1400	2.5	1071.0	-47.4	-11.2		1400	2.5	1067.8	-47.3	12.6		1400	2.5	1067.8	-47.8	12.7
1500	2.7	1019.0	-55.1	-12.2		1500	2.7	1015.4	-55.0	13.8		1500	2.8	1018.8	-55.5	13.9
1600	3.0	976.0	-63.6	-13.2		1600	3.0	971.7	-63.5	15.0		1600	3.1	977.1	-64.1	15.1
1700	3.4	937.0	-72.9	-14.1		1700	3.4	933.8	-72.9	16.2		1700	3.4	940.4	-73.5	16.3
1800	3.7	904.0	-83.1	-15.1		1800	3.7	900.1	-83.2	17.4		1800	3.7	907.0	-83.8	17.5
1900	4.0	873.0	-94.2	-15.9		1900	4.0	869.3	-94.3	18.6		1900	4.0	876.2	-94.9	18.6
2000	4.4	845.0	-106.1	-16.8		2000	4.4	840.8	-106.4	19.7		2000	4.4	847.3	-106.8	19.7

 

[URSA Facilitator]

LastShot - I do not recognize the value "form factor". That value is not in JBM (nor is it in their list of terms). In regards JBM only, how is "form factor" input? Did you use G1, G7, or?

 

[LastShot300]

LastShot - I do not recognize the value "form factor". That value is not in JBM (nor is it in their list of terms). In regards JBM only, how is "form factor" input? Did you use G1, G7, or?

URSA, I just copy&paste the input section from the AB program, where the form factor is calculated but it bears no relation to the calculations. I used G1 for the side-by-side comparison but I can have used G7 with the same results in terms of what I wanted to show, number would have been different but essentially the same across the board.

 

[Fursniper]

URSA, I just copy&paste the input section from the AB program, where the form factor is calculated but it bears no relation to the calculations. I used G1 for the side-by-side comparison but I can have used G7 with the same results in terms of what I wanted to show, number would have been different but essentially the same across the board.

Last Shot, have you ever used or found "COLDBORE" in relation to the others to be more or less accurate?

 

[ELR researcher]

URSA, I just copy&paste the input section from the AB program, where the form factor is calculated but it bears no relation to the calculations. I used G1 for the side-by-side comparison but I can have used G7 with the same results in terms of what I wanted to show, number would have been different but essentially the same across the board.

I seriously doubt that "form factor" does not matter to the calculations. Unless you know what it is and how the associated algorithms uses it, no help. Please do not respond - no interest in getting flamed.

 

[jbailey]

form factor (aka coefficient of drag) is the dimensionless expression of projectile's loss of velocity (drag) compared to a model projectile (e.g. the G1 projectile, the G7 projectile, etc). In math terms, BC is calculated by dividing a bullet's sectional density by its form factor. So the form factor is a very closely related to BC. It is a massively important number - and the one that bullet designers are trying to optimize for a given bullet mass/diameter. Lower form factor = less drag vs model projectile = higher BC. It is not required as an input in most ballistic solvers because it is already calculated in BC.

 

[LastShot300]

I seriously doubt that "form factor" does not matter to the calculations. Unless you know what it is and how the associated algorithms uses it, no help. Please do not respond - no interest in getting flamed.

Not interested in any flame don't worry. Form factor is of no use in 3DOF programs. Just go there and look for yourself. In the AB free program the one that came with the book, form factor is also calculated. I don't need to know the algorithm it's common sense. If I'm wrong the other myriad of programs running Point Mass would need it and the fact is all of them don't and still produce the same results. Just to be clear, I'm speaking of form factor as a USER INPUT.

URSA got it right, not present neither in JBM nor NIMOH and as you can see, the comparison was not affected at all.

 

[LastShot300]

It is not required as an input in most ballistic solvers because it is already calculated in BC.

+10

 

[LastShot300]

Last Shot, have you ever used or found "COLDBORE" in relation to the others to be more or less accurate?

All I can say about is I found FFS and Coldbore the most accurate programs out there for ELR work. Both are top notch.

 

[_Windrider_]

i think AB is a solid program when dealing with short to medium ranges, said another way, in the supersonic range. I think any PM solver shows its weakness once the transonic region is reached. i dont have any experience with CB or FFS but with AB it takes a lot of work to get consistent hits once transonic is reached and beyond.

These calculators are like your guns, know their strengths and weakness and employ it appropriately. I can say AB has been very good for me, but i don't use SD or CF. Someday i hope to get more chances to shoot at a mile and beyond. maybe then ill move up and get a big boy toy. for now ill just keep using my training wheels.

 

[Fursniper]

All I can say about is I found FFS and Coldbore the most accurate programs out there for ELR work. Both are top notch.

Thx, appreciate your input.

 

[damoncali]

Not interested in any flame don't worry. Form factor is of no use in 3DOF programs. Just go there and look for yourself. In the AB free program the one that came with the book, form factor is also calculated. I don't need to know the algorithm it's common sense. If I'm wrong the other myriad of programs running Point Mass would need it and the fact is all of them don't and still produce the same results. Just to be clear, I'm speaking of form factor as a USER INPUT.

You're not wrong at all. Form factor (as defined here by AB) is in no way used by a ballistics calculator, user input or otherwise. It's just there as a reference.

 

[LastShot300]

You're not wrong at all. Form factor (as defined here by AB) is in no way used by a ballistics calculator, user input or otherwise. It's just there as a reference.

Well put, thanks for the clear statement.

 

[Rockfish Dave]

I have no bone to pick and have a great amount of respect for Brian and company's body of work but can't help but to see the similarities between this business model and the Cheytac business model.